PACIFISM AND BIBLICAL NON-RESISTANCE
Many different types of
non-resistance today are clamoring for attention and they appear to be very much
like Biblical non-resistance. The outward resemblances have led the public in
general to place them all in the same class. But there are precise and sharp
differences when they are examined more closely. The sources out of which they
arise, the systems they develop, their essential significance, and the service
they are designed to achieve are clearly distinguished from Biblical
non-resistance. In general there are four types of pacifism that are not
synonymous with Biblical non-resistance: philosophic, political, social,
religious.
1. Philosophic pacifism is
comparatively new. Though it may have existed before, it did not make
appreciable impression on society until the Second World War. It does not base
its teaching on Biblical or religious principles. For reasons that are
sometimes called spiritual, sometimes moral, sometimes social, and sometimes
political, the advocates of this type of pacifism insist that war is wrong, and
governments should outlaw war as a means of settling disputes. In this area
there is no effort to organize movements against the government. It is largely
a personal, individual effort when confronted with conscription into the armed
services. Such people insist that it is an infringement upon human rights and
liberty provided by the constitution of the United States. They are perfectly
willing that governments may wage war, and in most cases will support the
government in its prosecution of war, but they want the right as human beings
and philosophic reasoning to be exempt from personal participation in armed
conflict.
It is not difficult to see that
this position is based purely on human reason, and is therefore to be distinguished
from Biblical non-resistance which bases its convictions on divine revelation.
2. Political pacifism confines itself largely to the sphere of
government and international relations. Of late years this type of pacifism
has provided fertile ground for the propaganda of subversive organizations.
Communistic and Socialistic elements within the nation have used this as a stepping-stone to
hinder, and if possible, prevent the upgrading of armed might and potential for
protecting the country against hostile nations. The desire for peace and the
desire to escape the heavy burden of taxation which military preparations
demand are skillfully used to promote this brand of pacifism. Such groups as
"The American League for Peace and Democracy" and "The American
League Against War and Fascism" and kindred groups for alleged political
and ideological reasons promote this program with ulterior design. They are
determined to undermine the government and make the nation vulnerable to
dissolution from without. Undiscerning patriotic citizens of the United States
have classed Biblical non-resistance with this type of pacifism and have been
aroused to righteous indignation.
But any careful scrutiny of the
differences between Biblical non-resistance and political pacifism will reveal
that the pattern and purposes are entirely at odds. Biblical non-resistance
derives its authority from the Bible and does not seek to undermine the
government, while political pacifism is based purely on human reason and is
utterly subversive.
3. Social pacifism is perhaps the
most dangerous type of pacifism in existence today. It operates largely in the
religious area but combines the political in its ideological system. All
religious liberalism is infiltrated with this approach to war. The leaders in
this movement are largely theologians who deny the eschatology of the
Scriptures. They argue that no thinking Christian could possibly accept the
prospect for the future as set forth in the prophetic Scriptures. In their
estimation all that is left of Scriptural truth is the grace of God. But after
2000 years they feel it has accomplished very little for society. In
this late hour the world has experienced the greatest wars, the severest
famines, the most widespread poverty, and the most devastating disease. They
argue, in this day of enlightenment and scientific development, it is high time
for a new interpretation of Scripture. In the place of the eschatological hope
as set forth in the Bible, the church should now develop a hope for humanity by
entering into industrial relations, political affiliations, international
connections, and community socialization. This is the social gospel with its
emphasis on human betterment, the alleviation of suffering, the reduction of
poverty, and the complete abolition of war. It is not difficult to see how
those who hold the social gospel make an easy prey to communism. Communism
as well as Socialism holds out a hope for men, even though it is a false hope, that by human effort
a glorious social kingdom can at last be realized by communizing the world.
