Just War?
It has fallen to me to provide some concluding reflections to the just war/pacifism debate, which Liam and Matt have articulated so well here over the last couple of weeks.
To start with, I should probably state my unqualifiedness (?) to write on this topic; I am not a former serviceman, nor a conscientious objector, nor an ethicist, and a number of the regular readers of this blog are. I say that because I don’t want my argument to come across as too confident, as if I am somehow summarising the view of Liam and Matt, or of Newfrontiers, in this post. But with those caveats in mind, I think I’ll come right out and say it: I don’t believe in “just war”. I think Jesus unequivocally taught and modelled non-violence; I think the rest of the New Testament stands squarely in line with him on this, as long as arguments from silence are discounted; I think wars are wrong; I think Christians should renounce violence. Nothing too controversial there, then.
We begin with Jesus. Arguably the most ignored, disobeyed and even ridiculed instructions in the New Testament are in Matthew 5:38-42:
You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.
There it is, in the founding charter of the new Israel: do not resist the one who is evil, whether they physically attack you, steal from you or coerce you. Obviously, as Liam showed in his second post, this is by no means the only New Testament passage which speaks against Christians responding to violence with violence. Jesus not only talks like this, he also lives like this, and instructs his followers to do the same - and in some of the epistles it is one of the author’s overriding concerns that his readers persevere in suffering injustice and persecution without repaying evil for evil. Even in those where it is a more minor theme, as in Romans, there remain emphatic statements like this (Rom 12:14, 17-21). So why, as Matt rightly argued, has it been the majority opinion of the Western church since Constantine that it is acceptable for Christians to use violence, whether as individuals or as instruments of the state?
I think there are three main reasons. Firstly, various biblical and exegetical reasons have been put forward to challenge the pacifist consensus of the early church fathers. Secondly, there are a host of pragmatic reasons to object to nonviolence as a political method: notwithstanding the Martin Luther Kings and the Gandhis, most people these days simply don’t think that a strategy of uncompromising nonviolence could ever work in practice. Thirdly, it is often argued that, even if violence is undesirable for a Christian, there remain circumstances where it remains a necessary evil. So my aim today is to briefly engage with each of these three arguments.
Biblically, the key arguments in favour of “just war” are predominantly the following, as Matt expressed so crisply the other day. (1) The “very straightforwardly pacifist” nature of Jesus’ ethical teaching is difficult to square with the “clearly non-pacifist” history of the Old Testament. (2) Neither Jesus nor John the Baptist commanded soldiers to lay down their arms, urging them instead to deal justly with others. (3) The rest of the New Testament writers “open the door to the Christian’s participation in the state in general and in military affairs in particular”, by commanding believers to submit to authority (Rom 13; 1 Pet 2), which might include going to war on their behalf. We could also add (4) the apparently positive things Jesus says about “swords” (Matt 10:34; Luke 22:35-38), and possibly also (5) the not-very-pacifist picture of Jesus that emerges from Revelation. Each is worth a quick look.
(1) The non-pacifist Old Testament is the weakest argument by some way, simply because the context of Jesus’ words in Matthew 5:38-42 assumes it (“you have heard that it was said”) and then challenges it (“but I say to you”). Saying that Jesus’ teaching against violence is hard to square with the OT is like saying that his teaching against lust is hard to square with the OT. Jesus is raising the bar for the holiness of God’s people; that’s simply how the Sermon on the Mount works.
