Sermon

PACIFISM

Sermon by Norman Hailes on Sunday 13th of June, 2010

Luke 22: 31-38 Matthew 5: 38-48

We learnt last week that by the 4th Century there was a need for a doctrine which allowed Christians to wage war. Augustine proposed such a doctrine which has been refined, over the centuries. It can be argued that the various conditions of the Doctrine of the Just War do not sit comfortably with the practice of modern warfare. Surely there must be a moral difference between the Spartans defence of Thermopylae and the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. With the possession of weapons of mass destruction it can be argued that pre-emptive strikes are a legitimate tactic. Advocates of pre-emption argue that letting the other side strike the first blow makes no sense when the first blow is likely to be massively destructive. Furthermore some advocates propose the use of pre-emptive strikes to prevent some nations developing weapons of mass destruction. Clearly pre-emption depends on intelligence and this seems to raise all sorts of difficult moral questions. Like who should evaluate the dodgy dossier.

jesus The Christian conscience must experience tension with such activities as - area or extermination bombing, the use of the atomic bomb, the use of napalm, or germ warfare – can these techniques be embraced on the basis of political and military necessity – does the end justify the means? If so is anything permissible in order to win? Is wilful slaughter of the innocent a legitimate tactic which can be embraced by Christians? Where do we draw the line? Can we abrogate all responsibility by agreeing that politicians and the generals should draw the line? We are such a long way from the traditional doctrine of the Just War that its relevance is questionable...

I am not aware that many Christians today invoke the doctrine of the Just War to justify armed conflict. However, the most sincere Christians find themselves poles apart in the interpretation of the evidence in the New Testament. Few would deny that war as an instrument of National policy is a complete denial of the teaching, spirit or methods of Jesus. However, agreement ends here.

1. One position taken by some Christians is essentially ‘pacifist.’ Pacifism is the total renunciation of war. However, Christian pacifism is not equivalent to passivity in other words the alternative of going to war is not to do anything. The prohibition in going to war has its origin in the ethic which demands that every valid means must be used to set wrongs right. The Christian Pacifist position not based:-

a. on the repudiation of all force in the dealings of man with man, which is contrary to popular concepts of the pacifist position.

b. Nor is the position based on a literal interpretation of either the sixth commandment or specific sayings of Jesus from the Sermon on the Mount, although due weight must be given to the sayings of Jesus.

But Christian pacifism is based on the essential principles of the Christian ethic as set out in the teaching and example of Jesus.

What are these principles?

a. The first principle of Jesus’ ethic is love towards one’s neighbour.

b. Secondly the ethic is based on belief in God the father who loves all men equally and impartially and sets enormous value on each individual human soul.

c. All teaching of Jesus must be interpreted in the light of His own way of life and above all - of the cross by which his teaching was sealed.

Rather than ask the question does the Christian ethic ever allow the use of force to overcome evil a pacifist would ask the question what is the Christian way of overcoming evil as set out in the teaching, example and Cross of Jesus Christ. The cross is regarded as a way of meeting and overcoming evil which renders all violent methods obsolete. - the pacifist sees war as we have come to know as so violating the essential principles of Jesus that it represents moral and spiritual collapse. In addition to the teaching of Jesus His example is crucial. How did Jesus overcome evil? He overcame evil with good. Nowhere with the possible exception of the clearing of the temple do we find him using force and even here we do not know how the temple was cleared it may just have been with an authoritative voice to rebuke those desecrating the temple.

The position may therefore be to discriminate between moral and immoral use of force. The problem has nothing to do with political expediency but of moral obligation with the New Testament as the final arbiter.

Our first reading was interpreted by the German theologian Spitta, during the first world war as Jesus summoning his followers to armed defence and therefore condoning the use of force. Incidentally a phrase associated with the German military from the German Empire to the end of the third Reich was ‘Gott mit uns’ (meaning God with us) and indeed it was an inscription on the German military belt buckle. It is not uncommon for both sides in armed conflict to claim the support of God which is difficult to rationalise.

It has to be said that this reading can be interpreted in a variety of other and more probable ways but it seems that there is little to be gained from selecting particular biblical texts and swopping different interpretations.

One of the main arguments against pacifism comes from some theologians who regard pacifism as a modern heresy. Pacifism has been likened to the ancient heresies of Marcion and Pelagius.

