I’ve displayed the bumper sticker from Mennonite Peace and Justice Office since 2004.
peace,
Randy

I struggle with what it means to be a Christian and to support war. I lean more pacifist, but I can’t reconcile that with… say WWII. I think that the US involvement in WWII was just. So…
Assuming the sticker is a strict anti-war bumper sticker, I guess I don’t know how I feel.

I find reconciling the words of Jesus with how God treated his enemies in the OT a very difficult thing to do. And, like Kenny #2, hasn’t war been necessary at times to stem the tide of systemic evil?
I so want to obey Jesus in this, but this subject is very confusing for me.

@Scott Eaton
Check out Christopher Wright’s book, “The God I Don’t Understand.” I liked his treatment of the OT Canaanite killings.

I don’t think that is what He meant. War is terrible, but sometimes necessary. It is possible to fight for altruistic reasons and not for hateful ones. But I agree, it is a confusing a difficult subject.

I don’t think that is what He meant. War is terrible, but sometimes necessary. It is possible to fight for altruistic reasons and not for hateful ones. But I agree, it is a confusing a difficult subject.

This bumper sticker is on probably every other car in our campus (Associated Mennonite Biblical Seminary) parking lot alongside the “Support Peacemakers” one.

I’m guessing this bumper sticker would be in reaction to the “Pray for Obama Psalm 109:8″ bumper sticker. Technically Psalm 109 would be a prayer for God to do justice to his enemies…but sometimes we blur those lines.
If it’s meant to be a purely anti-war bumper sticker then it’s based in a view of the world that doesn’t even have biblical (“there shall be wars and rumors of wars) nor historical foundation.
But how does that apply to the Christian? That’s a topic for a complete post not a short comment.

I’ve seen this one before. I quite like it. However much war may (possibly) be a “necessary evil” in our world, it remains an evil, and as such, it’s impossible for me to see Jesus supporting it.
I’m reminded of various teachings of Jesus where he acknowledges that the law permits something (“Moses told you…”), but he nonetheless pushes for a better way (“but I tell you…”).

Sorry, family and innocents – killing those who want to kill you violates the command to love my enemy, so I guess you have to die and suffer.

Oh, and don’t get me started on that Psalm 109:8 thing. That’s a horrible thing, not merely about “justice,” but asking God to KILL the enemy. When applied to our President, it crosses the line into utterly unacceptable.

Bob in #10,
That only works if killing those who want to kill you is the ONLY way to stop them. That’s really not true except in a very few circumstances (and there are quite a few who would debate if there are even those).

Great bumper sticker. But I don’t see what’s so confusing. Jesus’ teachings were very clear about enemy love. But just in case there was any question, he acted it out by taking their insults and beatings, then dying at the hands of his enemies, trusting God’s justice and vindication. It’s difficult to do, but not difficult to understand.

I think this works best:
“When Jesus said ‘love your enemies’, I’m pretty sure he meant it”.
Its actually too limiting to define it beyond that. Defining beyond that smacks of an agenda that’s too localized in a particular political perspective.

@Kenny #2
Kenny,
What is interesting about WWII is that we can only call it a just war in hindsight. First, we were attacked by the Japanese, not the Germans or Italians. So under most just war theories that war should only be defensive, we were not justified in entering the European theater based solely on the attack at Pearl Harbor.
Second, when we entered the European theater, we did not really know what atrocities were taking place at the various concentration camps. We didn’t truly understand the situation in the ghettos throughout Europe. Preventing the holocaust could not have been a justification for WWII at the beginning because we were not aware of the circumstances nor the extent of the evil taking place.
This is what makes just war theory so difficult. It would be hard for anyone to look back at U.S. involvement in WWII and say that it was not just. But that certainly could not have been said in 1941 or 1942. So, the question is how can a determination on the justness of military engagement be made at the outset when not all the facts are known regardless of the level of intelligence available?

@David #13 – Couldn’t be any more clear. Quite simple I think. Much love.

Brian, “just war” is only a category for “entering” a war, right? One judges on the basis of what one knows, which at times might be mistaken (and therefore not a just war) and at times accurate (and therefore just). One might enter a way unjustly and discover later that there were conditions justifying such a just war decision.
As for me, I’m pacifist but I do think according to war theory there are conditions that meet the criteria for just war.
The issue for me is how a Christian is to participate in the military and war. Empire theory and discussions today are of significant value for Christians to be considering.

Darren (comment #14) has a good point, and revised wording.
It seems that the Gospel application of Jesus’ words here (Matt. 5:43-48, and related in vv. 38-42) is brought to further light by Paul in Romans 12-13. By repaying our “enemies” with undeserved grace and love we are acted like true Christians, Christ-like. Love trumps hate, blessing overrule cursing (Romans 12:9-18). (As I tell teens, treat everyone like he or she is your “enemy,” that is, love them unconditionally expecting nothing in return).
But, that begs the question, Is there then no justice at all? Oh yes, there is, for vengeance is God’s (Romans 12:19-21), as we “leave room for God’s wrath” (v. 19). The argument continues into Romans 13:1-7 on a key feature of government: to bring punishment on wrongdoers (v. 4, etc.)
Could Jesus be painting a picture of personal responses, love instead of retaliation? (Which is not counter to justice.) Justice will be meted out, and must on a corporate or civil level as we read in Romans 13.

Cool! Where can I get one of those?

Jesus meant “love you enemies” except for when they are about to threaten or kill you, your family, members of your tribe or nation or race or language or political party or religion. When you arrive at one of these exceptions, please “dispatch them” with as little pain to them as possible. Unless they are brutal, then make sure they really suffer before death. And make sure you have a good justification for killing them. It is all quite clear. Obvious. Brighter than the sun.