(2) With one exception, we just don’t know whether or not soldiers were, after repentance and baptism, encouraged to leave the army, and as such the claim that they weren’t is simply a colossal argument from silence. We have no idea whether the centurion in Matthew 8 became a disciple at all, let alone whether he quit his job as a result. The claim made in the ESV Study Bible section on just war, that many in the Praetorian guard became Christians, is a remarkable over-interpretation of Phil 1:13. Nor do we know what happened to Cornelius after his conversion in Acts 10. (We don’t know what happened to the sinful woman who anointed Jesus in Luke 7, either, but we don’t thereby assume that she continued in her life of prostitution or whatever it was!) The exception, which is John the Baptist’s instruction in Luke 3:14, shows at most that John, speaking before Jesus had even been baptised (let alone preached the Sermon on the Mount), did not see a problem with serving in the army - but this certainly does not relativise Jesus’ subsequent clear teaching on the subject. John seems to have had a different view of the coming of the kingdom to his cousin (Luke 7:20), and it is possible (though unprovable) that the forcefulness of its advance was part of this.
(3) Submission to secular authority, as the apostles made clear in Acts 4:19-20 and 5:29, is not required if the secular authority in question is telling you to do something that Jesus told you not to. Besides, the wider context of Romans 12-13 and 1 Peter 2-3 both allude to Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 5, which indicates Paul and Peter saw a distinction between the state’s role and the Christian’s role, as Liam pointed out.
(4) The sword in Matthew 10:34 is clearly metaphorical, and it seems likely that it is also in Luke 22:35-38, and that Jesus’ response to the disciples after they took him literally (v38) is a rebuke, not a confirmation: “that’s enough!” This makes more sense of the following incident (22:49-53), fits with the similar phrase in Deuteronomy 3:26 (“enough from you!”), avoids the oddity of saying that two swords would be sufficient to fight Rome (?), and is therefore the view of most commentators (see especially Marshall, Green, Fitzmyer, Stein, Wright and the article of Neyrey).
On (5), a longer post may be needed, but Sean’s comment on Matt’s article, following Richard Hays, is a helpful perspective to bear in mind.
Practically, the most common objection to (what appears to me to be) the plain sense of Jesus’ words in Matthew 5 is simple: the Nazis. Within seconds of implying that Jesus actually wanted his followers not to resist evil, and to turn the other cheek, and not to respond to violence with violence, the universal trump card of National Socialism is almost invariably played. “But if we did that in the 1940s, then where would we be now?” Or, “my grandparents sacrificed their lives to give us freedom. Are you saying they shouldn’t have?” Or, “so was Bonhoeffer wrong?” Or, as I had the other day from a good friend, “a guy I know was on the third truck into Belsen. If ever there was an argument for intervening to stop injustice ...!” And so on.
So let me make a couple of things clear. Firstly, one of my grandfathers won a Military Cross in France, and the other was in a Japanese POW camp for four years, so I’m not speaking as a fourth generation conscientious objector, nor as someone who disparages the sacrifices and courage of others. Secondly, intervening to stop injustice, and sacrificing our lives for the freedom of others, are profoundly noble things that Jesus both did, and emphatically commended to his followers. Thirdly, the state has a responsibility to protect its citizens, and at times, this may involve using violence (Rom 13:1-7). Fourthly, however, the question addressed by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount is not whether sacrifice is wrong, or whether intervention to stop injustice is wrong, or whether the state can use arms; it is whether a follower of Jesus should use violence or not. And fifthly, I’m not sure that the appeal which is sometimes implicit in this conversation - “of course Jesus said that then, but these days, we have really really bad people, like the Nazis” - is quite fair. Jesus spoke from a hillside in an occupied territory, with a Roman garrison just around the corner, three years before being crucified for insurrection, and forty years before Titus set Jerusalem on fire and wiped Israel off the map for nineteen centuries. The Nazis were unspeakably appalling, but even they didn’t usually crucify people. If anyone in history understood the realities of the world, and the horrendous possibilities that could result from renouncing violence, it was Jesus of Nazareth, and I love that about him. So I don’t think it works to say, “yes, Jesus said that, but it’s not really practical these days”. Frankly, it never was.
