This is not meant to be inflammatory in any way, but represents the calmest and most sane reflection I can do on the subject of violence and pacifism. My doctorate is in hermeneutics, and I am trying to approach the issue from that perspective.

I would welcome crituque of my argument.

PEACE (excerpt from the Richmond Declaration of Faith, the doctrinal statement of the Friends Church)

We feel bound explicitly to avow our unshaken persuasion that all war is utterly incompatible with the plain precepts of our divine Lord and Law-giver, and the whole spirit of His Gospel, and that no plea of necessity or policy, however urgent or peculiar, can avail to release either individuals or nations from the paramount allegiance which they owe to Him who hath said, "Love your enemies." (Matt 5:44, Luke 6:27) In enjoining this love, and the forgiveness of injuries, He who has brought us to Himself has not prescribed for man precepts which are incapable of being carried into practice, or of which the practice is to be postponed until all shall be persuaded to act upon them. We cannot doubt that they are incumbent now, and that we have in the prophetic Scriptures the distinct intimation of their direct application not only to individuals, but to nations also. (Isa 2:4, Micah 4:1) When nations conform their laws to this divine teaching, wars must necessarily cease.

We would, in humility, but in faithfulness to our Lord, express our firm persuasion that all the exigencies of civil government and social order may be met under the banner of the Prince of Peace, in strict conformity with His commands.

***************************

(Rom 12:17-19 NRSV) Do not repay anyone evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all. {18} If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. {19} Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave room for the wrath of God; for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord." (1 Pet 3:9 NRSV) Do not repay evil for evil or abuse for abuse; but, on the contrary, repay with a blessing. It is for this that you were called--that you might inherit a blessing. (Mat 5:39 NRSV) But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; (Mat 26:52 NRSV) all who take the sword will perish by the sword.

***************************

Christians who do not hold that complete non-violence is not fundamental to the Christian faith must of necessity take one of the following four hermeneutical positions:

1. Jesus and Paul never made the statements attributed to them above.

Nobody I know argues this, and especially not evangelicals, who put such high stress on the authority of scripture. I remember a Lutheran pastor who expressed concern that I had a low view of scripture because I have interpretive questions about Genesis chapters 1-11. Yet he was a military chaplain and supported the Persian Gulf War. My response was that I had reservations about texts which had legitimate internal questions and he rejected the clear and concrete teachings of the New Testament--so who had the high view of scripture and who had the low one? In actuality--taking this position would put one in league with the JESUS SEMINAR, by trying to argue that the statements about non-violence were not authentic. As I said, nobody I know believes that.

2. The statements are authentic--Jesus and Paul made them--but they are not obligatory if one’s country calls or one’s life is in danger.

At first glance this position may be attractive--but it has a fatal hermeneutic flaw. If the command to non-violence is suspended if our nation is threatened or someone breaks into my home, then why not apply that hermeneutic to other ethical texts. “You shall not commit adultery--unless it is in the interest of national security.” “You shall not bear false witness--unless it is in the interest of national security.” (Idiots like Oliver North fall into this category.) “You shall not worship any other gods--unless your life is in danger.” These statements are the logical outcome of this hermeneutic, yet many professed followers of Jesus embrace it.

3. Yes, Jesus and Paul taught non-violence, but they didn’t really mean it.

In my doctor of ministry program I took a course on the Sermon on the Mount. The professor, a top-notch person in NT hermeneutics, said that we need to look for the use of hyperbole on the part of Jesus. OK, I will buy that. But then he stated that Jesus words,

(Mat 5:33-36 NRSV) "Again, you have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, 'You shall not swear falsely, but carry out the vows you have made to the Lord.' {34} But I say to you, Do not swear at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, {35} or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. {36} And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black."

are an example of hyperbole. Jesus did not really mean we should never take an oath at all, (and knowing I am a Quaker he looked right at me) what Jesus meant was we should not swear unnecessarily or frivolously.