I think it is definitely something to consider on a personal level. I wouldn’t want to try it out on a national level, though! Might be about 100 years before our country would be beseiged and we would all be speaking another language.
If I were one to put a bumper sticker on my car, I might have this made up:
“We sleep safely in our beds because rough men [and women] stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us.”
Then again, having served in the Marine Corps, I am only slightly biased!

Three thoughts (well maybe one or two more).
1. We have the example of King David. He was the the great king of the OT. He killed. Lots of people. And he was honored for it. By God. So, that’s our God too. No Demiurge for us. The big caveat, and one that has impacted me, was that while he did kill, he was also scarred by it. He wasn’t allowed to build the Temple because he was a man of war–even though these were wars God approved. Seems like killing might be necessary at times, but it is never a good, and does mark us down in the holiness department.
2. Parable of the Good Samaritan. What if the Good Samaritan showed up while the man was being beaten up by the robbers. What would a good neighbor do? Would a good neighbor in Jesus’ mind wait for the fight to be over, so that the man was beat to near death, and the robbers were away? Or would a good neighbor, especially if he was able, fight off the robbers thus saving the man from being beaten?
3. Centurions in the New Testament were pretty honored. Cornelius especially. Also, the centurion in Luke 7. When Jesus is confronted directly by soldiers asking “what should we do?” in Luke 3, he replies 14 Soldiers also asked him, “And we, what should we do?” He said to them, “Do not extort money from anyone by threats or false accusation, and be satisfied with your wages.” Seems like this was the moment to tell the warriors not to war.
One last one. The three above are influential for my views, but this one is more of a exploratory question. Might there be a time in which killing our enemy is an act of love? Why is death considered the last act? Sometimes people need to be prevented from committing more evils. My dad teaches in a juvenile hall, and there are moments he talks about how the best thing for a student who is going off is to be taken out of the situation. The evils committed are caught up in a frenzy, and to end the frenzy the person needs to be restrained for them to find the space, and time, to find balance.
In an eternal perspective, could killing someone be this kind of act?
All of these, for me, assuming that Jesus is entirely, totally against killing for his sake. We are not to use the warfare of the world to further his kingdom. George Fox, the Quaker, was a pacifist in the context of religious wars of Protestants and Catholics. The early Christians were in the context of the idolatry and imperialism of Rome.

Surely no Christian is ever justified to seek personal revenge.
But this bumper sticker seems dismissive to me. It doesn’t help that I’ve seen people say this with a sneer, adding snobbery and mockery to my mental image of the person saying it. I realize those here who agree with it are not responsible for that!
If you try to have a reasonable conversation about the possibility of some form of evolution, and the would-be conversationalist says “The Bible says God created the world and I’m pretty sure this means it isn’t all an accident” or if you try to talk about gender roles and someone says “The Bible says wives should submit and I’m pretty sure this means they aren’t pastors” — that is how this strikes me. It strikes me as unfair to any opposing view and it gives no room to nuance and working it out in the ‘real world.’

Mark Baker-Wright #12,
I’m just curious, practically speaking, when someone begins shooting on a crowd of people (school shootings, the recent Ft. Hood incident, etc.), what do you think is the best way to stop them? Honest question. Is there any way to defend the innocents under attack that does not involve some level of violence to the attacker?
(refreshed the comments, I think this is very similar to Patrick O #22, point 2, the Good Samaritan.)

Brian #15
We entered the war in the European theatre after being attacked by one of the countries in the Axis Alliance. On November 1, 1936, Germany and Italy, reflecting their common interest in destabilizing the European order, announced a Rome-Berlin Axis. Nearly a month later, on November 25, 1936, Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan signed the so-called Anti-Comintern Pact directed at the Soviet Union. Italy joined the Anti-Comintern Pact on November 6, 1937. On May 22, 1939, Germany and Italy signed the so-called Pact of Steel, formalizing the Axis alliance with military provisions. Finally, on September 27, 1940, Germany, Italy, and Japan signed the Tripartite Pact, which became known as the Axis alliance. When we declared war on Japan as a response to Pearl Harbor, we declared war on the Axis. Four days later Hitler declared war on the United States.
I too lean toward pacifist, but believe there are conditions for ‘just war’. The challenge is the type of warfare we have today that decimates entire villages. There needs to be some conversation about what resources are just if we agree on a just war. I absolutely don’t believe our bombings at the end of WWII were just!!
I find it encouraging that so many have seen this in other parts of the country and I have not in the People’s Republic of San Francisco.

Scot,
I love the bumper-sticker and my wife and I have been having discussions along these lines for a couple of years now. The main problem I have with the just war theory is that, if my understanding is correct, both main criteria – Right to go to war and then once that war has begun how combatants are supposed act – of that theory have to be achieved for a war to be considered just (including their sub-criteria). IE – just cause, proportionality, last resort, right intention, probability of success, distinction, etc. And in what war could we honestly say that all the criteria (and sub-criteria) have been met?
As someone above said, it is easy to understand what Jesus said and harder to live out. However, i think that literally living out what Jesus said puts us on the “safe” side of a very difficult and complex issue.

Obviously lots of things to discuss about just war, self-defense and defense of neighbors, etc.
But my first reaction is that I think “don’t kill them” is a pretty small part, and maybe not the most important part, of what Jesus means by “love our enemies”. If all we do is refrain from killing people, I think in most cases we will have failed to love them as Jesus commanded.
I’d be happier with the bumper sticker if the last phrase instead read “I’m pretty sure that includes not killing them”

“One last one. The three above are influential for my views, but this one is more of a exploratory question. Might there be a time in which killing our enemy is an act of love? Why is death considered the last act? Sometimes people need to be prevented from committing more evils. My dad teaches in a juvenile hall, and there are moments he talks about how the best thing for a student who is going off is to be taken out of the situation. The evils committed are caught up in a frenzy, and to end the frenzy the person needs to be restrained for them to find the space, and time, to find balance.”
Seems like that would have been the logic of the religious leaders who wanted to and did take Jesus down. When are we capable of executing such righteous judgment? History shows us that we are not capable of just judgment. After all, we condemned and killed the most just man alive. Seems like the answer would and should be never.
“All of these, for me, assuming that Jesus is entirely, totally against killing for his sake. We are not to use the warfare of the world to further his kingdom.”
If we aren’t using warfare to further the Kingdom of God, for which kingdom shall we use it? Which kingdom do we endorse, live in, and strive for? I don’t see how we can truly be citizens of both. How can we live according to the values of the kingdoms of this world when Jesus has called us to live according to his kingdom? Also it seems that executing judgment and killing someone for their own “good” would be killing on behalf of the Kingdom of God. Is it not?
Also, Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place.” Seems clear that fighting is not something citizens of the Kingdom of God partake in. Surely if ever there were an innocent, the Son of God would have been it.

