After discussing with several men on various blogs I have continued to try to find out the pacifist (non-violent) view-point. What I have seen are two/three very different views and I'll attempt to mention each as I understand it. While I respect many of these people views (especially those in category 2 and 3), I disagree to a point with many of them. Here are the three types I have seen. Let me know what you think.
Category 1:
This group I would almost classify as the "anti" group. They tend to talk bad about Christians that are "fundamentalists", the country they live in, and really anyone that would fall into either of those two categories. I have a hard time understanding this group. It seems as though they want to enjoy the freedoms they enjoy, but want to criticize everyone that would disagree with their point of view.
Here is a quote that I thought fit this group
"The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to taking life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists, whose real though unacknowledged motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration for totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writing of the younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States[.]"
–Orwell’s Notes on Nationalism, May 1945
While not many of the people that I would consider friends fall into this category, I too often lump them all together...
Category 2
These are the pacifists that are much more like the amish. Although they obviously feel their choice in lifestyle is the correct one (often they point to the example of Christ) they do not condemn others that might disagree with them. This group seems to be the more prevalent group among the more educated left-wing group.
While I disagree with this group, they do make some valid points, but too often stop at theology without talking about practical solutions.
I would say this group is the "humanitarians who object to taking life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point" group.
Category 3
These people believe in defending your family, the rights of others, etc... But they do talk about exhausting all options of non-violence first. While I would say I am somewhat behind that, many here still fall short of practical solutions to events of the world today. This group does believe in having a police force, and a military, although many would not serve in either (or they would serve in a non-violent role).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Being a pacifist and being non-violent are different things. Holding a non-violent worldview doesn't necessarily make you a pacifist. And "pacifist" too quickly becomes a category of judgment, a classification with a built in set of absolutes and "doctrine", etc. Subscribing to a non-violent position is a bit broader, if my understanding is correct.
You are right Jason, pacifist does sound a bit extreme. These were just the three main groups I found. Not everyone will fit into each perfect, but they generally fall into one group or the other.
Interesting quote, son. Sounds like it was written in 2006, not 1945. Thanks for educating your mom! Love ya, MamaKat
I think I'd fall in Category 3 here, but I'm still thinking through all the implications.
Jason: That's what I would pick.
What I have learned is that not all "non-violent" people fall into group 1 (which is what I would have thought at first). And although there are some that are in that category, not all are.
Pacifist does conjure up images of weak people. The do nothing complain about everything type.
Category 3 is one that I think most people, without really devlving into a huge discussion would place themselves. It is in our nature to defend ourselves and those we hold dear.
We/I sometimes tout the strength it takes to be "non-violent". The same with words. It is easier for me to blow up and vent my frustration at whatever situation than it is to calm down, relax, and process all of the information before I respond. Also, how much strength does it take to live this day-in day-out. Christ tells us his yoke is light, sometimes it doesn't seem that way but maybe it's because we aren't trying to be that way.
We can't adopt a lifestyle by "dabbling" in it 3 times a week. I would never lose weight if I only worked out and watched my diet 3 times a week and then did whatever I felt like the other 4 days. The same with our lives, which are supposed to imitate Christ. How are we supposed to imitate something we are only around 3 times a week? Not possible, maybe for a little while but in the long run we will peter out and take the easy route.
Sorry for the long response.
Jon: Good points. The only problem I see with category 3 (or really any of them for that matter) is if everyone was in that category we'd have no one to protect us.
I read somewhere recently about the amish schoolhouse shootings a few weeks ago (and I can't recall where now, so I don't have the source) that one of the girls offered herself up first. she went to the guy and said "shoot me first" in an effort to buy some time for the others.
she probably saved someone else's life. not everyone's, but perhaps one who might have been shot instead of her. she may have not been picked and lived.
she could've attempted to take the guy down, steal his gun, shoot him, and save everyone.
which would be more Christ-like? Laying her life down for the others, or killing the intruder?
The answer seems clear. But I also feel pretty certain that if it were me, I'd want to take him down and, at the least, beat the hell out of him, if not kill him, for coming after us. But I don't think I can say that's what Jesus would do, and if I'm to imitate him, shouldn't I try to do so in all situations?
All that to say - IMO, non-violence is very hard to live out, even when we want to. But isn't that the way it is with many, perhaps most, things? Living like Jesus is often hard, no matter the situation.
Greg: Good thoughts. By laying her life down she is someone to look at as an example.
What about situations where taking someone down will save others though?
I think that we, as American Christians, are confusing how we should act as an individual versus how we should act as a nation. No, Jesus would not have killed someone in order to save another's life, but that does not mean that he disagrees with a nation who might do so. I don't think God necessarily WANTS us to go to war, but I believe he knows that there are circumstances when it is inevitable. We have to realize that the teachings of Jesus Christ are all about relationships. When He said for us to love our enemies, I don't think he meant for us as a nation to sit back while other nations trample us. But that's just my personal opinion.
Justin: Thanks for stopping by. I would actually put you more into group 2. In response biblical examples of violence I would point out the entire OT.
That Lerra is a genius! Actually, Romans 13 not only says that governments are ordained by God to take up the sword, but also that we are to be SUBJECT to the government. Does that mean only when we think they are correct? If the government is God's minister for good as Paul says, do I not have the an obligation to His minister as well as to God? I would take the life of and evil person breaking into my home to harm my family and if my government recruited me to help protect my community from evil invaders I would also. God also puts evil people in positions of power to accomplish a purpose leading governments to battle each other. That makes the issue more complicated. Knowing where God stands in national conflicts is challenging at best but clearly God has shown that taking lives is sometimes appropriate and often on a large scale.
Roxy: Very well put.
Post a Comment