My response to such statements is this:

Look at the following,

(Mat 5:27-28 NRSV) "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' {28} But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

would anyone actually argue that Jesus did not mean we should not lust at all, but only that we should not lust frivolously or unnecessarily? Of course not. And a consistent hermeneutic would mean that when Jesus said,

(Mat 5:39 NRSV) But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also;

He really meant for us to take that at face value as well, no room for exceptions. Otherwise we are arguing that Jesus did not really mean what he said.

4. Jesus and Paul actually made those statements, and they meant them, but because I love myself more than I love Jesus I will choose not to obey them.

Rejecting Hermeneutic options 1, 2 and 3 means one takes 4 by default.

-- Anonymous, April 17, 2001

Answers

CG White,

The command to love one's neighbor as oneself is in the Old Testament. Yet God had Israel fight wars with their enemies.

Paul used David as an example of a righteous men through faith apart from the works of the Law in Romans 4. David killed a giant in battle, and many other people. The Israelites sang about David having killed tens of thousands.

David once said of an assasination that the killers had killed a man as if it were in battle. There is a difference that is obvious int he OT between killing in battle and murder.

In the New Testament, we see that when the soliders asked John what to do, he told them to be content with their wages and not to extort money. He didn't tell them to get out of the army. Soldiers served as both soldiers and police back then.

Paul wrote of rulers taht they do not bear the sword in vain.

The command of Jesus about turning the other cheek was commentary on the passage about an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. This was a law related to making restitution for wrongs in society. The eye for an eye passages in the OT are not about fighting wars.

Was Jesus totally gainst violence? He made a whip and turned over the tables of the money tables and drove the animals out of the temple. Did he whip the animals? Do you think any money changers got a table knocked on them?

I can understand your concerns on this issue, but we need to keep in mind that Jesus was giving commentary on a law that already included instructions about warfare and already showed God leading men into battle.

Btw, can you show a consistent hermenutic for considering water baptism to be John's baptism and unnecessary for Christians- an old Quaker interpretation? Consider Acts 8 and 19.

-- Anonymous, April 18, 2001

Link

Thanks for a thoughtful response. I do not think the items you raise override the argument I made, but I like it when people think. The problem with the passages you cite is they all are incidentals to a narrative event whereas the once I quote above are alll clearlly meant to be imperatives, and therefore someone who is not a pacifist needs still to opt for hermeneutics 1, 2, 3, or 4.

As far as water baptism, Acts 19 is the only problem. In Acts 11, Peter recounted preaching at Cornielus' house and baptising them, and then says,

(Acts 11:16 NRSV) And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said, 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.'

after the fact, he realized that since the Holy Spirit had fallen on them--they were already baptised! He really did not need to do anything.

Peter later wrote:

(1 Pet 3:21 NRSV) And baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you-- not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

The true baptism is an appeal to God for a good conscience. It has absolutely nothing to do with water. (which is why he wrote, "not as a removal of dirt from the body"--he wanted to make sure they understood the outward act is not what he had in mind.)

-- Anonymous, April 18, 2001

'Amen' to CG White, on both the pacifism and the baptismal fronts.

-- Anonymous, April 19, 2001

I don't see how you get your interpretaiton of Acts 10. Look at verse 47 and 48:

47 Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

See here the distinction Peter makes. They had already received the Holy Ghost. But Peter asks if any man can forbid water. Also, we see that they were baptized in the Holy Ghost.

This idea that water baptism is unnecessary and is merely John's baptism is not scriptural, thoug hit seems to have been Fox's interpretation.

Anotehr place where we can see that water baptism for Christians is not John's baptism is Acts 19. Men already baptized with John's baptism were baptized in Jesus' name. Then Paul laid hands on them and the Holy Ghost came on them.

As for the Peter passage, I interpret that to say that it is not the washing away of the filth of the lfesh that saves, but rather the answer of a good conscience toward God. When Paul was baptized, Ananias told him to, calling on the name of the Lord, wash away his sins.