David #13 and Andrew # 16,
Is Jesus in his death an example? Or is something else going on there?
This is an interesting question, so we should consider all of the implications. Jesus forbade divorce, except a man whose wife has committed adultery. There is no out for a woman on any level. So we can apply Jesus behavior as an example here. Jesus handed himself over to be beaten and killed. If this is a simple example we have our answer to Scot’s divorce question – and the permutation of an abused spouse. Following Jesus’s teaching and example an abused spouse helps bring about the kingdom by handing herself over to her husband to be beaten and even killed.
This probably isn’t what any of us mean, but it seems to me the only place to go in this discussion if David’s point is taken as written. Because Jesus did not only avoid violence in his action – he pretty much intentionally handed himself over to be killed.
I don’t think that the question here is do like Jesus did – his calling is not ours. The real question is how do we enact the call to love our neighbors as ourselves. And the key question as I see it is does this ever make violence the better option? Not good – but better than the alternative.

Josh, thanks for the bounce back. Very good thoughts that do get at the heart of the matter. Here’s my response thoughts, though again, not based on me holding a position on the questions, more my continued exploration of them.
“Seems like that would have been the logic of the religious leaders who wanted to and did take Jesus down.”
I suspect that likely was the judgment of the religious leaders. The ability for people to be wrong doesn’t necessarily dismiss a position. There were false prophets in Israel’s history, but the People were still obligated to listen when the real prophets spoke. There was still a work of God, even if some got it wrong for whatever reason.
“When are we capable of executing such righteous judgment? History shows us that we are not capable of just judgment.”
Really? If you see a 12 year old girl being raped by a group of men you don’t feel an ability to make a judgment to intervene? If you see a man pull out a knife and start stabbing people on a bus you don’t feel capable of asserting this as wrong? Was stopping the Nazis killing millions of Jews an unjust act? There is clear wrong and right, that is reflected by God’s call to this world. Of course we can execute righteous judgment. This is the whole basis of our entire legal system. Not perfect, but often very accurate. There are rules to it, of course, but it still is approachable. God calls us to judge in certain circumstances. Even non-Christians have the capability of assessing wrong and right, then responding to it. The boundaries certainly do begin to blur in the less extreme acts.
“After all, we condemned and killed the most just man alive. Seems like the answer would and should be never.”
“We” didn’t. Persecuting Jews for the blood guilt of Jesus is wrong enough, no reason to add this to all of us. And more, the really big thing with Jesus was that he wasn’t guilty. The man on the cross next to him was guilty and said he deserved the punishment, going on to say Jesus was innocent. Pilate said he did nothing wrong. He was without sin, having no guilt, having violated nothing. Humans deserve judgment when they commit evil against the innocent.
“If we aren’t using warfare to further the Kingdom of God, for which kingdom shall we use it? Which kingdom do we endorse, live in, and strive for?”
Indeed, a great point. I’m tempted to say “kingdom” wasn’t a good choice of words, but yet I’m stuck seeing it really is at the core, and this the reason why I’m curious about responses rather than holding a position on these questions. I come again, though, to the good Samaritan adaption. Is it ‘for the Kingdom’ to help the innocent? Is it ‘for the Kingdom’ to restrain evil? We can say this is so in our criminal justice system? What is our obligation, for the Kingdom, in the broader world to protect those who seek life and hope in God? This is where the question lies. Is it ‘for the Kingdom’ to watch genocide happen and look away? Jesus’ Kingdom operates under different principles. Absolutely. We are to seek peace. But is the child who loses his entire family experiencing the Good News of Jesus when his followers restrain helping because of a higher principle of pacifism? Is pacifism our “Sabbath” that must be our highest principle over all?
“Seems clear that fighting is not something citizens of the Kingdom of God partake in.”
So, those who commit violence cannot go to heaven? They cannot be followers of Jesus? Is this not a judgment you are making against based on your own perceptions of right and wrong? So there are issues which we can be trusted to judge accurately about?

i’m reminded of a Kierkegaard quote i’ve seen,
“The matter is quite simple. The Bible is very easy to understand. But we Christians are a bunch of scheming swindlers. We pretend to be unable to understand it because we know very well that the minute we understand we are obliged to act accordingly. Take any words in the New Testament and forget everything except pledging yourself to act accordingly. My God, you will say, if I do that my whole life will be ruined. How would I ever get on in the world?
Herein lies the real place of Christian scholarship. Christian scholarship is the Church’s prodigious invention to defend itself against the Bible, to ensure that we can continue to be good Christians without the Bible coming too close. Oh, priceless scholarship, what would we do without you? Dreadful it is to fall into the hands of the living God. Yes, it is even dreadful to be alone with the New Testament.”
i’ve chewed on that and realized…it’s pretty true. this whole love your enemies thing is just optional right? surely God doesn’t actually expect us to practice what he taught!!! “love you enemies and pray for those that persecute you, THAT you might be children of God.” loving our enemies is a way to prove ourselves as “children of God.” amazing. so why don’t we do it? do we not want to be children of God? or are we, as Kierkegaard said, simply “scheming swindlers pretending to be unable to understand”?
great discussion all!

