The Old Testament isn’t easy, but it is a great text for anti-military Christian non-violence. At any rate, my initial comment that Moses, Samuel, Isaiah and Amos do speak against violence and the military stands, whether or not there are contradictory passages elsewhere.

“And for every Ignatius or Cyprian I can still give you an Ambrose, Augustine, Aquinas, etc.”

Yes, and for every Martin Luther King Jr. or Bishop Tutu I can give you a Michael Novak, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, etc. My argument is not that the disavowal of violence is more popular, rather that it is at the heart of the gospel. We’ve been here before.

“Personal sacrifice? Yes, I think killing someone would be a sacrifice.”

At least two sacrifices:

First, it’s a sacrifice of your normal unwillingness to kill. There’s a reason marines are trained to kill. It’s not natural.

Second, it’s a sacrifice of your faithfulness to the gospel of peace (loving your enemy, praying for those who persecute you, blessing those who curse you, giving to those who ask of you, returning good for evil-Rom12).

Thirdly, it’s a sacrifice of that poor dumb bastard’s life in order to protect me. But I don’t need you to protect me. I am at peace with God, I have the Holy Spirit, and I have faith that God will raise me at the last day.

The Old Testament is not exactly the best source for anti-military Christian nonviolence. Jesus was much more charitable towards soldiers, and their mission, than modern pacifists. And for every Ignatius or Cyprian I can still give you an Ambrose, Augustine, Aquinas, etc.

But what you’re missing is that no one is advocating passivity. Christian non-violence is an act of self-donating enemy-love. It is not passive. Rather it takes imagination, courage and personal sacrifice.

Shooting my assailant in the head takes none of those things.

If your idea of love is to kill a man, and your idea of blessing is to shoot my enemies in the head, then maybe you should listen to a few bleeding hearts who speak out against violence and the armed forces.

People like, I dunno…Moses, Samuel, Isaiah, Amos, Jesus, Paul, Ignatius, Cyprian.

The fact is, we are commanded by our Lord Jesus Christ to turn our check, but we have no right to turn another person’s cheek.

This is why Ambrose of Milan insisted that a christian had a duty to use force to come to the defense of a third party. In fact if one did not come to their neighbor’s aid, they were as bad as the one who commited the act.

Hence, Ambrose argues that if someone is breaking into our neighbor’s home, and we do not come to their defense, even if to do so would mean we would have to injure or kill the attacker, we have not loved.

In fact Ambrose took it a step further. If someone is breaking into our neighbor’s home and we do not act Ambrose argues that we have not loved our neighbor and he would even question whether we are saved.”

Tough talk, but true nonetheless.

This is why I don’t pay much attention to all those bleeding hearts who speak out against violence and the armed forces. If it were their home being broken into, and their life was about to end, a shot to the head of their assalant would suddenly be their greatest blessing. And the act of pulling the trigger, an act of love.

The stories of soldiers in the Gospels have very little direct bearing on the morality of war or violence. You could almost make that case with prostitution. Jesus’ affirmation of the seeming oppressors begins, in Luke’s Gospel, with Luke 4 where Jesus extends forgiveness and inclusion towards the oppressors. Does this affirm their oppression? By no means! The overall trajectory of Luke’s Gospel is one of including the fringe. Jesus includes the soldier because of their out-status as enforcers. It would be a mistake to read beyond that to find an affirmation of their vocation.

The body of evidence, starting with the Sermon on the Mount and continuing into the first two Christian centuries, is overwhelmingly pacifistic. You can massage the “silence” all you want into getting it to affirm what you want it to affirm. But Just War and self-defense are both, within the Christian tradition, later innovations. One could most certainly not say the same for pacifism.

“While not at war, the soldiers were the police.” You mean like the national guard? They are still carrying swords on behalf of the empire. How can this be seen as an endorsement of nonviolence? It’s like giving condoms to a bunch of high schoolers and instructing them to be abstinent.

“The evidence is too overwhelming to ignore.” Few people read the Bible and get a clear vision of nonviolence. You’re all about moral speech and habit, right? This is one of them. Rather, we have to be convinced – schooled in this tradition – to read Scripture in that way, and then, magically, the “evidence” will fit our prejudice. This, by the way, is also why science is not so objective as we are led to believe.