Obedience to Christ's commands is necessary. We both agree on that.

-- Anonymous, April 20, 2001

We absolutely do agree on obedience. The question, with us, is not one of Christ's authority, but of his meaning.

-- Anonymous, April 20, 2001

Amen to CG White on killing, but hands down to his belief on baptism.

Nelta htt://members.xoom.com/atlen/

-- Anonymous, April 22, 2001

CG White,

ON killing, if I were drafted, I would probably be CO. But I can understand why other Christians would have a different viewpoint. There was a lot of God-directed killing in warfare in the Bible. And even when Israel was fighting Judah, the people who killed in battle are not referred to as murderers in the Bible for doing so.

On water baptism, I'd like an answer for the passages I gave. If the eunuch were baptized in the Holy Ghost, why would he and Philip come up out of the water? Why did Peter baptize those in Cornelius house with water? Why were the disciples in Acts 19 empowered by the Spirit AFTER being baptized in jesus name.

Also, why would Peter promise the Holy Spirit to those who were baptized, if receiving the Holy Spirit is _the same thing_ as being baptized?

-- Anonymous, April 22, 2001

Link,

As I said, Acts 19 is a problem for my viewpoint. But as for the others, it was simply a while before they really understood. Peter admitted as much in Acts 11:16. So they did not totally understand things right, and that goes for Philip in Acts 8. Water baptism was not intende dto go past the day of Pentecost, but they did not get it. The NT church, like any church, was not perfect in its theological understanding.

When you write:

"ON killing, if I were drafted, I would probably be CO. But I can understand why other Christians would have a different viewpoint. There was a lot of God-directed killing in warfare in the Bible. And even when Israel was fighting Judah, the people who killed in battle are not referred to as murderers in the Bible for doing so."

I think again this fails to recognize that Jesus said, "You have heard it was said,...but I say to you." The OT no longer is authoritative in that regard. There are two viewpoints here, both of which have some validity. (1) In the OT God's prime concern was keeping the nation of Israel together long enough to bring the Messiah, and that overrode ethical concerns about war for that time. Or (2) the prophets did not always totally underswhat God was saying to them (who does?) and if they had listened closely they mighht have had a slightly different message about war.

I have noticed that no one has yet touched my four hermeneutical options. Could it be that deep down we know that Christ does call us to non-violence and that this is an absolute? The fact that you say, "ON killing, if I were drafted, I would probably be CO." Tells me that the indwelling Holy Spirit tells us this is right and often times our ethical behavior is better than our theological rationale for it.

-- Anonymous, April 23, 2001

CG White,

On baptism,

So, in other words, the 'apostle's doctrine' was flawed? So that leaves us with the option of following some later revelator (Fox?) to tell us what the apostles were right about and what htey were wrong about? Jude wrote about contending for the faith that was already handed down from the beginning. It seems to me that you are filtering the New Testament teaching on baptism through another belief system. The verses that seem to agree with your views on baptism, you keep. If verses don't agree with your view on baptism, you attribute it to the apostle's impartial understanding. So, are we to follow the apostles doctrine? Or do we consider the apostle's doctrine to be flawed, and pick and choose the parts that agree with our own doctrine and practice? I don't find any evidence for this ide athat baptism was not to continue past Pentecost.

If that were the case, why would Jesus command the apostles to baptize? If the baptism Jesus spoke of in Matthe 28 is baptism with the Holy Ghost, why would Jesus say that the _apostles_ were to baptize nations with the Holy Ghost. John had already prophesied that _Jesus_ would baptize with the Holy Ghost. Do you think that people are baptized with the Holy Ghost-- even today-- by the apostles?

About Jesus' comments, 'ye have heard that it had been said...' these need to be interpreted in light of what he says toward the beginning of the discourse. Do not think that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets....

Jesus, as the Messiah, was giving authoratative commentary on the Torah. We need to look at his commentary in the context of the commands from the Torah that he was talking about.