I think you hit the nail on the head, RJS. Maybe loving one’s neighbor is not so simple as some here would have it.
Reading some of the comments here one might think that 6 million slaughterd jewish neighbors (and countless others) in WWII wasn’t enough. The allies obviously interfered with God’s own justice and vengeance in stopping Hitler.
Or maybe, just maybe, God intends that sometimes we should act as His hands and feet in this just as He expects us to act as His hands and feet in feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, housing the homeless, healing the sick, and comforting the hurting. To paraphrase James, if you see a brother or sister who is being killed and you say, ?Good-bye and have a good day; stay safe and don’t die now? ? but then you don?t give that person any protection. What good does that do?
Maybe it’s not just those who go to war who are killers, but also those who sit idly by while their neighbors are slaughtered. Some might call that love. Others might call it cowardice.

It seems pretty easy to make a case that Jesus doesn’t advocate violence when it comes to being part of the kingdom of God. But it’s obvious that God used violence to accomplish his purposes. And it seems pretty clear that the early church didn’t ask soldiers to abandon their career. Thus, I think the bumper sticker is correct. But it obviously doesn’t give much direction to how to stop maniacs who run governments with nuclear weapons, or hoodlums who run gangs in East Africa, or drug lords who torture civilians in Mexico.

When Jesus said “love your enemies,” it didn’t preclude Armageddon.
I’ll be a pacifist when Jesus is one.
In other words, He’s the Prince of Peace, not the Prince of Pacifism. Peace is his end, not his means. He proceeds to peace, not by means of peace. He knows that sometimes the only, or best, way to get peace and justice is to fight for them. He says that He does what He sees his Father do and He says what He hears his Father say. That Father, you’ll recall, is Yahweh — and Yahweh is a warrior. Jesus does not imitate a pacifist Father.

Michael, I know you know history well enough that that the pacifist argument is not susceptible to simple put-downs, and that Jesus chose the path of cross as his way of victory — and the cross reshapes our whole notion of power and of victory.
I like your argument that his goal is peace and that means and goal can’t be equated. But his means must be scrutinized by what he did, and what is said of what he did in the Gospels, and that will define his means of peace.
How did Jesus fight for justice? There’s not a shred of evidence that Jesus himself picked up a sword or used violence against another person in order to accomplish God’s will.
Father equated with YHWH? The Hebrew YHWH is translated with Kyrios and that word, Kyrios, is given to Jesus in the NT.

When Jesus said love your enemies, I’m pretty sure he didn’t mean give them preference over everyone else.

Scot,
There isn’t any evidence that Jesus picked up a sword to bring about the kingdom of God … but does this mean an absolute pacifism on the part of his followers? But Jesus went beyond an avoidance of violence – He intentionally gave himself up to injustice and death at the hands of those in power. Is this in fact the example that you think we are called to follow? I used the example of an abused spouse in the comment above because I think this is a particularly appropriate example. Are we called not only to avoid violent response but to submit to violence willingly?
Martyrdom for the kingdom when the only alternative is renunciation is certainly part of the calling – and the powerful witness of the early church. I am not questioning this.

RJS, an abusive relationship is colossal failure by the male in not serving — giving himself in love to — his wife. The wife has no obligation to suffer violence but instead to seek shelter, as Jesus did in Luke 4.
What strikes me about the NT ethic is how cruciform it becomes — the cross reshapes everything, including how we relate to one another.
I cannot believe we can ever use violence — kill — another person (in war) and be cruciform at the same time. We can’t serve the other person in love and use the sword against them at the same time.
Look, I’m fully aware that my view is not the majority these days; it was the majority until the 4th Century (roughly). And I’m one pacifist who thinks he could be wrong, so I respect the decision of others, if they have considered carefully the biblical witness and not just signed up for Americanism, to take a stand for just war actions of war. But I would urge all Christians to get on their knees with their Bibles, with the wisdom of others, and render their decisions with utter care.

Well – you brought up 1 Peter 2 (in an e-mail, not a comment) and this is an interesting passage. As is 1 Peter 3:1-6. Both slaves and wives are called to submit to the authorities over them. As far as Luke 4 goes – the mob isn’t the authorities and Jesus simply walks through the mob. (Between the lines isn’t the implication that there was a miraculous element to his exit?) But the message in the gospels – or in Acts for that matter – is not that God will rescue those with enough faith if they simply submit.
I am not militaristic and I have no desire to defend “just war” in general, or even the two actions we are currently or were recently engaged in. But I do think that this is a complex issue.

And – by the way – aren’t all of the examples in the NT where submission is either demonstrated or taught the result of colossal failures by the authority in not following God’s way? What makes the relationship of husband and wife any different from the relationship of a person to the government?

Brad,
I think the problem is that we see pacifism too much in black and white terms. Of course, we should not sit by and let people be slaughtered. But is the only alternative to kill the killer? One of the missions of Jesus was break the cycle of revenge and violence that pervaded his world by demonstrating alternatives such as forgiveness, love, turning the other cheek, and interventions meant to restore the humanity of a potential victim of violence, such as the adulteress who was about to be stoned. When we see our only two positions as “kill” and “do nothing,” killing becomes much easier to justify and cowardice is seen as the alternative. Alternatives to violence, however, encourage us to explore the many creative ways we can stop violence without becoming what we deplore. Further, and the life of John Woolman bears this out, when we decide that violence is not in our repetoire of responses, we do start finding ways to be reconciled to our fellows, and without moral compromise. As long as we have violence as a fallback, we don’t have to fully engage our fellow humans as eikons of God. We can be arrogant.
I also think it’s important to note as background to all these discussions that at least in United States, we live in a culture saturated in images of violence with a persistent discourse that casts violence in heroic terms.

