"You have heard that it was said, `Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell
you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him
the other also."

…

"You have heard that it was said, `Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I
tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you," Jesus, (Matthew
5:38-39,43-44, NIV)

The words of Jesus seem crystal clear. He calls his followers to refrain from fighting
enemies under any circumstances. Surely, then, he calls his followers not to participate
in war. How can one participate in war and yet "love ones enemies" and "not
resist an evil person"? However, throughout history, the majority of Jesus’ followers
have not taken this command literally. They have found ways to justify taking part in war.

Until recently, I was in that number. Then, late in 1998, I read an article by Alan
Walker in the Australian Christian magazine "On Being  Alive", which
challenged my view. Walker pointed out that the earliest Christians _did_ take literally
Jesus’ call to pacifism, and refused to join the Roman army. Theologically, the turning
point came in the fifth century when Augustine of Hippo formed the doctrine of "Just
War". Since then, countless wars have been rationalised by Christians as being
"Just Wars". Walker’s thesis was simple: the church must do away with the
"Just War" doctrine. There is no such thing. The words of Jesus preclude it.

Walker’s article led me to examine the traditional theological arguments against
pacifism. To my surprise, they are very weak. Let me take you through these arguments:

Argument 1: "What about war in the Old Testament?"

Response: It is clear enough that the New Testament brings in a new era in humankind’s
dealings with God. Jesus’ commands about loving our enemies were so radical because they
were new.

Many Old Testament practices are superceded in the New Testament. So we cannot use the
Old Testament alone for forming our doctrine of war.

Argument 2: "Jesus used war in a parable (Luke 14:31-33)"

(I have seen this argument seriously used)

Response: You might as well say that the parable of the "shrewd" manager
(Luke 16:1-8) endorses dishonesty, or that the parable of the prodigal son (Luke 15:11-32)
endorses irresponsible living. Jesus told parables to make a certain point, and the
parable of the Luke 14:31-33 was certainly not about the rights or wrongs of war.

Argument 3: "What about soldiers in the New Testament?"

In at least three cases soldiers are followers or potential followers of Jesus: the
soldiers who came to be baptised by John the Baptist, the centurion who had great faith
(Matt 8:5-13, Luke 7:1-10), and Cornelius (Acts 10). In no case is there a hint that they
are involved in an immoral occupation, in the same way that (say) prostitutes are. In
response, we note that in none of these cases were they fighting battles. Soldiers also
fulfilled peacekeeping roles, akin to modern police, and this was more than likely the
case in all the instances mentioned. So this case does not carry much weight when compared
to several clear passages of teaching.

Argument 4: "But Jesus was using hyperbole!"

Response: While it is true that Jesus uses much hyperbole in the Sermon on the Mount,
it is not at all clear that this passage does. Hyperbole is deliberate exaggeration to
make a point. So if this is hyperbole, what is the actual point Jesus is making? I can see
no point except "love your enemies" and "do not resist an evildoer".
But an even more telling answer is the fact that the same teaching turns up in other
places in the New Testament. Not only do both Matthew and Luke record it on the lips of
Jesus, but both Paul (Romans 12) and Peter (1 Peter 3) have basically the same commands:
to not resist an evil person, and to love our enemies. These are in straight teaching
passages, there is no hint of hyperbole. Since they agree very closely with Jesus commands
(without going quite as far, but they do agree in general tone), I see no reason not to
also take Jesus’ words at face value.

A related argument (which we might call 4a) is that Jesus’ commands in the sermon on
the mount are for a different dispensation: they were only for the Jews. While I reject
this form of dispensationalism, in the case of pacifism this argument can also be
dispelled by pointing to the similar passages in Romans and Peter (see above) which, even
the dispensationalists would agree, are teaching for the Christian church.

Argument 5: "Paul in Romans 13 says we must obey the State."

This is perhaps the most common objection to Christian pacificism, and always turns up
in some form in arguments against it. It was an argument I agreed with for many years. The
response is so obvious it is a wonder I never saw it before:

Response: Since when did the laws of the State take precedence over God’s laws?
Christians have always responded to unjust laws in the way the apostles responded in Acts
5:29: "We must obey the laws of God, not men". If the law of the state conflicts
with God’s laws, we are called to disobey the State!

Evangelical Christians have no hesitation in saying that we should go against State
laws on issues such as abortion or racism. So why not war? Why not say, "Sorry, we
believe that God says that we must not fight our fellow human beings"?

Non-Biblical Arguments: There are other arguments against pacifism, but these are not
biblical ones. This does not make them wrong. For instance, the New Testament does not
consider the case of Christians being in majority in a country. But since the arguments
are non-Biblical, let me provide my own non-Biblical answers – which, I think reinforce my
belief that we should follow Jesus’ teaching.