What, then, of the idea that violence is wrong, but a necessary evil sometimes? Many of us have come across the hypothetical scenario that involves you, your child and the axe murderer, or some suitably implausible equivalent. The axe murderer is charging at your child, axe raised high, and you have some weapon to hand which would stop him in his tracks. Do you use it? Even many who are pacifist when things are abstract are prepared to use violence as a last resort when things are made more personal. But if your answer to that question is yes, the interlocutor says, then why not substitute the Nazis for the axe murderer, and Belgium for your child? And if you do that, then haven’t you effectively argued for just war in exactly the way Augustine did?
Not so fast. Firstly, there are some who would answer in the negative to the axe murderer scenario in the first place: no, they say, they would not use violence to defend their child, although they would happily put themselves in the firing line instead. I can’t claim to be with them on this one - my responsibility to protect my family, which I see as God-given, would make knocking them out with a candlestick (can you tell I used to play Cluedo?) the lesser of two evils - but I want to acknowledge the existence and consistency of that position. Secondly, there are of course clear differences between my children and Belgium: moral proximity to, God-given responsibility for, confidence of success without causing collateral damage, and means of defence (defending Belgium requires killing someone, while defending the child does not). Collapsing the two into one another is a clever rhetorical tactic, but does not do justice to the nuances of the situation - and if we make the all-important third move, from axe murderer to Nazis to (say) Iraq in 2003, then we may delude ourselves in imagining that the Nazis are somehow representative of all potentially hostile nations, and thereby make the axe murderer scenario even less appropriate. Few conflicts can be so clearly divided into goodies and baddies.
But thirdly, and much more importantly, the fact that violence may, in extreme circumstances, be a necessary wrong does not alter the fact that it is a wrong. It is one thing to say that, in a particular situation, violence might be the lesser of two evils, but quite another to say that it can in certain circumstances be “just”, and still another to argue, on the basis of this, that pacifism is impractical and/or unbiblical and that Christians need not worry about fighting for their country. (When George H. Bush said, after the first gulf war, that the US forces were acting as a light to the world as Christ ordained, it should have been a wake up call for all of us.) As we said a few months ago, some things can be wrong, and you have to do them anyway, as any pastor who has been confronted with a complex marital situation knows very well. But the proof of the “just war” pudding is in the eating, and my observation would be that too many Christians are prepared to act violently, whether in war or in MMA, without questioning whether or not it is Jesus-like.
Another Nazi analogy may make the point. The SS burst into a house where you are illegally hiding Jews, and ask you if you know where they are. Do you tell the truth? Almost everybody would say no. But would we thereby develop a doctrine of “just lying”, with a variety of criteria used to establish the circumstances in which lying was just? Perhaps some would: but if, a few years down the line, this led to many Christians taking up employment in organisations for which lying was the chief purpose, on the basis that they would only be forced to tell “just lies”, would we not be somewhat perturbed? Or if there was a section at the back of the ESV Study Bible in which thoroughgoing truth-telling was depicted as very much second best to “just lying”? Or if those who conscientiously objected to lying when the state told them to were regarded by fellow Christians as woolly idealists at best, and cowardly yellowbellies at worst? Or if (to use a personal example) preachers were collared and asked to explain themselves after teaching that Jesus was anti-lying?
I’ve found the exchange of posts on this issue over the last few days incredibly stimulating. I am really grateful to Liam for kickstarting it, and to Matt for giving such a wise list of observations on both sides. But though I respect both arguments, and think they have been well expressed here, I can’t pretend to sit in the middle. I think Jesus urged nonviolence, rather than “just war”, and that if violence should ever be used - which is questionable - it should be understood, like lying and divorce, as a tragedy which Jesus spoke against. The lesser of two evils, however necessary it is thought to be, is still evil.
This post forms the fifth and final part of a short series on violence and pacifism.
Comments
By Taylor on 28/11/2011 at 12:57
I’ll grant you most of that.
I’m not sure it’s accurate to say that the Sermon on the Mount establishes violence in general as wrong. Jesus is speaking to individuals about responding violently to personal injustice. Which makes an argument against violence in service of the government an argument from silence equal to it’s opposite (#2).
