Pacifism got wrong

This paper pacifism-Kopel.pdf seems to me to have missed the key base of Christian pacifism as it critiques a number of pacifist positions.

It seems to me that Christian Pacifism cannot and should not be judged on whether or not it is "effective" in worldly terms. Christian Pacifism may or may not have been an effective way to "stop" Hitler BUT that is irrelevant.

Christian Pacifism can only be judged on two criteria:

• does it follow the example and teaching of Jesus?
• does it point to and contribute to the kingdom of God

It is one of the fundamental problems with most critiques of pacifism (especially this one) that it is judged with little or not reference to these two principles. In fact it dismisses pacifism based on scripture:

Although one can disagree with the scriptural soundness of “So what?” the position has perfect internal coherence. The problem for advocates of the position is that it is unappealing to most people, who are inclined to reject a religious ideology that leads to a dark age of ultra-tyranny and genocide. “So what?” is fine for people who are already convinced by their reading of scripture (e.g., Mennonites) or by the moral intuition in their hearts (e.g., Quakers), but “So what?” is unlikely to convince anyone
who is not already convinced.

I find this paragraph horrific and scary. Christianity MUST NOT and CAN NOT be defined by what is appealing to most people.

Personally, I don't care if non-pacifists believe that pacifism would be ineffective against the likes of Hitler. I am not a Christian Pacifist (or more accurately moving inexorably towards being a Christian Pacifist) because I believe it is the most effective way to bring democracy, world peace or justice. I wish to be a Christian pacifist in order to follow my Lord and Saviour more closely.

Oh and by the way I think that 99% of critiques of Christian pacifism are incorrect because they start considering the problem too late. You cannot suddenly "turn on" pacifism when Hitler annexes Poland, it needs to start much earlier (for example with a "confessing" Church). The article talks a little of pacifist action but does not take it seriously for international issues. But imagine if millions of Christians were willing to take discipleship seriously, to be willing to die for their Lord and so insert themselves (unarmed and non-violent) between sides in places of conflict while at the same time being serious about working for justice and reconciliation. I don't think Christian Pacifism has been demonstrated to be ineffective, I just don't think we have tried it properly.

However, as I say, the key point is that we don't adopt Christian pacifism either for it's appealing nature to non Christian pacifists or for it's effectiveness in dealing with violence. Christian Pacifism comes from seeking to follow Christ.

Hat tip Locusts & Honey: Modern Christian Pacifism.

Comments

[Tim]

Amen.

[Rich Holton]

Yes! It is about following Christ, which may seem like foolishness to many!

[John Nelson Leith]

John 2:12-15, Luke 22:35-38, Matthew 10:34-36... Are the politics of pacifism really determined by pacifist Jesus, or is the pacifist "Jesus" determined by the politics of pacifism?

[Dave Warnock]

John,

The passages you refer to do not support at all, in any way, a case against Christian Pacifism.

John 2:12-15

You again mistake pacifism for passive behaviour. Righteous anger against injustice and corruption is part of Pacifism. Symbolic actions are also very important. Typically the
violence in this passage is overstated. When you drive animals with a whip of cords you are not whipping them in the way Jesus was whipped before his death.

Luke 22:35-38

You need to read on and discover that Jesus did not intend for or allow the swords to be used in defence.
Two swords to defend 12 is not effective, it shows these were a symbolic gesture to fulfil prophesy.

Matthew 10:34-36

a) How does Jesus teach us to treat our enemies?
b) How did Jesus treat the enemy occupying force?
c) How did Jesus treat his family?
None of those give any indication whatsoever that Jesus intends this mention of a sword to indicate violence. It is an image of the way that changing our allegiance to a new master (Jesus) will divide us from the world. That appears to be especially true when we actually take his teaching on violence seriously as your response indicates.

Do you by any chance think that anyone could have considered Christian pacifism without having actually thought about these passages?