Scot,
You skipped over my mention of Armageddon — an activity of Christ, and one clearly not pacifistic.
No, I don’t distinguish between Yahweh and the Father whom Jesus says He imitates in his words and actions. I don’t see why I would. It seems to me that Jesus does not distinguish between them. If Jesus does not think of Yahweh as his Father, to whom do you say Jesus is referring with that term? I am saying that the Father whom Jesus says He imitates in words and actions is YHWH and is not pacifistic — and that Armageddon demontrates that Jesus is not pacifistic either.
For the purpoe of clarity, by saying that YHWH is translated as Kyrios, and that Kyrios is used of Christ in the NT, are you saying that Christ is YHWH? If so, one could never conclude that YHWH is a pacifist.

ugh.
already the peace-making position is made out into some totalizing, un-nuanced stance.
for me, peace-making/pacifism boils down to these things:
1. the role of God’s people, the Church, in contra-distinction to the rest of the world/government. If Christians refused to participate in war/armed forces, etc. our military would not cease to function. there’s plenty of people ready to take up arms. there is no threat to our national security or freedom if Christians understand their role as the Church to constantly bear witness to the better way of the Kingdom that is coming where war will be no more. Our loyalty is to that Kingdom. It is a betrayal of that loyalty to perpetuate any other kingdom.
2. “just war” theory was meant to articulate exceptions on a general antipathy toward war. Not to “justify” it willy-nilly as a feature of life. War is always an expression of sinfulness and the tragic brokenness of the world. It always represents failure by all parties involved even when “just”.
3. the uniform witness of the early church matters, and for almost a quarter of the life of the Church the majority report was the removal of Christians from the sphere of war.
Bottom line for me: I believe Christians should not participate in the prosecution of any war. However, since war is a site of great brokenness and sin, Christian need to embody the healing message of Jesus by being agents of humanitarian aid/help/assistance.
Instead of being active litigants/participants in the controversies and conflicts of our day we should be seen as the living space of safety and reconciliation for all. A people that, as I believe Hauerwas said, would rather die than kill.
THAT is a radical witness.
all other whining about “freedom ain’t free” or how other people die so that i have the “right” to be a pacifist is just emotionally inflammatory and dishonest ways to shut down a real theological critique of what sometimes is really only the thinly veiled sin of nationalism that particularly besets the the North American church.

But we’re not YHWH.

Where can I buy this bumper sticker?
Just to mention one thing that I’m surprised hasn’t been mention yet. Paul says in Ephesians 6 that our enemies (the Churches) are not flesh and blood and that we do not war against flesh and blood but against the powers at work like hatred, violence, famine, disease, pride, etc. that all perpetuate from our ‘flesh’, the devil, and this broken world.

LOL, Scot! My daughter found this a couple of months ago and sent me a photo on my phone. I think it’s terrific.
@ Jonathan #45: my thoughts, exactly!

As I see it, the NT seems to see a role for both (a) the cruciform, non-violent politics of the Kingdom of God of which Christians are to submit to and bear witness to and (b) the governments of the world which also serve God’s purposes in a general way by curbing injustice and offering the necessary structures of order and law (cf. Rom 13). The former is an advance sign of the God’s future Kingdom to come which we are to bear witness to in the present, and its citizens’ primary goal is FAITHFULNESS not effectiveness or practicality, etc. The latter will follow more pragmatic, “worldly” means of legislation and will “wield the sword” and go to war and fight for a more just and peaceful society, and it’s goal is EFFECTIVENESS in establishing a more just society. While human/world governments serves God’s general purposes in this way, they do not advance God’s peculiar cruciform Kingdom by these distinctly unKingdom methods.
I see my (primary or only?) calling as a Christ follower to be faithful to the values of Jesus’ Kingdom. The big dilemma for me is whether or not I can serve both kingdoms. Jesus seems to say ‘No.’ Is this not the big question about Christian participation in military, politics, etc.?
This is a challenging issue and not one to pass judgment on others who are wrestling and coming to different convictions. But wrestle we must. Peace.

Would this bumper sticker get the same comment if it was worded just a little differently: When Jesus said Love your Enemies I am pretty sure he didn’t mean kill them.
The difference is subtle – but really comes down on the distinction that strikes me as most important.
Love of enemies absolutely precludes violence, war as a means to achieve an end goal – the constructive use of war to bring about justice and kingdom. Love of enemies means considering them as persons. This is really what bothers me about some of the rhetoric today (and much rhetoric in the radio and literature that dates to WWII as well). Sentiment is shaped by effectively making a group of people into something wholly other – they are dehumanized.
I don’t think that a blanket pacifism is the right approach – because one must fight against evil and this is not alway nonviolent. But nonviolent approaches that start with a recognition that all people in all groups are created in the image of God is an important part of any Christian approach.

RJS, good suggestion on the wording.

Is it clear that Armageddon involves violence on the part of Christ? I agree that Satan will use the weapons of death and destruction, but will Jesus? He’s depicted in Revelation as the Lamb. Do lambs lead armies? The early Quakers connected the “Lamb’s war” in Revelation to Ephesians 6 and insisted Jesus would not fight with carnal weapons but with spiritual weapons of faith, righteousness, peace …

The Armageddon argument for violence is pretty weak. It’s pretty obvious that the “sword” of Jesus is his words. Jesus doesn’t wield a sword in Armageddon, he speaks the truth. Jesus does not use violence to further his work. But the arguments for how to interpret Revelation are endless. I suppose if you want to find ways to tie Jesus to violence, you will find what you are looking for.
As long as Christians are okay with using violence (willing to kill) to serve and protect, we’ll never apply the creative imagination and diligence required to come up with healthy alternatives. Even if we say violence is a last resort, unless we’ve thought through complex and realistic ways to resolve “criminally violent” scenarios without having to use our fists or guns or bombs, we’ll always resort to violence.
Odds are most Christians just don’t spend that much time pondering what it really means to love our enemies – we do a pretty good job of either avoiding them, imprisoning them, or villifying them. We’re scared of our enemies -real and imagined. There is no fear in love.