Now, assuming that same Jesus has set up earthly authorities, as Romans says, with the capacity, possibly even the obligation, to do violence. it doesn’t naturally follow that He intended that statement as a blanket condemnation of violence.
In fact, if it did, it leaves us with God committing the moral compromise we set out to avoid, choosing the lesser of two evils. In forbidding Christians to do any violence, but instituting governments with the necessity of it, not only are Christians no longer able to be involved in government, but we are also left with a God who says “do as I say, but not as I ordain,” allowing dirty work but insisting non-believers do it.
For that reason, I fall into the category of those who would not save my own life at the expense of a mugger’s, but would have no problem killing a bad man as an officer of the law if a situation required it.
By Paul Hunnisett on 28/11/2011 at 16:27
There is a world of difference between meekly accepting whatever injustice and violence is done to you and refusing to defend the weak when violence, of some form, is the only solution. This may well be what you are saying in your “lesser of two evils” argument.
Bonhoeffer’s argument in relation to the assassination of Hitler went something along the lines of: if a man is driving recklessly down the street and, by doing so, is killing and endangering innocent lives, then it is right to do whatever is necessary to stop him. He then applied this to Hitler and to the task of assassinating him.
I don’t believe he was, however, a pacifist when it came to war either - although I am led to believe that he would have refused to fight for the Third Reich, and the possibility of conscription caused him many problems.
By Andrew Wilson on 28/11/2011 at 17:00
@Taylor: Jesus doesn’t limit the Sermon on the Mount to “personal injustice”, so it’s not an argument from silence to apply it to the state. An argument from silence is when you say “x never happened” when you should say “we don’t know whether x happened.” I don’t think that is the case here. Thanks for posting!
By James Haslam on 28/11/2011 at 17:39
Forgive me if I’m wrong, but Genesis 9:5-6 is a passage which hasn’t cropped up so far in these discussions: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.” This is part of the Noahic covenant, not Mosaic law, and my understanding is that it therefore stands as an ethical principle aside from the nation-state laws of Israel. If that is so, does it not at least give grounds for the violent act of the death penalty and perhaps provide further grounds for just war? Discuss…
By Nathan Lambert on 28/11/2011 at 18:33
Nice one James. But then I think that there is a difference between what is permissible and what is the best thing for a Christian to do. Jesus raises the standard up on the Mount, so that the “an eye for an eye” part of the Old Testament (without making it unethical), is not the perfect way of love which Jesus ordained.
It would just seem a bit funny and hypocritical to say that we can’t punch the mouth of anyone who knocked out one of our teeth, because Jesus said so ; but then say that we can kill anyone who killed a loved one, because Jesus didn’t mention it outright, and that it was part of the noahic covenant. What Jesus is doing on the Mount is to reinterpret the OT law on the basis of the Law’s spirit instead of its letter and surely it would be a shame to not interpret the Sermon’s spirit in our dealing with how a Christian should act.
Capital punishment may be the fair sentence, but since when are Christians meant to uphold fairness for themselves, when the only way that we are saved is through the greatest man in history not upholding fairness for himself when faced with crucifixion.
By Andrew Wilson on 28/11/2011 at 18:36
@James: are you kosher, then (Gen 9:4)? :o) I know some death penalty advocates are, and I think they do at least have hermeneutical consistency on this point (Joe Carter at First Things wrote on this recently), but I suspect many who cite the Noahic covenant eat meat with some blood still in it ...
By James Haslam on 28/11/2011 at 18:50
There are degrees of bloody meat. Personally, I’m not that keen on black pudding (to take one extreme), but I do like my steak medium-rare. I’ll bet you can find a few corpuscles in even the most kosher of meat. I do draw freshness/lifeblood line at still twitching though!
By James Allen on 28/11/2011 at 23:02
To dismiss James’ point by questioning whether he obeys the whole Noahic law perfectly or not is a weak point of attack Andrew (it’s ironic though that a pacifist is aggressively - albeit only verbally - dismissing a valid point). Paul in Romans 7 (in the New Testament) might as well have said “do as I say, not as I do” but we don’t reject his argument on the basis of his hypocrisy.