And still, I have not been told why Ambrose and Augustine don’t belong in the early Church canon…

…but to a new, final, and sad point:

“There are sophisticated, intelligent people like yourself that aren’t impressed with the ’so-called prophets of american Christian radicalism’ who think that you can love your enemy, pray for your enemy, return evil for good, turn the other cheek, bless those who persecute you all while blowing his fucking head off.

Either rest of us are just too stupid to figure out how those are compatible, or you are hell-bent on using the wrong weapons for the wrong warfare (Ephesians 5).”

Augustine, in speaking of the correction of the Donatists, argues that it is in fact an act of neighbor love to correct their wrongdoing. If you restrain someone from committing evil (the task of the state), you have done both them and your neighbors a service. You won’t like that answer, but hey, Augustine is no dummy.

But on to a more serious issue. There is a legitimate reason to ask, “Why does any of this matter?” Because of our brave police and military, it is likely that we will never be asked to commit violence on behalf of the state and not be faced with the choice. Why does it matter if I am a just warrior, when I am not a soldier or officer? Why does it matter that you are a pacifist, when others do your fighting for you anyway?

Barth wrote that nonviolence was rendered meaningless by the absence of the draft. What consequence is there for your belief (outside of, say, a mugging situation)? Who will persecute you for this?

Perhaps we are both too convinced that our opinions matter. Just War means nothing here – though it would if I was in Iraq or Afghanistan. Nonviolence means nothing here – though if you were in the Sudan or China, it might.

But, since we are trading questionable internet resources, charity requires that I reciprocate:
http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=david_kopel

You’re very snarky. But not substantive.

“Why do the gospels’ portrayal of soldiers have no credence in this discussion?”

Evidence that while you’ve seen Stark’s stuff, you haven’t read it.

“this, by the way, is a big, gaping hole in the pacifist position – how can police be justified?)”

Evidence that while you’ve seen Stark’s stuff, you haven’t read it.

Clement talks about Christian soldiers in war time and when not at war. While not at war, the soldiers were the police.

I’m more than willing to acknowledge that there are differences in opinion in Christianity regarding police action. For myself, I don’t see how a Christian can ever employ violent force. So, for me, it’s no on police.

Two comments ago you were saying that I was arguing from silence…and then you ask why the gospels’ portrayal of soldiers has no credence.

I don’t espouse non-violence because I think it would be better for the state, or for the community, or for my family. I espouse non-violence because I see it there are the heart of the gospel. The evidence is too overwhelming to ignore.

There are sophisticated, intelligent people like yourself that aren’t impressed with the ‘so-called prophets of american Christian radicalism’ who think that you can love your enemy, pray for your enemy, return evil for good, turn the other cheek, bless those who persecute you all while blowing his fucking head off.

Either rest of us are just too stupid to figure out how those are compatible, or you are hell-bent on using the wrong weapons for the wrong warfare (Ephesians 5).

Why does “the early church” not include Ambrose and Augustine?

Why do the gospels’ portrayal of soldiers have no credence in this discussion?

No Christian has any knowledge of just war theory? You mean the average layperson isn’t spending their free time reading Ambrose, Augustine, Aquinas, Grotius, Luther, Calvin, Barth, Paul Ramsey, etc?

Color me shocked. Most Christians assume the necessity of violence at some level because they watch the local news and pay taxes to keep police around (this, by the way, is a big, gaping hole in the pacifist position – how can police be justified?).

Most Christians also can’t articulate what we mean by ‘Trinity’. Presumably, we should still keep confessing the Trinity, though.

A good compendium of the overwhelming evidence that the early church was thoroughly non-violent is here: http://thomstark.net/?p=282

The early church was anything but silent. There simply is no compelling evidence to the contrary.

“Just War has nothing to do with this assassination. Simply because this lone, crazed person thought this was a case of justifiable homicide does not associate it with the just war tradition.”

I agree. 100%. Thing is, while I’ve read Just Warriors, every Christian I’ve actually met that claims to espouse Just War theory has no knowledge of what it is. They just want permission to kick ass, and not just at the nation-state level.