I never kill my enemies, however I fully support removing those members of the human race that have proved to be dangerous to the rest of us.

Although I would identify myself with those who find biblical and theological support for “just war,” I believe that, as a Christian, I must always consider the pacifist witness.
I generally don’t like “bumper sticker” theology, and abhor arguing via bumper stickers, but this one makes for a great discussion starter and to help everyone think about their position.

RJS #29 – I, personally, lean toward Kierkegaard’s quote by Chadm in #31. I think “just war” theory and many hypothetical arguments we come up with are our way of rationalizing to escape the teachings of Jesus we just don’t like.
A couple of points, though: Although Jesus’ death at the hands of his enemies was certainly more than just an example, it was not any less. Jesus was constantly acting out the kingdom ethics that he preached.
Second, one thing I don’t see in these comments (though I confess, I haven’t read them all) is a mention of where we are in the story, the narrative of God’s work and how violence fits in there. If we are a part of the “new creation” (Col. 5:17), then we are a part of a kingdom where there is no place for violence. I am participating in “the already”, in eager anticipation of the “not yet”. I don’t know about you, but I don’t imagine people will be killing each other when God fully renews heaven and earth. The Old Testament examples fail to take our present place in God’s story into consideration.
Third, I see killing as a stewardship issue. All life belongs to God. I have no right to take something that does not belong to me. And once I take that life, there is absolutely no chance for that person to ever repent and turn to God. If I am a steward of what God has created, then my job is to do whatever is best for the other person. That excludes killing. It does not exclude prison and rehabilitation, but killing is off the list.
Fourth, and finally (for now), WWII has been brought up repeatedly in this conversation, and for good reason. However, I think the role of the Christian was played out in several different competing roles during the war, some good, some bad. Examples: On the “bad” side, many factions of the church in Germany supported the Nazi party and helped bring them to power. The church’s role SHOULD have been to examine the Nazi party and prophetically and universally denounced the movement. In not doing so, the church actually cooperated with their genocide. On the “good” side, however, the church in many areas in Europe fulfilled its mission by providing safe-haven and safe passage for those who were being pursued and persecuted by the Axis, and did so peacefully. In that case, followers of Jesus did what followers of Jesus SHOULD do in a war-time situation.
I struggle with this, as anyone does. But what would happen if we Kingdom people took violence off the table and were forced to use our imaginations to find other ways of settling our arguments? My guess is, it would probably look a little more like Jesus, Ghandi, and MLK.
David

chad m #31
Thanks for the quote from SK… while I think there’s a lot of truth to that, I think it’s very clear the Kierkegaard is exaggerating to make his point there. It’s only a few paragraphs earlier in the same piece he calls on the readers: “Kill the commentators!” There’s a difference between not taking seriously the authority of scripture (what I think SK is ultimately getting at here) and taking seriously the complexity of the issues addressed in scripture.
David #13 and Andrew #16
I think you guys are falling into that precise hole: not taking seriously the complexity of the issue. At least, that’s the impression your wording gives. “I don’t see what’s so confusing”… then I would submit that you haven’t thought hard enough about this. Christ said just as clearly in Luke 12 that everyone ought to sell all their possessions and give to the poor. Perhaps that issue has received a totally different treatment in your process of interpretation. Once you start adding factors to the question of violence, like defenseless innocents, it is simply no longer an uncomplicated matter. As my OT professor–himself an unapologetic pacifist–once said, the reality is that sometimes you simply cannot have both peace and justice. *That* is complicated.
C. S. Lewis wrote a good essay explaining his views: ‘Why I am not a Pacifist’. He uses scripture as well, and not primarily the OT.
That being said, I am on the side of the pacifists… it’s just not because I think it’s such a simple matter. In the end I really don’t know–I hope to never have to find out–just *how* convinced I am.

A question – If we as the church – followers of Jesus are to be a signpost pointing to the future reign of God – A Riegn in which swords will be beat into plows – How can we advocate the use of violence – This is our ethic to be a People of God’s future – in this day.

Chad #56-
Good question and thoughts.
But what does that look like in terms of protecting and defending innocent lives?
I don’t see many, especially Christians, advocating violence simply to use violence. There usually is an underlying cause.

Armageddon is not the final word. that’s chapter 16. that’s not the end.
the “end” even at Armageddon is the proclamation from Heaven: “It is done”.
The creative speech of God, who in the beginning spoke forth creation, speaks forth the beginning of the end–the re-ordering of the whole creation.
despite whatever “violent” imagery we see in revelation, that imagery is not given to us…it is attributed to God and God’s acting in the end.
As mentioned before, the people of God have a role distinct to the government/world. That role is also distinct from God’s own role in re-ordering the world.
The final word in revelation is NOT armageddon. the final word is the healing of the nations, the removal of sin and death, the wiping of tears from eyes.
If armageddon is the final word than the ultimate value of creation is not redeeming love, but brute power.
revelation does not bear out an anti-peacemaking stance.

David as a honored “man of God” is the biggest interpretive croc I can imagine. If you read carefully, all the kings that were “men after God’s own heart” were identified as such for supporting the worship of “one God, in one place,” naming in the Temple in the city of Jerusalem.
I can in no way support David as an example that we should follow or look to. Consider one example. When David was about to capture Jerusalem, the residents taunted him, saying, “The blind and the lame could kick your butt.” So the first people David executed in Jerusalem? The blind and the lame!
Meanwhile, in Matthew’s Gospel, what was Christ’ first action upon entering Jerusalem? The healing of the blind and the lame
This is just one example of the need to read the Bible’s Big Story from a Christ-centered perspective. If you do not do that, then you are in danger of justifying sick biblical passages such as “dash the babies heads against the rocks” and “may his wife become a widow and his children orphans.” I know that my reading is the minority position to the Bible as “owner’s manual” default interpretive system of many.
I invite folks to consider interpreting the Bible in the most healing, Christ-centered way possible. And I guess that means, for me, taking the “love your enemies” text more literally than most of the Bible.
Finally, the most powerful force for peace in history has been “Lamb power” (= the Jesus of Revelation rightly understood). The Lamb conquers via blood, love, grace– not force.