I do also wonder whether the themes of violence mentioned in the NT were too quickly glossed over in your article though. I agree that the scriptures you referred to are not about physically picking up swords but equally Jesus wasn’t exactly the peace maker when he overturned the tables in the synagogue and righteous anger (which sadly so often turns sinful in humans) is meant to result in action.
With all that being said though, I found the article a compelling and persuasive one.
By Edward Graham on 28/11/2011 at 23:14
With regards to old testament passages on the moral acceptability/necessity of violence, are we not better off taking the teaching of Jesus as our starting point and then to attempt to understand the old testament with him as our lense than to try to fit his teaching into our understanding of other texts. Just because the cart may be older than the horse doesn’t mean we should put it first.
By Taylor on 29/11/2011 at 00:59
@Andrew,
I just reread the SotM to make sure i wasn’t missing something, and I still can’t see that the context has anything to do with either the defense of others or the obligations of the government to protect its citizens. All six instructions are given on an individual level, and the the responses do as well. Turn your other cheek, give him your cloak, (you) go with him two miles. Even the language of the lawsuit in instance 3 puts these situations on an individual level that still leaves room for a government that arbitrates between men, although we shouldn’t take advantage of that aspect of government.
So again, if there is evidence that these statements are meant to be applied on a larger scale, I’m open to your solution, in fact, I agree with it. Based on the lack of example in the Sermon and the epistles’ stance on government, I need convincing.
By Martin Walter on 29/11/2011 at 02:57
Andrew,
in the 2nd last paragraph you argue that it would be wrong to tell the truth to the SS looking for the Jews you were hiding. This situation looks pretty similar to what Rahab did in Jericho where she sided with the spies and lied to protect them. Rather than getting criticised, Rahab gets an honorable mention in Heb 11. So it looks “fibbing” is ok even if its done with the right motives.
So if lying is ok, if its done for the right motives, and if lying is comparable to violence, then violence is ok if its done for the right motives?
Incidentally when you suggested a Just Lying rule, I couldn’t help thinking it would look like “Just lie unless ...”. sorry :)
Martin
By Matthew Hosier on 29/11/2011 at 10:17
Andrew sets out a very good statement of a pacifist position (with which I have a great deal of sympathy), but the main weakness is the lack of interaction with how the Christian engages with the State, which is the great weakness of the pacifist position! For me, the question of the State, and the Christian’s position in/towards it is the nub issue – and one that Liam and I have been circling in our earlier posts. It is not an issue you can just park on one side; especially in a democratic society – a society that has been formed (yes with all the normal caveats, etc., etc.) within the context of centuries of Christian theological reflection and application. The position of the Church and Christians is very different today from what it was in the first century when our faith was a new faith, with only a few thousand followers and no cultural influence. A big question, then, is how Christians submit ourselves to the State - which is exactly why Barth argued that pacifists ought to be pro-conscription as it forces the issue of making individuals decide in what way they will render to Caesar.
Now I don’t share Andrew’s military heritage – one of my grandfathers was in advertising, which meant that during WW2 he worked in propaganda/information (“just lying”!?), while the other was a conscientious objector. But I live in a military town, and regular contact with military personnel does make these questions very live for me. What recognition should we give to the State’s right (indeed, calling) to exercise justice and defend itself, all of which involves the use of violence? This is a question Andrew acknowledges with the statement, “the state has a responsibility…that may involve violence” but he offers no insight as to how Christians should operate in regards to the State. Can Christians be in the military? Can they be in the police? Can they be in MI6 (which is the type of organization that will by definition be engaged in the routine practice of “just lies”!)?
