When it comes to taking human lives, the burden of proof should always be on the side taking the lives rather than those who advocate nonviolent responses to aggression.It seem that he poo-poos the idea that war will stop war. He is a pacifist, and I have to me wonder why. Has it ever worked? I am no historian, but I can't think of a single war that has ever been won by pacifists. There is another name for pacifists that is used more often: Losers. Pacifists don't win wars.
WWII ended when the price of continuing the war was greater than the Japanese were willing to pay. You might quibble with the use of the atomic bomb, but it ended a six year war in two weeks, and by some estimates saved the lives of perhaps a quarter of a million American soldiers. How many lives would have been saved had that option been available in 1939?
I am a big fan of being the bigger guy, morally. I think the bully on the playground is best answered by walking away and laughing at the ignorance that brings bully-hood on. I am also a big fan of not picking battles you can't win. Nothing is more embarrassing than losing. Just go on about your business and let the bully rant.
But when it comes to international conflict, pacifism won't work. Idiots will fight until they get hit hard enough to make the pain of getting hit greater than the joy of hitting someone else. Diplomacy only works when it is backed up with something that will hurt. There were some reports that in the days just prior to the Iraq War, the build up of forces in the middle east brought Saddam to a place of negotiation that was refused by the coalition. Whether that's true or not, it is not surprising, because that is the way it is supposed to work.
It is true that might doesn't make right. But might does make people think twice. So let's use it, for the common good of civilization.
All of which reminds me of the great battle against God that has reigned since the dawn of sin in human history. And I am reminded that not even Jesus is a pacifist. He is willing to let Satan's little bullies have some room to work right now. And Psalm 2 describes it as a humorous thing for God. Men band themselves together against the Lord and his Christ, and God laughs. He knows that when the time comes, their bands will be like thread before the mighty power of the victorious Christ. When Jesus comes, he will be no pacifist. He will make war in a white outfit, and it is clear that he doesn't intend to dirty it except for the blood of his enemies.
While we must be careful arguing for war based on God's final victory, we must realize that pacifism is not God's approach to international conflict. There are battles worth fighting, and we must be willing to fight them.
Jesus calls us as believers to endure persecution peacefully and willingly, and not fight back. But there's a reason for that. Jesus is the one that will settle our problems, and he will do it in a way we cannot even imagine.
Here's the message of the Bible in two words: God wins.
Never forget that. But don't try to make international conflict the same as spiritual battles. They aren't.
3 comments:
Thanks for commenting Alan. I think you are conflating a few things. The examples you give of early Christians and Anabaptists are examples of individuals, not nations. To take individual commands and apply them to nations, or to take national commands and apply them to individual is not a correct approach. Furthermore, I don't think we can argue that the pacifism of early Christians converted an empire. That "technicality" is indeed a major technality that undermines your whole argument.
Nations are not commanded to pacifism. They are commanded to "bear the sword" as a nation, to defend and protect its citizens and human dignity. And pacifism doesn't work. Can you name a war that has been won or a conflict that has been solved by international pacifism?
The first example that comes to mind is Ghandi's nonviolent movement that one India's independence from the Brittish empire. The American Civil Rights movement was nonviolent. Aquino's nonviolent revolution in the Philipine's was victorious over the military dictatorship. And though it was not completely bloodless or without some military pressure, much of the democracy that emerged out of the former Soviet empire came without force.
These aren't necessarily Christian examples of pacifist doctrine, but I think they can be signs that there is some validity to nonviolent movements effect on international affairs.
The Illusion of Pacifism
The problem with pacifism is not that it's mistaken or impractical (although it is), nor that it's an illusion indulged in by people whose own safety is protected by non-pacifists (although it is), nor that non-violence has probably caused more loss of life and suffering than it has prevented (although it has) nor even that the record of pacifists in supporting brutal, corrupt and repressive regimes is at least as bad as that of the CIA (although it is). The problem with pacifism is simply that it does not exist.
What is Non-Violence?
Obviously, committing violence yourself is not non-violence!
Hiring or encouraging others to commit violence for you also obviously cannot be termed non-violence. This includes relying on the legal system, which ultimately rests on the use of force as a last resort.
Goading your opposition beyond endurance to the point where they respond violently is non-violence only in the most hypocritical, specious sense.
So is obstructing the activities of others so much that they must resort to force to end the obstruction. The sit-ins of the 1960's were not non-violent in any meaningful sense.
Putting people in the position where they either have to yield to your demands or resort to violence to stop you is emphatically not non-violence.
Nor is provoking a violent response in the hope of getting an over-reaction that will discredit the opposition and gain sympathy for your side.
The last four items on the list are calculated, manipulative, and deceptive practices. Neither Gandhi, nor Martin Luther King, nor the anti-war protestors of the 1960's were non-violent. They were skilled orchestrators of violence by others. The fact that their opponents were usually stupid enough to oblige them doesn't make the tactics any less manipulative or deceptive; in fact, often the response to an initially restrained opposition was an escalation of confrontation in order to cross the threshold into violence.
Can you really claim to be non-violent if you engage in activities that you can reliably predict will end in violence?
Can you really claim to be non-violent if you threaten someone else's position to the point where they feel they must resort to violence to protect their interests? Civil disobedience is a form of violence.
There is no such thing as non-violent crime.
Certainly nobody who uses drugs can claim to be non-violent. Yes, I know all about the theory that our war on drugs is really responsible for the violence, and that if we simply legalized drugs the problem would go bye-bye. But in the world as it is, drugs are banned and traffickers are violent, and if you do business with them you are supporting their violence. Could there be anything more absurd than a vegetarian who won't eat meat because she opposes harming animals, while at the same time using drugs and pretending that she's not contributing to violence?
https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/ProblemWithPacifism.HTM
Post a Comment