Argument 6: "What about conducting war to defend one’s country?"

The problem is: what is one’s own country?

In Northern Ireland, both Republicans and Unionists passionately believe that Northern
Ireland is part of their country. In Palestine, both Israelis and Palestians believe that
the same part of land is "theirs".

In Kosovo, the ethnic Albanians fight for self-determination of "their" land,
while Serbians claim that Kosovo is part of Serbia.

If was ever breaks out again in East Timor, there will be a group fighting to stay a
part of Indonesia, fighting against a group who equally believe that the same land should
be independent.

Almost any war can be justified as defending someone’s country.

Argument 7: "What about war to curb great evil?"

Response: Apart from the reality that just about any war is portrayed as justified in
this way; there is also the reality that going to war against a so-called "evil"
regime will may inflame the situation.

In the recent Kosovo war, the Serb atrocities against ethnic Albanians greatly
increased when NATO began interfering.

So I believe that, just as Jesus calls all people to follow him, so he also calls all
people to renounce war as a legitimate action. First and foremost this is a call to
Christians – those who claim to follow Jesus – to take the lead.

Let me add that I do not mean to belittle the countless courageous men who have fought
in wars, sacrificially, believing their cause was noble.  In fact, I am criticising
no one. I am just asking us all to look at the teaching of Jesus and ask: have we honestly
followed his teaching?

Peter Ballard

Adelaide, AUSTRALIA

  OR

http://www.ozemail.com.au/~pballard/

[personal opinions only]

———————————————————-

 wrote:
> 
> In article <>,
> Rowland Croucher <> wrote:
> >
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > G'day all,
> > >
> > > Lately I've been thinking about Christians and War.
> > > Here are my current thoughts.
> > > Comments welcome.
> > >
> > > -----------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > "You have heard that it was said, `Eye for eye, and tooth
> > > for tooth.'
> > > But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes
> > > you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."
> > > ...
> > > "You have heard that it was said, `Love your neighbor
> > > and hate your enemy.'
> > > But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those
> > > who persecute you,"
> > >
> > > Jesus, (Matthew 5:38-39,43-44, NIV)
> 
> [snip]
> 
> > I agree with all of this, except for one omission. A strict pacifist
> > would put this in the 'reductio ad absurdum' category: When someone
> > attacks another who is defenseless, what am I to do? Specifically:
> what
> > should I do when someone attacks my little daughter, and cannot be
> > dissuaded except by force? And can this analogy be 'writ larger' to
> take
> > in a whole population? My own gut feeling is that the response I've
> > heard from pacifists 'I hope I would never be in that position' can be
> > labeled as impossibly idealistic at best or selfish/spineless at
> >worst.
> 
> G'day Rowland,
> 
> I've thought about this one a lot.
> 
> There's a difference between countries at war,
> and someone attacking one of my children.
> If someone tries to harm my children, it is
> a "black and white" issue. The attacker, by God's law, is
> forbidden under all circumstances from doing things such
> as murder or rape. Therefore I am entitled to stop them.
> I agree this is not totally consistent with a literal
> reading of Jesus' words, but then there are other issues
> to consider like the well-being of my children.

The classical Christian question 'Who is my neighbour?' would encourage
us to include other people's children with our own, I would think...

> But even under such circumstances, I am commanded to
> love my enemy; so any defence should be restricted to
> impeding the attacker rather than harming him/her (usually "him").

Agree in principle: but rapists/murderers usually have a weapon and in
the act are not usually amenable to reason or love...

> War, on the other hand, is far more complex. It is far from
> clear which side is right and which side is wrong.
> Nor is it possible to defend without trying to kill the
> attackers. For both these reasons, I think "love your enemies"
> must here take precedence.

Have you ever studied Bonhoeffer's change of heart on this question re
Hitler? 
 
> Of course there are still areas that don't fit this neat
> little theory I have spelt out, e.g. if the soldiers are
> knocking down my door so they can rape my wife and children
> (and this does happen). But if the invaded country was
> loving their invaders rather than fighting them, I suspect
> such occurences would be greatly reduced. War atrocities
> don't happen for no reason - they are generally paybacks
> for past evils.

Agreed. Another dimension is that of 'passive resistance' to evil, which
can sometimes be done very creatively and with a minimum of bloodshed
(eg. Gandhi's resistance to British imperialism/aggression in India).

> Peter Ballard
> Adelaide, AUSTRALIA
>  OR  
> http://www.ozemail.com.au/~pballard/ 
> [personal opinions only]

Shalom! Rowland Croucher ()