We run our website the way we wished the whole internet worked: we provide high quality original content with no ads. We are funded solely by your direct support. Please consider supporting this project.
A Police Officer Questions Pacifism
Police Officer: My theology totally lines up with your theology, except in one area: namely, your pacifism. I am a police officer, and it frankly seems obvious to me that there are times when it is proper, if not godly, to use whatever level of force is necessary to stop an aggressor from harming loved ones or other innocent people. Not only this, but the apostle Paul explicitly teaches that God uses the sword (or gun) of government to exact vengeance on sinners and to keep sin in check (Rom. 13:1-7). Every other aspect of your theology makes so much sense except this one! So can you please explain to me why you don’t believe this is a viable and even noble role for a disciple of Jesus to play?
Greg: Thanks so much for your honest question. I readily grant that it seems obvious that a person should use whatever force is necessary to defend loved ones or other innocent people from aggressors. And I don’t deny that the role of a police officer is a noble one that requires great courage. Indeed, I am thankful for those who accept this role. And, finally, I don’t for a moment deny that God uses the sword of government to exact vengeance and to keep sin in check.
But to acknowledge that the role of a police officer makes sense, is noble, and is used by God is NOT to say that this is a role a disciple of Jesus should assume. When Jesus and Paul talk about loving, blessing, and serving enemies, and when they talk about never resisting force with force (Mt 5:39-45; Lk 6:27-36; Rom 12:14-21), they never make any qualifications. In fact, I would argue that these teachings rule out the possibility of there being any qualifications, for we are to love like the rain falls and the sun shines. We are to love indiscriminately. Moreover, in his 1st century Jewish context, when Jesus speaks of “enemies,” the first group his audience would think of would be the Romans who ruled over Jews by threatening terror. These were the very worst kind of “enemies” we could imagine. So if Jesus’ teaching encompasses this kind of “enemy,” I submit that it encompasses every kind of “enemy.”
Along these same lines, while the use of force makes sense within the fallen kingdoms of this fallen world, followers of Jesus are called to put on display a radically different ALTERNATIVE kingdom — the “kingdom of God.” We are to be a visible sign to the world of what it looks like when God reigns over the lives of people and a sign of what the world will look like when God establishes his kingdom throughout the world. We are to be the “first fruits” of the coming “harvest.” And since there will be no violence once God’s kingdom is established in the world, I believe we are to refrain from all violence now.
This is also why Christians are called “a royal priesthood” (I Pet 2:5, 9). While other Israelites in the Old Testament were allowed to use the sword, those who served as God’s priests could not. In this way these priests bore witness to the truth that, while God will stoop to bring as much good out of violence as he can, his ideal will is non-violence. On this note, it’s interesting that just before Paul taught that God uses sword-wielding governments to “exact vengeance” (ekdikos) (Rom13:4), he told Christian to “never exact vengeance” (ekdikeō), but to instead leave all vengeance to God (Rom 12xxx) – who, we find out, uses government for this purpose. As I see it, this means disciples of Jesus are forbidden to engage in the exacting of vengeance that God uses sword-wielding governments to carry out. This role makes sense and can even be noble, but this doesn’t make it appropriate for kingdom people.
This is how I see it. I simply find no alternative interpretation of Scripture plausible. But I want you to know that I don’t for a second judge you if you end up seeing it differently. I rather applaud your willingness to honestly wrestle with this question. We each have to “work out our salvation with fear and trembling” (Phil 2:12).
Continue to be honest with God, yourself and others as you process this issue, and God will guide you in the path you should take.
Bless you and keep you safe as you strive to keep others safe.
Greg
Image by Sky Noir via Flickr.
Category: General
Tags: Non-Violence, Pacifism
Related Reading
Does the Author of Hebrews Condone Capital Punishment? A Response to Paul Copan (#12)
In his critique of Crucifixion of the Warrior God (CWG), Paul Copan argues that several New Testament authors condone capital punishment as directly willed by God. The most challenging for my thesis, in my estimation, is Hebrews 10:26-29, which reads: For if we willfully persist in sin after having received the knowledge of the truth,…
Why Did Jesus Curse a Barren Fig Tree?
While no one argues that the NT advocates violence explicitly, many allege that some passages reflect violent attitudes toward outsiders, and especially toward non-believing Jews, while others detect an element of violence in some of Jesus’ teachings and behavior. Some scholars argue that this violent aspect of the NT laid the groundwork for later Christian…
Let’s Remember
In light of the events in the last few days involving attacks on American diplomats in foreign countries (and the ensuing political conflict), let’s remember one thing: Our fight is not with flesh and blood. As Christians, our real enemy is not Libyans or Egyptians or Muslims or President Obama or Governor Romney. Our enemy…
Sermon: Blood and Water
In this sermon clip, Greg Boyd talks about how question in baptism and communion have cause division in the church throughout history. In the rest of the sermon he discusses why baptism and Communion are important sacraments to the Christian community. Greg also shows us how the Anabaptists understood these sacraments and how Woodland Hills…
Was the Early Church Pacifistic? A Response to Paul Copan (#11)
In Crucifixion of the Warrior God (CWG) I argue that Jesus and Paul instruct Christians to love and bless their enemies and to unconditionally refrain from violence (e.g. Matt 5:39-45; Rom 12:14-21). Moreover, I argue that this was the prevailing attitude of Christians prior to the fourth century when the Church aligned itself with the…
How Revelation Uses Violent Images in an Anti-Violent Way
All the violent scenes in Revelation are symbols for the battle of truth and deception. They never involve literal violence. In fact, they symbolize ANTI-VIOLENCE. The ingenious way John helps us get free of deception of trust in violent power is by taking a standard violent symbol and juxtaposing it with a symbol that undermines…