I didn't have time to finish what I was saying or gather my thoughts properly yesterday, so I will attempt again!!
Thankyou for everyone who responded to my previous post, I didn't realise people actually read this that much!! lol
Anyway, what interested me in replies was the absence of where the Old Testament fits in with Jesus teachings on Non-Violence. It was interesting to note that this seems to be a bit of a "gap" in most people's ideas, and it made me ponder that surely if we have theologies, they should be 'whole' theologies, based on both Testaments. Jesus himself said that he came to "fulfill" the law, not abolish it, so when we consider a subject, then surely both revelations of Yahweh and Yeshua should come into it?
Hmmmmmmmm... will have to ponder that one...
I think, because I rushed to present a case, my thoughts weren't really formed properly, and maybe I wasn't as clear as I should have been. I do consider the teachings of Jesus to point to non-violence definitely, but how you reconcile those on a national basis, I still struggle with. The task must be to reconcile them, because if we simply ignore them, we shoot a hole in our own faith. As argued before though, we need to look at the whole message and context, and then come to a conclusion, one which I confess I haven't achieved yet!!
If, as I suggested previously, Jesus teachings were far more radical than how we read them today with 2000 years of 'Christemdom' behind us, then the question begs to be asked, how do they apply? Agressive Non-Resistance is certainly an option, but how does it work itself out in a national situation? Someone commented on the fact of the Holocaust and the Nazi's, how do we interpret Jesus' teaching in the light of these events? It's interesting to note that Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a German Evangelical Pastor in Hitler's era, felt so outraged at the evil that was overtaking his country, that he became involved in a plot to assasinate Hitler, and was eventually imprisoned and killed for it. In some of his letters, he talk about asking for God's forgiveness for plotting to kill, but seeing no other way forward in that situation. Some of Bonhoeffer's letters are very moving, as he accepts his imprisonment as a punishment for plotting evil, but still seeing it as an act of loving desperation in an evil situation.
I really struggle with this issue as a whole, and would like to say I am a pacifist, but I still struggle to see how the purest form of Pacifism could work out in a sin-damaged world. Do I like War? Of course I don't. Should a Christian exalt in war? Of course they shouldn't. Should a Christian try every other means possible to resolve a situation first? Of course they should. But the question remains... After every possible solution has been tried, every avenue of diplomacy exhausted, what then?
I can only see then the final option of warfare. I do not believe that Just War Theory is as easy to use in this day and age though, with the prolification in Nuclear Arms, this option seems to be less and less likely. How Nuclear Weapons can be "discriminate", I do not know.
Basically, I still have lots of things to ponder, but I still can't get past "loving your neighbour" in protecting a victim of aggression, whether that be on a personal or national scale?
Any Comments?
Monday, November 08, 2004
God, War & The Cross... Pt 2
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I too am struggling to understand pacifism in relation to simple rational choice situations. Perhaps it would be helpful for someone to sketch out exactly what pacifism is in terms of its practical use. If pacifism is not passivity, how would pacifism play a role in advising behaviour in the following situations?
ReplyDelete1) As leader of government, public pressure is mounting on you to intervene in Sudan to forcibly prevent further genocide. Diplomatic overtures have failed, as have sanctions, and the only realistic way in which the murder can be prevented would be to physically elimate the murderers via armed intervention. This would undoubtedly be an act of aggression, but not intervening would also mean the certain massacre of thousands of innocent men, women and children.
2) You are a villager in a poor country, and a group of teenage Rebel Fighters have begun to burn down your house. In front of you they cut of the hands and feet of your wife, rounding up the children they haven't already killed and taking them away to become child soldiers. You have access to a gun, as do your neighbours. Do you violently repel the rebels with gunfire, killing them, or do you allow them to kill, maime, and then leave?
3) You are working for the United States Airforce. A plane under the control of hi-jackers is on a distasterous collision course with a high-rise building. There are hundreds of passengers on the plane but thousands in the building. You have the option of shooting down the plane, killing the passengers, but saving people who would otherwise have died.
If pacifism sanctions aggresive protective action in any of these cases then it seems be a practically meaningless term. But I'm sure I have got this all wrong.