Augustine is at least consistent on these points - arguing that the individual Christian has no right to defend their baby from the axe wielding murderer, but that he does have a responsibility to carry out the demands of the State, even if that means violence – which is the opposite conclusion from the one Andrew comes to. Lutheran, two kingdom theology is also worth considering. E.g., we might interpret Rom 12 as setting out what the individual Christian should do, while Rom 13 describes what we should do as citizens. So, if Osama bin Lama had come to visit, as an individual I should offer him kindness and hospitality, but as a citizen I should also inform the authorities and have him apprehended. I wonder if this is a more helpful interpretation than that of Yoder which Liam posted on?
A truly consistent non-violent line such as the one Andrew takes should lead to Amish type communities – but that then begs numerous other questions about the nature of the Church, and the State, and the responsibilities of the individual Christian. But I would like to see Andrew in beard and braces!
(As an aside - if you haven’t seen it, it’s worth trying to catch the 2 part BBC program ‘Frontline Medicine’ - an emotionally gruelling insight to the human cost of war, and of the incredible work of medics in trying to stick bodies back together again.)
By Andrew Wilson on 29/11/2011 at 12:40
@JamesA: I wasn’t being aggressive or attacking, but facetious, as JamesH knows - hence the smiley! My point wasn’t that JamesH is a hypocrite, but that it is hermeneutically inconsistent to argue for the death penalty on the basis of the Noahic covenant, but overlook the Noahic prohibition on eating meat with blood in it.
@Edward: nicely put!
@Taylor: thanks for clarifying. I’m not arguing that the SotM applies to secular governments; I’m arguing that there’s no reason to say it is limited in scope to “personal injustice”. I believe it applies to Christians, in all situations.
@Martin: that’s a great example, although I think there are some important salvation-historical differences between the Israelite spies and an innocent victim today, which make Rahab’s act of faith noteworthy.
@Matt: I don’t think I offer “no insights” on the state and the Christian; that’s the whole point of (3), above, although I’m sure it could have been more detailed. Personally, I don’t think the dualism of 2K theology helps either, and if that is what Paul meant in Rom 12-13, it is far from clear! Nor do I think my position leads to “Amish type communities”; I am a jeans-wearing, clean shaven, iPad using, hopefully culturally engaged, and voting citizen, who just wouldn’t take up a combat role in the army, or MI6, although I’d be happy to serve in the military as a doctor, or a cook. So no beards, but no bombs either. How’s that?
By Liam Thatcher on 29/11/2011 at 13:55
Great discussion… I largely agree with Andrew on this (and whilst I appreciate the 2K answer to Yoder’s puzzler - I don’t find it to be an obvious way of reading Romans 12-13!) I do wonder whether Jesus’ comments on violence in the gospels are in relation to the Kingdom, his point being that violence is an inappropriate way to establish the Kingdom of God? If this is the case, then perhaps that leaves room for the question of whether it is appropriate to use force in other settings, such as defending your country? The question is made more difficult when the lines between Kingdom and Nation get blurred, as is arguably the case in the biblical times with the Nation of Israel…
That question, coupled with practical considerations about what I would do were we to go to war, are the elements that pull me back towards the right a little. So I’m still not 100% sure I would know how to answer questions like:
- “What does it look like to turn a cheek, go a second mile etc when scaled up from the level of personal offence to the that of international warfare?”
- “Would I seek a non-combative role in wartime? Or does that simply remove the problem by one step - since though I am not engaging in violence myself I am supporting those who do and perhaps enabling them to do so?”
- “Are there areas in which Christians cannot engage - such as the army? What on earth would it look like if the Army had no Christian influence in it?! And where would political theories about what constitutes a just war have ended up if it weren’t for the historical influence of Christian thinkers?”
By Ben Kyte on 29/11/2011 at 20:36
Hello everybody,
I have a couple of (I hope not completely unrelated) questions ...
Would Jesus approve of civil disobedience?
Should a Christian join a union and should they go on strike?
Thx
b.
By Dan Watkins on 29/11/2011 at 22:49
Interestingly - because the Bonhoeffer example comes up time and time again - Bonhoeffer himself acknowledges that killing Hitler would be sinful. There’s the incredibly ominous quote where he distinguishes the necessity of killing Hitler from the moral justification for killing Hitler, and the distinction of Hitler-killing from martyrdom:
“The blood of martyrs might once again be demanded, but this blood, if we really have the courage and loyalty to shed it, will not be innocent, shining like that of the first witnesses for the faith. On our blood lies heavy guilt, the guilt of the unprofitable servant who is cast into outer darkness.”
He was heavy about it. Perhaps a “necessary evil”, but still definitely evil.
For me, the difficulty comes in extrapolating across different types of war and seeing “National security” as something consistent throughout time. The decision to fight or not fight in WWII against a clearly defined systemic evil on the doorstep with an obvious aggressive intention toward British territorial integrity is a whole other world away from active/pre-emptive aggression in the name of Liberal interventionism in far-flung places - bombing for peace/democracy/values in Libya/Iraq/Afgh?
Call me a hippy (and I do study at SOAS), but the dilemma as a soldier is different under different wars and different epochs. I would have moral qualms about violence and pacifism in WWII; I would argue contemporary warfare is wholesale unjustifiable - equivalent to Lying-as-policy (or preemptive lying?)
Then again, I’m clearly not on the fence…
By Matthew Hosier on 30/11/2011 at 09:33
Liam, if I can add to your list of questions, with an essay title: “If your enemy is hungry, feed him…Let every person be subject to the governing authorities.” (Rom 12:20; 13:1) Discuss the practical outworking of this in a contemporary liberal democracy.
By Andrew Wilson on 30/11/2011 at 11:52
@Ben: I’m not going to stick my head in the lion’s mouth on that one, today of all days! But some types of civil disobedience are clearly OK (Acts 4-5, as above).
@Dan: great comment, thanks.
@Liam: presumably, since the commands about anger, lust and divorce are also “in relation to the kingdom”, they only mean that anger, lust and divorce should not be used to advance the kingdom? ;0) Important questions, though.
@Matt: I’d love to read that essay ...
By Liam Thatcher on 30/11/2011 at 16:12
@Andrew - Are you arguing that anger, lust and divorce SHOULD be used to advance the Kingdom? ;-)
Ah - the word ‘only’... Fair point. I guess I primarily had in mind Luke 22 rather than Matt 5. If the zealots thought that the kingdom would be brought in by violence, Jesus is telling them that their approach is inappropriate (Luke 22). Though you’re right, Matt 5 is more of a pattern for general life in the Kingdom rather than a guide to how to start/advance the kingdom!
By James Allen on 30/11/2011 at 21:13
Just to be sure Andrew, I got that you were joking with James H and wasn’t sticking up for him as even though I don’t know him, I’m sure he doesn’t need me ‘fighting’ his battles!
I thought he did raise a valid point though that I would’ve liked to see addressed and Edward’s point since, went some way in doing that.
Seeing as you have so bravely laid out your cards though, I think it’s only right I do: My reasons, if I’m honest, for not fighting in a war, would revolve more around being absolutely petrified than anything else!
By Andrew Wilson on 01/12/2011 at 10:48
@JamesA: LOL ...
By Michael Snow on 25/01/2012 at 00:44
Excellent summary. On the OT, I would also note the original promise to the Hebrews on entering the promised land before the 40 years in the wilderness, and David not being allowed to build the Temple because he was ‘a man of war and had shed much blood.’ Covered somewhat briefly, here:
http://www.amazon.com/Christian-Pacifism-Fruit-Narrow-ebook/dp/B005RIKH62/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1327369519&sr=1-1
And on the old “Jesus didn’t tell the Centurion…” add ‘to free his slaves.’
On the Nazi trump card, I would simply say that if Christians had obeyed Jesus in WWI, the groundwork for WW Part II would not have been prepared. We reap what we sow.
Reflections on that in Oh Holy Night: The Peace of 1914.