-- Anonymous, April 23, 2001

Link

Thanks for giving me more food for thought...although I have not changed my mind about anything.

I still think the primary meaning of "Baptize" has nothing to do with water. The word "baptize" occurs 7 times in the NRSV, all of which in some way downplay water. Jesus spoke in Luke about "having a baptism to be baptised with" after he had been immersed. I ought to do a Greek wordstudy here. But no one can deny that often "baptizo" is used metaphorically. It is not at all demonstratable that the real idea of baptism is in water.

You write:

"So, in other words, the 'apostle's doctrine' was flawed? So that leaves us with the option of following some later revelator (Fox?) to tell us what the apostles were right about and what htey were wrong about? Jude wrote about contending for the faith that was already handed down from the beginning. It seems to me that you are filtering the New Testament teaching on baptism through another belief system. The verses that seem to agree with your views on baptism, you keep. If verses don't agree with your view on baptism, you attribute it to the apostle's impartial understanding. So, are we to follow the apostles doctrine? Or do we consider the apostle's doctrine to be flawed, and pick and choose the parts that agree with our own doctrine and practice? I don't find any evidence for this ide athat baptism was not to continue past Pentecost."

Yes, there is evidence. Peter plainly admitted such in Acts 11:16. Paul said that he was sent, not to baptize, but to preach the gospel-- which means baptism must not be an essential part, else he would be in error to say, "Thank God I baptized none of you but Crispus and Gaius." (1 Cor 1:14) If Jesus really intended for water baptism to be part of the gospel, then Paul is in error here and should not be thanking God that he did not baptize. Rather he should have written to Corinth and said something like "I'm sorry folks...I did not tell you the whole truth...only Crispus and Gaius are saved and the rest of you are not...go get baptised in water and everything will be OK."

I am not filtering anything through anything, but am looking at the intent of each passage. You could be accused of the same inconsistency regarding pacifism. Do not all non-pacifists also pick and choose. (Indeed, we all do, and to some degree we must--for the Scriptures cannot be completely harmonized--I only wish we were all honest enough to admit that. This is where the study methods of Bultmann, et al, are so valuable. They are not flawless, but helpful if used properly.)

Even if the Sermon on the Mount is commentary on the Torah--that does not change the absoluteness of what Jesus said...so do you opt for Hermeneutic 1, 2, 3, or 4?

I find it rather odd that God would accept those who take human life-- but refuse those who have not been immersed in water! That is what I hear you saying, but Jesus would never have said it.

-- Anonymous, April 23, 2001

CG White,

You wrote,

>>Yes, there is evidence. Peter plainly admitted such in Acts 11:16.<

HUH? How in the world do you get the idea tha tPeter was in error in that verse? Look what he did after witnessing these people being baptized int eh Holy Ghost. He had them baptized with water. There is no reason to think that Peter was admitting some sort of theological error, unless you go into the passage with the idea that baptism with the Holy ghost precludes water baptism.

I'd like to see some comments on Acts 19.

> Paul said that he was sent, not to baptize, but to preach the gospel-- which means baptism must not be an essential part,<

Paul said that he was not sent to baptize but to preach the Gospel. he didn't say that baptism was unimportant.

>> else he would be in error to say, "Thank God I baptized none of you but Crispus and Gaius." (1 Cor 1:14) If Jesus really intended for water baptism to be part of the gospel, then Paul is in error here and should not be thanking God that he did not baptize. Rather he should have written to Corinth and said something like "I'm sorry folks...I did not tell you the whole truth...only Crispus and Gaius are saved and the rest of you are not...go get baptised in water and everything will be OK." <<

Again, I have to ask 'Huh?' Paul didn't say that only Crispus and gaius were baptized. In Acts, we read that MANY of the Corinthians believed and were baptized. Paul thanked God that _HE_ had baptized none of htem but Crispus, Gaius, and the household of Stephanus (as far as he could remember) _lest_ anyone should say that he baptized in his own name. He didn't say that the rest of the Corinthians were unbaptized. Paul didn't travel alone, and the Bible doesn't teach that only Paul or his companions could baptize with water. The household of Stephanus may have done a lot of baptizing, for example.