The accusation in Marcionism is that pacifism misrepresents the character of God and the revelation of Him in Jesus Christ by blurring the sterner side of the Divine nature as evidenced in the Old Testament. Pacifist would agree that the God of the Old testament is indeed a violent God - whereas Jesus rejects an eye for an eye and advocates love and indeed this conundrum is difficult to reconcile as it has implication for the personality of the trinity. However, the pacifist would argue that it cannot be right that we should seek to imitate the sterner actions of God in our dealings with our fellow man? Vengeance is mine said the Lord. War is not regarded as society co-operating with God in maintaining the moral order. Just as God has laws against the evil doer so must society have laws which demand penalties From a Christian pacifist point of view these sanctions should not only be punitive but also redemptive – designed to win people from evil back to good. They would submit that we are unlikely to convince anyone that our basic moral order is based on love by blowing them to pieces?

2 The further theological criticism is that Pacifism emphasises the Marconite heresy in that the Gospel of Love is expounded at the expense of righteousness and the law. It is true that Pacifists regard the law as set out in the OT as essentially pre-Christian and the NT points to a better way. It is as Christians that pacifists view the OT and it is interpreted with the insight which has come from the NT. The words of Jesus are used as authority for this view - Namely ‘you have heard it was said an eye for an eye … but I say unto you love your enemies…. Furthermore Jesus said I came not to destroy the law but to fulfil the law. The key element for a pacifist is the cross with its unique redemptive power with its ability to defeat evil. The cross is born out of love – God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son. However, some claim that only the foolish would apply redemptive love to international affairs

This leads to another possible position where many sincere Christians take a middle view, here the NT teaching of Jesus is taken at face value and due weight given to the Christ’s method of dealing with evil which could essentially be regarded as the pacifist position. However, some do not regard the ethical teaching of the NT as the whole field of moral obligation which confronts us today. The argument is that many of the conditions in the imperfect world of today would not have been within the experience of Jesus in the first century. Therefore it may be necessary to resort to the war method of resolving differences to overcome a greater evil even it conflicts with the Jesus method. The debate here is not about any ambiguity of the teaching of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount which is accepted as unambiguously pacifist but rather its comprehensiveness and it may be that modern circumstances compel us to call a moratorium on the pacifist’s stance. However, the pacifist would ask whether such a position can permanently satisfy the Christian conscience.

What is the duty of a Christian towards the state – can a Christian pacifist accept the privileges offered by the state but contract out of obligations. Must not individual conscience be subject to the common judgement? Render unto Caesar what is Caesars Where does our loyalty really rest?- did this point of view absolve those who were following orders of the state in concentration camps - what part does conscience have to play- at what point is conscience activated.

The notion that morality applies to individuals and not to governments is completely contrary to a central Christian doctrine that Jesus Christ is the Lord not just of the church, nor of a special sphere of religious activity, but of all of the human activity. The pacifist would argue that we are not called to serve God in our religious activities and to carry on as usual in the other areas of life—far from it. We are called to live as followers of Jesus Christ in every human activity. Thus, we must obey God’s demands for justice and reconciliation not only as families and churches but as societies. The pacifist view is therefore that there is no room in Christian social thought for excluding governments from the realm of morality. If Christian ethics permits killing in certain circumstances, then violence is legitimate as a last resort, both for individuals and for governments. But if, on the other hand, Jesus did in fact demand that the members of His Kingdom renounce all killing, then we must restructure both our personal and our institutional lives to fulfil that demand.

The pacifist point out that the tendency to equate pacifism with capitulation does not do justice to the successes of nonviolent tactics. We remember the courageous Swedish and Danish resistance to the Nazis; we recall the relatively recent transformation of Polish society by Solidarity and the struggle for Indian self-rule led by Gandhi to the struggle for racial equality in the United States led by Martin Luther King, and many others, nonviolent protests which have been a creative and effective force. Whether nonviolent resistance can always overcome aggression and whether its cost in suffering and death will in every case be less than that of war is difficult to say, but at least it cannot be said that pacifism is merely a policy of capitulation.

In the end we are individuals and we seek evidence to support our prejudices but we respect the views of others. I personally would hate to be responsible for the death of another human being but if the life of one of my family was threatened I am uncertain whether I could turn the other cheek.

Amen.