Does Christianity require Pacifism

Scripture says to love my enemies. It also says to love and take care of my family. Scripture never pits one against the other. I will never choose my enemy over my family. No amount of love my enemies justifies failing to take care of my family. None.

 

The best approach to Scripture is to know that where we see a dilemma, we lack complete understanding. The best response to our lack of understanding is a solution that does not require any kind of exclusion--certainly not mutual exclusion. Both horns of a Biblical dilemma are true. To choose one over the other is never a good idea.

I am sure that taking care of your family is 100% God's will. I feel the same about my family. We must find a way to do so that honors all of Jesus teachings 100% as well. Learning together we can likely do that well.

Curiously, in all my years as a father and grandfather, never once have I come close to needing violence or even mild resistance in order to love or care for my family. That isn't true for everyone everywhere, I know that well and personally, having friends in Africa who have suffered terribly. Violence never served a single one of them to God's glory either. Perhaps it would if God called them to take up violence in His name.

 

Non violence = willing to die before using violence to protect yourself or your family. Obedience to the word is no different than Abraham willing to sacrifice Isaac (family) in obedience to the word.

 

Obedience to the word = protect your family

 

Please quote it.

 

1 Timothy 5:8
But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,

 

This is not about violence, it's about getting a job.

 

Lets consider both horns of this dilemma. We are to love our enemies and turn the other cheek. This refers to our actions acting as individuals. However, scripture also addresses actions taken by the "church" to protect the gospel from false teachers. The difference is we would be acting in concert with other believers, and our weapons are words, speaking out against the destructive heresies. And finally, scripture allows believers, acting under the color of government authority to use violence. So there is no dilemma once we acquire a well studied understanding of all the related passages. Several of the "saints" mentioned in Hebrews 11 were "mighty in war."

 

It is about everything. I will not say on this board what I think of a man who will not take care of his family.

 

If you love Jesus more, then you will honor his word about not using violence to protect them.

 

He has never said that. You are wrong.

1 Timothy 5:8
But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

 

Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,

Not protecting her from danger is in direct opposition to this passage as well.

 

Taken to it's logical conclusion, that means you'd never be willing to call the police who would arrive with guns and be willing to respond with violence.

 

Actually, I looked up the word there, and it's much more broad. It's not just about money. It carries more of the idea of doing right by them. If you can't or are not willing to protect them from evil, you're in conflict with this passage.

 

I hardly think so! The OT is full of righteous aggression, warfare and conflict. However, like all things requiring our physical intervention, prayerful intervention prior to action is mandatory, in my view, as we seek HIS complete will in whatever physical action we wish to take, especially when physical violence may be part of the action at hand!

 

It's also full of pacifism, in fact, many of the pacifism verses in the NT, are quotations of the OT. This shows pacifists have horribly misinterpreted both testaments.

 

What word about not using violence? Quote it.
It shouldn't be about not using a whip, not about knocking over another's possessions because you don't like what he's doing with them, not about violent acts where where animals may be hurt (which some people seem to think is the only unforgivable sin).

 

The Sermon on the Mount prohibits violence for any reason.

 

1. If we love our enemies and turn the other cheek as individuals as you say, as Jesus taught, then when are we NOT to act as an individual?

2. Church actions against false teachers, as you mention above, are to be addressed, but not with violence. I think you handled that well.

3. I do not know any passage in the New Testament or Old that would support using violence "under color of government authority." Let me add "secular" government authority. Israel as God's chosen people, was not a secular nation, and it was led by prophets and priests through whom God spoke. God very explicitly mandated and directed the specifics of battles of the OT "saints." I am unaware of that happening in any military or other violence today. If any person on earth told me that God had directed him to have me commit violence, I would be very skeptical indeed, inquire into the persona walk with God, and then make an individual choice on the matter. If God clearly does for me what He did for the "saints" and directs me to commit violence, then, I would do so. I have never known such a case in my life.

I don't think the dilemma is very difficult unless we are determined and prepared to take up violence no matter what Jesus taught. I know we can invent gray areas, and I could name a few where I have been involved, but overall, I think that if we prepare to avoid violence, we will find that most of us will seldom if ever encounter it.

-------

Note: Violence/non-resistance exception--Once I took some children to the zoo. A young man with mental health issues suddenly decided to harm other children and then proceeded to climb into a wolf pit. He was a very large, strong, young man. I happened to have some martial arts skills acquired in my misspent youth, and used some force to subdue the young man until help arrived. No serious violence was used and I think that everyone including the young man (later) agreed restraint was in the best interest of everyone and an act of kindness. I did not use a gun or pain, although I did use some force. Was that wrong?

May God give us wisdom in such cases and in that case, I think He did. My heart is entirely open to Biblical wisdom on the matter.

 

If I were captured at gunpoint by a gang of Muslims who'd tell me "Convert to Islam or die", there wouldn't be anything I could do to stop them. All I could do is die testifying FOR, not against, Jesus.

OTOH, if someone broke into my home, I would be sure it wasn't a Fuller Brush salesman, & if I saw he/she had a weapon, I'd bust some caps on 'em from my own weapon. If he/she were unarmed, chances are that, despite my age, I'm an experienced fighter & some 220 LB. & I could likely subdue 'em. If, however, an invader were to grab my wife, I'd certainly fatally shoot'em without question.