There is no reason to read Peter's comments about the baptism with the Holy Ghost as being _anti-baptism with water. It's clear that the early church practiced water baptism. this is clear from Acts. peter did it. Paul did it. This is apparently how they interpetted Jesus teachings. So why should we think that we can know the paosltes doctrine better than the apostles themselves?

-- Anonymous, April 25, 2001

I think this discussion is futile...I tell you what...I will deal with Acts 19 when you tell me which of the four hermeneutics I offer on war is the one you opt for.

I think down deep we all know that these are two areas where of all Christendom, Quakers are the most on target.

Neither water baptism nor self-defnese are really part of what God intended for us.

-- Anonymous, April 25, 2001

Link:

When you write:

I respond: That is exactly the point. Water baptism is precluded or as I would say superceded, and Peter never practiced it again after Acts 11, as far as we know and told is in his second letter that water has nothing to do with it.

That is not looking at the text through theology--that is seeing into the heart of the text and then formulating theology.

-- Anonymous, April 25, 2001

Sorry

My above post did not have you quoted in what I was responding to. It should be as below

Link: When you write:

I respond: That is exactly the point. Water baptism is precluded or as I would say superceded, and Peter never practiced it again after Acts 11, as far as we know and told is in his second letter that water has nothing to do with it.

That is not looking at the text through theology--that is seeing into the heart of the text and then formulating theology.

(Note: I am not inerrant, as neither were the apostles.)

-- Anonymous, April 25, 2001

I FOR SURE AM NOT INERRANT. I GOOFED AGSIN. INSERT THIS WHERE I PUT, WHEN YOU WRITE:\

There is no reason to think that Peter was admitting some sort of theological error, unless you go into the passage with the idea that baptism with the Holy ghost precludes water baptism.

Link--Have a great day. I hope your cut-and-paste is working better than mine today.

-- Anonymous, April 25, 2001

CG White,

Honestly, I'm not that interested in discussing pascifism right now. I'm over 27 or whatever the US cut-foff age is for the draft. I can see both ends of the argument for pascifism and against it. On a personal leve, if I were ever drafted, Ithink I would try to go in as a conscientious objector.

On the other hand, I do believe the entire Bible is inspired, not just the sermon on the mount, and i do see a lot of God-endorsed warfare in the OT. The OT also tells us to love our neighbor as ourselves. It also teaches there is a time for war.

'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth' is talking about how to get legal retribution from someone. We use it in modern English as a metaphor for revenge 'an eye for an eye.' But that's not what the context is in the Bible exactly. Jesus is giving commentary on the Torah in this passage, and we need to talk about the context in which this passage appears. As far as I know, the 'eye for an eye' quote is never used in the Bible merely as ametaphor for revenge. It's not used to refer to one nation trying to get revenge on another in a national sense as well. Matthew 5 dealt with legal and practical issues that faced the Jews in everyday life. Jesus encouraged people not to go to court and sue their brothers, but rather to make ammends before going to the judge.

I can understand why someone would look at this passage and be inclined toward pascifism. On the other hand, the context of the 'eye for an eye' commands in the OT is about legal retribution, not about the whole country going to war. God sometimes had the nation of Israel to war against other lands. Many early christians were against the idea of Christians being inthe army, but soldiers also had to swear oaths in the names of pagan gods, so there was more than just pascivism at issue.

About Quakerism, there are many things about _early_ Quakerism that do appeal to me. Their style of meeting, to some extent their ecclesiology, their belief in the gifts of the Spirit in the church, etc. There are many splits and later emphases and practices of Quakerism that don't interest me in the least.