But Biblical non-resistance is not
to be identified with this type of pacifism. The social pacifist has
apostatized from the Scriptures. He not only denies the eschatology of the
Bible but he perverts the doctrine of the grace of God so that the entire Bible
is lost to the believer. But more than that, he undermines the government of
the land and lays a foundation for its eventual overthrow. Biblical
non-resistance holds tenaciously to the entire Bible and it does not pervert the
doctrine of the grace of God by which alone men may be saved. As true adherents
to the Word of God it teaches patriotism and obedience to the government under
which it operates.
4. Religious pacifism is held by Christian groups who are
sincerely dedicated to the Bible. These groups do not repudiate the Bible, but
they are inconsistent in their interpretation of the Bible relating to war.
Their eschatology provides the basis for these inconsistencies. Starting with
the position that war is wrong, they have decided that war is wrong even for
nations of this world, and therefore they should oppose the war effort in their own
nation. They have refused to buy war bonds, participate in the war effort,
enter into the armed services in any capacity, or even to pray for their own nation.
Since there are many groups who fall into this class, many variations of this
sort of pacifism exist and they are not easily classified. But in almost every
case they draw their reasoning from the Scriptures. Two errors of
interpretation can be discovered in their theological systems. The first is
the failure to see fully that the church is completely separated from the
state. Even though they give lip service to this tenet of the faith, they
proceed in their thinking as though it did not exist. They identify church and
state, and since the church has no authority to employ armed might, they
conclude that this is also true for the state. The second error is the failure
to see the true prophetic picture of the consummation of the age. The Word of
God promises the establishing of a kingdom in the earth at the coming of
Christ. That coming is imminent and may take place at any moment. Therefore
the Christian should be enthusiastically expecting Christ's coming and
witnessing for Him as the opportunity provides. The Christian can therefore
perform his responsibility to the government in everything except
participation in armed conflict, and let war take its course knowing that
shortly Christ will come and usher in the age of peace for which all Bible-believing
Christians long and pray. But these groups do not follow the Scriptures at this
point, feeling that it is their responsibility to oppose war now and by human
effort help to usher in the age of peace.
Failure to see clearly the
Scriptural teaching on these two points has made them easy prey to modern
religious liberalism. To a very marked degree in some places, and in lesser
degree in others, liberalism has infiltrated their doctrine. The leaven of
liberalism is gradually taking its course and is working havoc in many areas.
But in some areas there is a desperate effort being made to cling to the Word
of God and demonstrate this fact by a pacifism which they feel is Biblical,
even though there are inconsistencies on the above two points.
5. Biblical non-resistance must not
be identified with any of the above forms of pacifism, most certainly not with
religious pacifism. Biblical non-resistance recognizes that the Bible teaches
the separation of church and state, and that the Bible teaches that each has
its place in this age. Biblical non-resistance also recognizes that the
believer should be separated from the things of this world, and therefore he
should be separated from the personal use of weapons in the taking of human
life. But Biblical non-resistance recognizes that God permits human governments
to exercise force for the protection of lives and property in this present age.
War is wrong, but armed might is the one final argument understood by sinful
men and to which they ultimately bow. That was the reason that in the
inauguration of human government following the flood God ordained that physical
force could be used to establish its authority (Gen. 9:5-6).
Biblical non-resistance holds that
the Christian does have a responsibility to the government (Rom. 12:1-7). He
should obey the state in everything that is good. He should pay his taxes, pray
for those in authority, and submit himself to every law that does not ask him
to do anything contrary to the higher law of God (Acts 4:17-20; 5:28-29).
Taking human life is one such thing clearly prohibited by the law of God (Exod.
20:13). Taking the life of a brother in Christ is condemned (1 John 3:11-16).
At this point the believer must respectfully refuse to comply in every detail
with the regulations of military operation. But the believer is free to serve
his country in the army or under civilian direction in anything that is good.
There are multitudes of things that need the dedicated and efficient service of
men in the army. As a non-combatant a believer can serve in the medical corps,
as chaplain, encourage the sick and dying, and bear a personal witness to the
saving grace of our blessed Lord. In this way he can serve his country on the
one hand, and at the same time faithfully discharge his responsibility as a
Christian in everything that pertains to life and godliness.
No comments:
Post a Comment