@ ChrisB 52. I think we have to acknowledge that as sinners we all have proven dangerous. The sliding scale of sins might sound like wisdom to us and Dante’s circles, but its not something we find in God’s assessment of sin, is it? Re: Just War theory; as was mentioned, it was established to provide an extreme exception for Christians to participate in war. It governs enry into war (only in self-defense) and it governs how the war is to be carried out (i.e. proportionate retaliation, aka eye or eye, not head for eye). Jesus seems to directly undermine retaliation by his followers in his life and teaching, esp. the sermon on the mount. Re: WWII and just cause. The Germans also held themselves as being in just cause at the start of the war due to the injustice of the Treaty of Versaille. Woodrow Wilson, who led us into the “War to End All Wars” was very disappointed with the outcome of the treaty which directly created the conditions for Hitler and the Nazi party to come to power. I would argue that if the Allies in WWI had been more Christlike and just at the end of that war, we would have headed off WWII- much in the same way that our rebuilding of Japan after WWII turned them into an ally, albeit a very reluctant one at first.

Comment 60 was mine, it lost my name and formatting when I had to refresh the code at the bottom. Sorry

Tim,
Where in the two accounts of David’s conquest of Jerusalem do you get the idea that David killed the blind and lame residents of Jerusalem?
David is a man after God’s own heart, and a role model to us, because of his tremendous trust in God and in His purposes.

2 Samuel 5:6-12= an anti-example of what it means to follow God. Think about it. Pray about it. Imagine the actual victims being butchered. This is a crime against humanity!
Matthew 21:14= what the true embodiment of God looks like, the template we are called to follow. Jesus suffered death on the cross, he did not inflict it. Christ’s followers are to follow His pattern.
As I read the Bible, I can in no way support David as a role model. He was a sick monster. Yet his story is inspired to mirror back to us what disgusting religion looks like. Only by reading and interpreting the Bible through the Christ lens will there be true shalom.

I think that perhaps calling David a “sick monster” is going too far, since the Jews would have had this as a part of their cannon we can assume that at least under the old covenant there are aspects of David’s character which are worthy of emulation. Reading the Old Testament through the lens of Christ is inevitable for Christian interpreters, however the original meaning of the text for its original audience should also be taken into account, otherwise Old Testament passages can say anything we like about Jesus. I think that it is one of the unhelpful remnants of modernism that we brand people as either ‘evil’ or ‘good’, when in truth, apart from Jesus who was completely good, all people have the potential to commit good and evil, and often do. Should we totally discount the admirable examples great followers of God simply because for example Wesley got kicked out of the colonies for ‘stalking’ or Barth’s interesting relationship with his assistant? I’m sure if you think about it you can come up with several NT characters with some serious character faults!?!

I’d like to call a halt to the David discussion, except to say this: yes, David was violent; no, David is not an unequivocal example. But Tim has to explain why the early Christians feasted on seeing Jesus in Davidic terms.

My bottom line. Even though I am not a bumper sticker theology person, I am in favor of the bumper sticker prompting this discussion. I attempt to read the Bible in the most healing, compassion promoting, justice making, peace bringing way possible. So…
Good point Craig about my Christian reading of the David story. As a clarification: I am open to healthy, life-giving, wholeness-creating Jewish interpretations.
Yes, Scott, you are right, too. I do have explaining to do on Jesus being the “son of David.” In brief: Jesus was the “David” that David was meant to be, the King that the kings were meant to be. Of course, that’s how I see it, and I could be wrong in my applying the phrase “sick monster” to David as God’s “anointed one.” And I ask Scot’s forgiveness for my next sentence. Given the David story as it stands in scripture, how do you all understand Jesus as Son of David”?
And to be on point to the discussion: I take Jesus at his radical word on “loving enemies”, giving privilege to his teaching and embodied example. I am at least a pacifist wannabe. While I am not normally a literalist when reading the Bible, I take the “loving enemies” Hope this clarifies

Apologies, I mean “Scot” not “Scott” in my previous note!

I love the sticker, and I’ve had numerous conversations with Christians, always men, about to join the military (I’ve never convinced them to do otherwise). Here are trends I’ve found in these conversations:
1) What about the OT? We follow Jesus example. Moses didn’t die for my sins, David wasn’t raised from the dead, and I’m not being conformed to the image of Samson (thankfully). While there are tremendous difficulties reconciling God in the OT with Jesus, when it comes to how Christians are to live, Jesus is the model that trumps all others.
2) When I present the evidence in the Gospels that I feel outline Jesus pointing to a path of total nonviolence, the response is most often along the lines of “Hmm. I guess I just disagree.” No one has ever challenged the interpretation that Jesus preached and modeled nonviolence. They simply can’t conceive of power exerted in a way that doesn’t include some kind of force, and therefore choose to ignore these teachings. I think this is likely a result of a culture of violence constantly promoted in the US and at least acquiesced to by the church (I’m speaking very broadly here)
3) I’m often posed with “If someone broke into your house and was assaulting and about to rape your wife, are you saying you wouldn’t use force to stop them?” My response is, I don’t know. My prayer is that the Holy Spirit would prompt me with another option in that moment. The attitude behind this question is an issue, however. It suggests that, if, in the most extreme example we can imagine, force would be justified, then the use of force is justified in any number of other, less extreme circumstances (the military). This is never a good line of thinking, for any topic. It plays into polarizing, hyperbolic debates which are all too common.
4) I believe one of the unique truths of the Gospel message is that the Kingdom of God is manifest when we love our enemies, not in spite of their status as enemies, but precisely BECAUSE they are enemies. We don’t love others even though they are enemies, but it is their status as enemies that initiates an extravagant, self-sacrificial love on the part of the Christian.
For further reading, check out Mark Kurlansky’s “Nonviolence: 25 Lessons in the History of a Dangerous Idea” in which he makes a distinction between pacifism and nonviolent resistance that I have found helpful. He also addresses questions regarding just war and WW2 that I found extremely helpful.
Additionally, Greg Boyd has written extensively on nonviolence and far better than I ever could. Check out some articles on his website, http://www.gregboyd.org
“Gandhi and Jesus” by Terrence Rynne examines Gandhi’s satyagraha and the teachings of Jesus.
It is a constant struggle for me to avoid an attitude of superiority and judgment towards Christians who disagree with me regarding this issue. I am convinced that the refusal to model a consistent, comprehensive non-violent lifestyle is a tremendous setback for the church today. Since I have made a commitment to nonviolence, I have felt as though chains have been removed from my mind. I think differently about every situation. I have found myself growing from a position of purely physical nonviolence to exploring intellectual and philosophical nonviolence as well. This is a hard teaching of Jesus, probably why it was abandoned so early in the church’s history.
Grace and peace to you all.
Joe

