But while admirable as a personal witness, Claiborne’s extrapolation of nonviolent approaches to national policy is extremely naive. For example, as Matthew Tuininga reports, Claiborne gave a lecture at Emory University in which he asked:
What if the United States had responded to the 9/11 Terrorist Attacks after the example of the Amish, declaring forgiveness towards the 19 hijackers who took 3,000 lives on that terrible day and responding to their evil not with war but with love and financial support for their families?
Rewarding the families of suicidal terrorists sounds more like something Saddam Hussein would (and did) do rather than a policy that should be advocated by a Christian peace activist. But as Keith Pavlischek explains, the neo-Anabaptism of Claiborne and his supporters doesn’t have much in common with traditional Christian pacifism:
Claiborne like most modern neo-Anabaptists, on the other hand, insists that the sword is ordained nowhere and never at all. Not only does he insist that Christians repudiate the “violence” of the sword, but that the civil authority do so as well, even in the face of evil, oppression and wickedness. The only moral option for civil authority, according to Claiborne, is some form of “nonviolence.”
Contemporary neo-Anabaptists dissent not only from Augustinian, Thomist, Lutheran, and Calvinist political theology, but from classic Christian pacifism as well. It is high time for traditional evangelical Christian pacifists to call Clairborne and other neo-Anabaptists out on this point, or explain why they repudiate the sectarian pacifism of their theological ancestors.
October 30th, 2012 | 4:13 pm
Please provide a real substantial quotation from Shane Claiborne rather than one rhetorical question that he posed to an audience.
October 30th, 2012 | 4:45 pm
I’m increasingly coming to the conclusion that being a pacifist is something that defies generalizations or being turned into an “ism.” Like the commenters on the linked-to article above, it is truly head-shaking that Claiborne apparently has a Che Guevara poster on his wall. To my mind, this exemplifies the sort of thing that happens when what in practice amounts to an individual decision not to fight in wars gets turned into a “movement.” I count myself a pacifist because I can’t really envision a realistic set of circumstances in which I’d assent to fighting in a war, and in the end, I think that that level of decision-making is about all any of us can do. Pavlishchek’s references to classical pacifism, and to previous commentators such as Calvin, Augustine, and Aquinas are fine as far as they go, but I’ve yet to see a convincing argument that it is possible to identify a really “just” war far enough in advance to actually do anything constructive with that knowledge. Just wars only happen in retrospect, but a plague on Claiborne’s house, too, for going down the inherently flawed road of generalization, too.
October 30th, 2012 | 5:01 pm
I do want to clarify something – you and Mr. Pavlischek are not just critiquing “Neo-Anabaptism”, you are critiquing Anabaptism and the Radical Reformation and their relationship with the government and violence. Mr. Claiborne is not saying anything that you can’t find in Anabaptist history.
Shane’s idea of responding to violence with love and generosity is not about rewarding terror, but about transforming and overcoming the systems of violence with love. If you are not familiar with the idea of transforming violence and oppression with love, humility and generosity, you may want to examine Matthew 5.
October 30th, 2012 | 7:15 pm
As one who tries to follow Jesus’ and Paul’s commands regarding enemies,
http://www.amazon.com/Christian-Pacifism-Fruit-Narrow-ebook/dp/B005RIKH62/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_2
I agree with the Schleitheim Confession [quoted in the linked article] that the ‘sword’ is ordained of God for use by the magistrates. I would not use that, as a Christian of any persuasion, to argue for capital punishment ‘because the Bible says so.’ [Num. 35:33 give the reason that God commanded death and that reason has been, once for all, satisfied by Christ's atonement.]
In Claiborne’s rhetorical question, I think he as fallen into the same wrong idea of government that the ‘Christian Nation’ proponents do.
On the sword from Paul’s perspective:
http://textsincontext.wordpress.com/2012/05/31/romans-13-in-context/
October 31st, 2012 | 7:52 am
Ali Agca wh tried to assassinate Pope John Paul 11 found repentance , in jail ; if the nation has listened to the latter , in exhortaion , not to go to war with Iraq, we might even have found a world wide model, in how to deal with terroism , of helping persons and nations , to find repentance through similar meausres and empowered the Christian cultures in the whole region, since Christianity alone gives us the means and grace of true repentance and forgivness , in the merits of The Lord as well as the grace , to repent on behalf of the other !
The nation might have come up with means of massive temporary camps ,both domestically and abroad, for all who hold such idelogies , to help them to accept how to find true mercy ..
and thus help to fulfill the verse in Mathew 5 – to pray for those who persecute , by helping them , to pray too ..
But , then again, we would have to find camps for the parents of the unborn , who get killed in the womb ..those who murder their wives ,
through the subtle hatred of wanting them to be pumped up with chemicals, so that they can be objects of lust ..and kill themselves , as well as curse their progeny , by other immoral means
And if we have had repentance and remedies of these domestic situations, the enemy may never have aroused those others against us !
And we still can call on the mercy of The Lord , on behalf of all such situations as above , which , in one sense would be true love ,of not confusing the enemy , by making them think they did right , by obscuring the need for repentance !
October 31st, 2012 | 11:02 am
We should also consider the examples set my Desmond Tutu, Nelson Mandela, and in Rwanda. It is possible to transform the world by extending love and forgiveness to our enemies. Is it practical? Maybe not. Is it radical? Certainly. Will it change lives? Absolutely. And I agree with Bob Brown. Read Matthew 5.
October 31st, 2012 | 12:51 pm
Bravo!
I honestly didn’t think KP could be topped in the hyperbole department, but to link Claiborne’s view with that of Saddam Hussein is, by far, the Gold Medal winner.
Why not throw Jesus in that comparison for the time he healed the centurion’s ear… I’m pretty sure the Jewish community thought the Romans to be terrorists… so Jesus rewarded one by healing him, right?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact