Comments on: Hauerwas on Lewis; Augustine on Them Both?

By: Michael Snow

Michael Snow — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 02:42:09 +0000

What our non-pacifist brothers continually ignore is the abhorrence of bloodshed felt by the early Christians and Christian pacifists through the centuries.

“My son, I had it in my heart to build a house to the name of the Lord my God. 8 But the word of the Lord came to me, saying, ‘You have shed much blood and have waged great wars. You shall not build a house to my name, because you have shed so much blood before me on the earth.”–David

By: Steve Billingsley

Steve Billingsley — Wed, 29 Aug 2012 22:04:54 +0000

Keith Pavlischek,

My only response would be that most of the pacifism I have seen in America (at least since the end of the draft) is a point of view with no real consequences. It’s mostly just political posturing.

It may or may not properly defined pacifism, but it has been generally irrelevant.

(BTW, I don’t think that the US military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq have been appropriate, proportional, necessary or just, but I don’t consider myself a pacifist because there might be circumstances where I would support a military action)

By: arty

arty — Wed, 29 Aug 2012 21:25:13 +0000

@ Keith:

My point was that pacifism has real meaning only in response to some particular scenario. I will not become embroiled in some discussion about definitions. I take this position because pacifists often become too preachy and didactic, as though the problem of war isn’t actually all that thorny, as if the just war folks make no claims worthy of serious consideration. I remain unconvinced by just war arguments, and so cannot at present envision a set of circumstances in which I would willingly fight in a war, but I’m not going to go around pretending like perfectly honorable people haven’t come to different conclusions than mine.

That’s my position, I don’t really give a rip what you call it, which is not that significant anyway, the world being made up of people doing or not doing things. I leave it to latter day Soviets to change the world by renaming it.

By: Keith Pavlischek

Keith Pavlischek — Wed, 29 Aug 2012 20:35:10 +0000

“I generally agree with Steve, that the only real “pacifism” is in opposition to particular conflicts,”–

Well, well now– in what meaningful sense is it “pacifism” if there are some wars that you do not oppose and will fight?

Feel free to re-define terms to your heart’s content, but THAT AIN’T PACIFISM.

By: Keith Pavlischek

Keith Pavlischek — Wed, 29 Aug 2012 20:30:04 +0000

I am inclined to think that Lewis was not quite so ignorant of the history of Christian theology to assume that his criticism of pacifism is limited to the liberal pacifism of the early 20th century. As if he was unfamiliar with Anabaptists and Mennonites, or the Schleitheim Confession? As if he would have surrendered his opposition to pacifism if he lived long enough to read Yoder’s “The Politics of Jesus,” or Sojourners magazine!

By: TheRev72

TheRev72 — Wed, 29 Aug 2012 17:46:23 +0000

I think the author correctly identifies this as a question of eschatology. But it is also a question of witness, an important category for Hauerwas and other “illiberal” pacificists (I like that term). What is the best witness to Christ? Is it better to suffer violence (as Christ did) or to resist it violently. The Christian martyrs of the Early Church chose to courageously suffer the violence of the Empire after the example of Christ. Their witness helped convert that very same Empire – a victory they could not have achieved with swords. We turn to a “realist” justification of war and violence largely out of a failure of Christian imagination. Ask yourself, after 9/11 would it have been better to send thousands of troops to the Middle East or thousands of missionaries? How you answer that question says everything about who you really think is in control of history (an eschatological issue, to be sure).

By: Michael Snow

Michael Snow — Wed, 29 Aug 2012 15:29:36 +0000

“What pride flushes the patriot’s cheek when he remembers that his nation can
murder faster than any other people. Ah, foolish generation, ye are groping in the
flames of hell to find your heaven, raking amid blood and bones for the foul thing
which ye call glory. Killing is not the path to prosperity; huge armaments are a curse
to the nation itself as well as to its neighbours. 1026.706==Charles Spurgeon

D.L. Moody: “There has never been a time in my life when I felt that I could take a gun and shoot down a fellow-being. In this respect I am a Quaker.”

Cyprian: “The world is wet with mutual blood(shed): and homicide is a crime when individuals commit it, (but) it is called a virtue, when it is carried on publicly.”
etc.
http://www.amazon.com/Christian-Pacifism-Fruit-Narrow-ebook/dp/B005RIKH62/ref=pd_rhf_dp_p_t_1

http://textsincontext.wordpress.com/2012/05/31/romans-13-in-context/

By: jason taylor

jason taylor — Wed, 29 Aug 2012 15:21:35 +0000

arty the comparison with trying to outlaw abortion is flawed. If abortion is outlawed it will become just another crime and no one thinks it can be eliminated. Pro-lifers simply want the rights of citizens to be protected from crime to be extended to unborn children; there is nothing utopian about that and there sure isn’t anything theocratic. On the other hand, the inate fallacy of pacifism is that the last non-pacifist will inevitably be surrounded by lots of tempting prey.

How do you get other people to stop waging war? If you wish to convince them you are wasting time. If you wish to force them you simply have to make war yourself.

On the other hand if by pacifism you mean you yourself refrain from making war that is fine.

By: arty

arty — Wed, 29 Aug 2012 14:15:11 +0000

I generally agree with Steve, that the only real “pacifism” is in opposition to particular conflicts, otherwise, it is like being against disease, or, in this political season, being “for” progress. In light of the common criticism about pacifist utopianism in the article though, I tend to look at the matter this way: As far as I can tell, the NT strengthens the interdict “do not kill”, of the OT, and I don’t see how we are allowed to rationalize our way around that. To some extent, any dedicated attempt to follow Christ can be accused of utopianism on some grounds (that’s just utopian to think that we can/should make the United States City of God-certified abortion-free), and I’ve always viewed it as better to follow what I take to be the clear logic of Christ’s teaching, and let the chips fall. It’s not as though Christians aren’t perfectly comfortable being accused of irrational utopianism where other issues are concerned.

By: Papa Z

Papa Z — Tue, 28 Aug 2012 20:13:04 +0000

It needs but one foe to breed a war, not two…. And those who have not swords can still die upon them. — JRR Tolkien “The Return of the King”