But there are also things about George Fox's and the teaching of other early Quakers that bother me. On some things, Fox seemed very sharp with the Bible. On other issues, Fox seemed to come up with allegorical interpetations that just didn't make any sense. Did Fox believe in the literal Second Coming? I read a letter from him in which he side-stepped the issue and started emphasizing an allegorical coming of Christ. Another issue that bothers me about Fox is his interpretation of water baptism as 'John's baptism.'

Your itnerestation above, which seems similar to Fox's doens't make a lick of sense ot me. I don't see how you can say that when Peter quoted John the baptist that he was admitting that he was in error theologically. If we read the account, we see that Peter remembered this prophecy _before he had the men baptized in water._ Think about that. If the prophecy indicated that Peter was wrong to baptize, why would he have the men baptized in water. Your interpretation doesn't make sense to me. Honestly, I would like to try to understand how early Quakers could possibly have this view of baptism. If you don't want to discuss it in this thread, I can understand that. But i don't want to pick one of yoru numbers about pascivism to get an answer. i've already given my own answer (call it number 5) above according to my own understanding.

I can understand your not wanting to discus baptism in this thread. I came in here and turned the thread from pascivism to baptism. I can understand why you'd wnat to stick to pascivism. But I've already shared my views, and I'd like to discuss baptism. So if you would like to explain how the early Quakers could come up with their views on baptism and how they interpret the various scriptures, and present yoru own views on the subject, maybe we can do it in another thread _Fox's Hermenutics_ or through private email. That is, if you are itnerested. Sorry for diverting your thread.

As far as baptism is concerned, I don't see any reason from the Bible to think that hte apostles erred on baptism. I think you are reading that conclusion into the text. If one doesn't assume that the apostles erred, then it makes sense to interpret Peter's comments on baptism differently. The aspect of baptism that saves us is not the removal of filth from the flesh, but the aspect of the answer of a good conscience toward God. The Jews placed a lot of emphasis on being clean, rather than unclean. But baptism was an answer of a good conscience toward God. The saving aspect of baptism is not the fact that it washes away dirt. Men are saved by grace through faith. Those who were bapting baptized were responding in faith- an answer of a good conscience toward God.

Baptism is used metaphorically in some places. But to interpret the word as a metaphor in most places makes no sense. Paul baptized the Philipian jailer. Does it make sense to make this 'baptism' a metaphor? It doesn't make sense. If we keep in mind that from before the resurrection, apostles were baptizing peolpe in water, then it makes sense to take the word 'baptizo' literally here and to see Paul baptizing these people with water. Allegorizing passages like this is like using the Bible as a spiritual codebook that has little connection to real human language.

Fox's views on baptism did bother me when I read his writings (or his words recorded by others.) One thing that really bothered me abotu it is how other early Quakers would repeat the things Fox taught, true or false, and insist that they were the teaching of the Spirit. I see this kined of attitude today. Another thing about early Quakerism, and Fox in particular, that bothered me, was the exclusivism, thinking they were the only Christians. Fox sent letters back and forth with one Quaker, in which the other Quaker defended the idea that men from among the Independants, Baptists, etc. could be genuine Christians. Fox argued for his exclusive idea that the (Christians derisively called) Quakers were the true Christians, and that the persecutors of the true Christians were from these other groups.

Other Quakers would think that things like this were the teachings of the Holy Ghost. Fox's ornery attitude, especially in his early years, was something else that btohered me. He's a very interesting person though, and there are some good things in his writings. He probably had a great influence on American religious and political thought as well.

So you can see, for a non-Quaker, I've done some research on the subject of early Quakers, and I am genuinely interested in trying to figure out how early Quakers could coem to their conclusions on water baptism.

-- Anonymous, April 25, 2001

Link

I would be glad to start another thread on baptism. Can' do it now...got to head to a local ministers breakfast (after taking the kids to school.)

For the record--hermeneutic number 5 sounds to me like a variation of number 2 or 3.

-- Anonymous, April 26, 2001