I know we are not to be speaking of David but imbedded in his saga is the story of Abigail, who so impressed him with her alternative to violence that he not only spared her tribe from slaughter, her married her.
WWII: We practiced radical forgiveness, compassion, love the enemy and reconciliation when we rebuilt Germany and Japan after WWII when it would have been easy to justify revenge and violence. That is how we build peace.

Joe,
I enjoyed reading your thoughtful comment. My reaction to your comment about the scenario of number 3 is that your best answer, now while you have your wits about you and are able to think of various ideas, is “I don’t know, I hope the Holy Spirit will prompt me.” I don’t want to make light of the fact that the Spirit might do this very thing – but when I am on the other side of this conversation I notice that the one in your shoes rarely if ever offers any practical suggestions for what to do. This is not in accord with how wisdom normally works. Wisdom normally involves being aware of various options and making the best plans possible, even if holding them with a loose hand.
Mace, a club, shine a light in their eyes, a taser, spray them with a fire extinguisher…all of the things I can think of involve at least some level of violence and the pacifist shudders at any mention of any violence at all, taking very literally the words and life of Jesus as the end-all example that we are to do no violence. Calling the police only moves the violence question back a step.
I know this conversation can go round and round in circles and that careful thinkers have written well on both sides. And I know the Lord can work using nonviolent means, like when a grandma leads a thug in prayer. However, I am unconvinced that is how it usually works. In my mind, you use wisdom to avoid needlessly dangerous situations and sometimes you use wisdom to defend yourself and/or others. In fact, sometimes one sacrifices oneself for the sake of others in a way that involves violence against an attacker. School shootings, church shootings, etc. etc. all come to mind – how to stop the attacker without at least a threat of violence?
Not trying to shout you down, just pushing back that I would love to hear more practical suggestions about nonviolent means to deal with an intruder or attacker.

there are non-lethal ways to restrain an intruder/attacker.
there is also flight.

i think, again, we have people articulating a problem with “hard” pacifism…that’s not where most pacifists/peace-makers stand…

For practical non-violence see the recent movie “Pray the devil back to hell” available through netflix. It is about the interfaith group of Liberian women (Christian, Muslim) who banded together to force an end to a civil war that began in 1989 and often made use of child soldiers. A key moment comes when they surround the building where the men are fooling around with peace talks. They link arm and arm and say, “We’re not letting you out until you have negotiated a settlement.” When threatened with arrest, they threatened to strip naked, thus shaming the security guards. Guess what? The men got to work and hammered it out.
Please… let us do some research and see the many times when conflict was ended after the LONG FAILURE of violence. C’mon folks, let be practical!

MatthewS – You’re right. From a practical standpoint, in those extreme situations, nonviolence seems to leave one wanting for an option. This is precisely why the nonviolent teaching and life of Jesus is one of his hardest teachings. Many of Jesus teachings are flat-out impractical (beatitutdes).
It seems that, when threatened with torture and execution, of themselves and others, Jesus and the early Christians did not consider violence an acceptable response.

i can’t bring myself to a point where i can imagine Jesus shooting a gun. is there any situation in which we can imagine Jesus shooting a gun, wielding a sword? as long as i can’t imagine Jesus killing someone, i find it hard to believe he would ask his followers to IMITATE him by killing someone. even in self-defense.

I’m absolutely astonished that there have been 75 comments on this post without one mention of John Howard Yoder. Instead of recounting his arguments here, let me simply direct one *seriously* interested in Christian pacifism to his works:
(1) On personal/family protection from a violent intruder, see his book: WHAT WOULD YOU DO? (Herald Press)
(2) On how the Old Testament DOESN’T support war, see his essay, “From the Wars of Joshua to Jewish Pacifism” in his book THE WAR OF THE LAMB (Brazos)
(3) On how Jesus’ life and death DOES serve as a pattern for Christians, see his book THE POLITICS OF JESUS (Eerdmans)
(4) For his criticism of just war theory, see his book: WHEN WAR IS UNJUST: BEING HONEST IN JUST WAR THINKING (Wipf & Stock)
(5) For his critical historical discussion of Christian views of war, see his book: CHRISTIAN ATTITUDES TO WAR, PEACE, AND REVOLUTION (Brazos)
(5) For responses to the many other pithy ways Christians dismiss pacifism (including comments made above), see his: THE ORIGINAL REVOLUTION: ESSAYS ON CHRISTIAN PACIFISM; DISCIPLESHIP AS POLITICAL RESPONSIBILITY; THE CHRISTIAN WITNESS TO THE STATE; and others.
If after reading any of the aforementioned texts, the reader is still willing to quickly dismiss pacifism as sub-biblical or sub-Christian, then by all means…