Introduction

I wrote this article back in 1996, and I am reposting it today to document where my thoughts were way back then. At the time, I was very idealistic, and this was before the events of September 11, 2001. Since then, life experiences, including having children, have shaped my views, making them less idealistic and more pragmatic. However, the core belief that seeking peace should be our highest goal remains unchanged. While my approach to pacifism and evangelical Christianity has evolved, the pursuit of peace is still a fundamental principle that I hold dear.

Pacifism and Evangelical Christianity: A Response

This article aims to address the belief that one cannot be both a pacifist and an evangelical Christian. It is entirely possible to believe in the inerrancy of the Bible and be a pacifist. We can uphold the doctrine of sola fide (faith alone) and still advocate for seeking peace peacefully. In fact, my belief in the Bible’s inerrancy is the very reason I am a pacifist; I see it as the ultimate guide for life. We can have differing views on nonessential doctrines without causing division within the church. As long as essential doctrines remain uncompromised, there should be no division.

Why do some label a pacifist as a heretic? Is not God the God of Peace? Did Jesus not say, “Blessed are the peacemakers”? I have been called many things, but having held both perspectives in my life, I now feel closer to the Heart of God. I hold this belief without compromise. The same power that sustained the Apostles, even unto death, is the same power that dwells in me now. If I seem out of place in this world, so be it. I belong not to this world, but to the one to come.

Now, I will examine the passages used to debunk my belief and respond to their criticisms. I do this to promote unity, not division. Division does not glorify the One we serve.

Analysis of the Argument: Jesus Christ Was Not a Pacifist

Argument:

“Neither John the Baptist, nor Jesus, nor the apostles condemned soldiering.”

Proof texts: Luke 3:14, Matthew 8:5-13, Acts 10:1-48.

Response:

The argument here is based on the silence of Jesus Christ. The reasoning is that since Jesus did not condemn this line of work, it must be acceptable. Furthermore, they suggest that Jesus is implicitly condoning soldiering over pacifism.

However, Jesus stated that he did not come to condemn. Their argument relies on the absence of condemnation, implying automatic endorsement by Jesus. Yet, pacifism was never condemned either. Therefore, these texts only imply meaning. When texts imply rather than explicitly state a meaning, we must interpret them in light of clearer passages.

Additionally, these are narrative accounts, merely reporting events. The fact that soldiers were not told to change their profession does not justify their profession. The narrators might have omitted statements that could support either argument.

Thus, these passages neither prove nor disprove pacifism or the just war theory.

Reflection

• How do you reconcile the concept of pacifism with your own religious or philosophical beliefs?
• Do you believe it is possible to uphold both pacifism and the principles of evangelical Christianity simultaneously? Why or why not?
• How have significant global events, such as September 11, 2001, impacted your views on peace and conflict?
• In what ways do you think the pursuit of peace can be balanced with the need for security and protection?