Christian Pacifism

The idea of Christian pacifism is a concept that has always troubled, confused, and therefore beguiled me. Late Night, we have briefly discussed the topic before, but more as a tangent than as the exclusive focal point of conversation. So I’ll follow your lead and do my best to spark some debate on the issue.

The argument for Christian pacifism in the face of violence and oppression is deeply rooted in Biblical teachings. In the passage LNC offered up (Romans 12: 17-21) the command is explicit: “Do not repay anyone evil for evil,” “Never avenge yourselves,” etc.

The instruction to avoid violence at all costs seems to me to be one of the most clearly stated, inarguable orders in the Bible. Yet, when I think about it logically, placing pragmatism and realism above blind faith, it also seems to be one of the most impractical.

As individuals it may be realistic to live a life of pacifism. But we live in the most powerful, influential nation in the world, and as such we (as a country) constantly face the threat of attack from groups that disagree with America’s ideology, democracy, culture, etc. America, as a nation, simply can’t afford to be pacifistic. This would be seen as a weakness and exploited.

The problem is that America loves to think of itself as a “Christian Nation,” and here we face the sticky issue of trying to merge faith and politics (a problem that extends far beyond the idea of pacifism and has resulted in some utterly mind boggling legislations).

My honest opinion is that faith, and biblical concepts such as pacifism, are personal and only work when applied on an individual basis. While it may be realistic for you and me to be pacifists, it would be absurd for a nation to disband its army and adopt pacifism (one of many reasons that the idea of a “Christian Nation” is rubbish).

Here we face another problem: the majority of this country claims itself to be Christian. If everyone claiming to be Christian became a pacifist, America would find it difficult to assemble an army. I’m not really sure what to do about this. (Maybe an army of robots?)

I foresee this conversation at some point landing on the concept of the “just war.” I apologize for this preemptive strike, but I maintain that the idea of a “just war” simply doesn’t work. More often than not, the “justness” of a conflict is determined by whichever group holds the power in that time and place. Posterity determines which wars were just, but due to emotions and immediate interests we lack the objective reasoning necessary to determine whether the use of violence is justified.

I look forward to hearing everyone’s thoughts.

Thanks for reading.