by pettygrudger 29 Replies latest jw friends
That sure was a lot of information. Information that does not change the definition of pacifism.
Witnesses are in opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes. Witnesses refuse to bear arms on moral or religious grounds. Witnesses are not to own guns even in self-defense. If persecuted, Witnesses are not to fight back. They can print what they want and deny what they want, but pacifists they are.
The Bible’s Viewpoint
Should
Christians Be Pacifists?"The churches should become pacifist again as they were in the first centuries of Christianity."—Hubert Butler, Irish writer.
AFTER a visit to Yugoslavia following World War II, Hubert Butler daringly penned the above words in an essay written in 1947 but not published until just last year! He was shocked at how "the Christian Church during the war connived at unspeakable crimes and departed very far from the teaching of Christ."
Butler was not afraid to speak out for unpopular causes or groups. When he did, he generally spoke alone. He expressed himself without fear when he contrasted the churches’ behavior with the courageous stance of Jehovah’s Witnesses, who were described in The Irish Times as "surely the most innocent and blamelessly apolitical religious sect of all." In his essay, "Report on Yugoslavia," Butler wrote that the Witnesses, who "reject[ed] all the sophistries by which war is justified by leaders in political and religious life," were put on trial by the Yugoslav authorities for their refusal to join the war movement.
Is it Scripturally correct, however, to describe Jehovah’s Witnesses as pacifists? To clarify the matter, it may depend on what is meant by the word "pacifist." Butler used the term to commend the Witnesses for their bravery in refusing, at great personal cost, to take up arms in warfare. Sadly, though, many people who are caught up in the fever of war see a pacifist only as "a coward or a traitor, who [is] anxious to shirk his responsibility to his nation." Is that viewpoint correct?
Opposition
to War or ViolenceWebster’s
Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary says that a pacifist is someone who is "strongly and actively opposed to conflict and esp[ecially] war." It defines "pacifism" as "opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes; specif[ically]: refusal to bear arms on moral or religious grounds." How would these definitions apply to the believers of the early Christian congregation?They did ‘refuse to bear arms on moral and religious grounds’ and avoided all ‘conflict and war.’ Why? Because they knew that Jesus had said that his followers were "no part of the world" and that "all those who take the sword will perish by the sword." (John 15:19; Matthew 26:52) In The Early Church and the World, one historian tells us that "up to the reign of Marcus Aurelius at least [161-180 C.E.], no Christian would become a soldier after his baptism." In The New World’s Foundations in the Old, another says: "The first Christians thought it was wrong to fight, and would not serve in the army even when the Empire needed soldiers."
The Christians’ commission was to preach the good news. (Matthew 24:14; 28:19, 20) They understood that they had no commission from God to wage war against his enemies, to act as God’s executioners, as it were. (Matthew 5:9; Romans 12:17-21) Only when so-called Christians ‘depart far from the teaching of Christ,’ as Butler stated, do they get enmeshed in the wars of the nations. Then the clergy bless armies and pray for victory, often on both sides of a conflict. (Compare John 17:16; 18:36.) In past centuries, for example, Protestants and Catholics fought many bloody wars, resulting in "the horrors that [descended] on Western Europe, both sides proclaiming themselves as the instruments of God’s wrath," writes Kenneth Clark in his book Civilisation. The arguments made to justify this kind of warfare, says McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, "have evidently grown out of a desire to conciliate the civil power, and are clearly opposed to the ancient Christian doctrine and to the whole spirit of the Gospel."—James 4:4.
Totally
Opposed to War?Were ‘the ancient Christian doctrine and the whole spirit of the Gospel’ really pacifist, however? Could early Christians truly be described as pacifists, as defined previously? No! Why not? For one thing, they recognized God’s right to wage war. (Exodus 14:13, 14; 15:1-4; Joshua 10:14; Isaiah 30:30-32) Besides that, they never disputed God’s right to authorize ancient Israel to fight for him when that nation served as his sole instrument on earth.—Psalm 144:1; Acts 7:45; Hebrews 11:32-34.
God has not only a right but also an obligation on the basis of justice to remove wicked people from the earth. Many evildoers will never respond to God’s patient appeals to them to mend their ways. (Isaiah 45:22; Matthew 7:13, 14) God’s toleration of evil has limits. (Isaiah 61:2; Acts 17:30) Christians, therefore, recognize that in the end God will forcibly remove evil people from the earth. (2 Peter 3:9, 10) As the Bible foretells, this will be at "the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with his powerful angels in a flaming fire, as he brings vengeance upon those who do not know God and those who do not obey the good news about our Lord Jesus."—2 Thessalonians 1:6-9.
The last book of the Bible describes this conflict as "the war of the great day of God the Almighty," or Armageddon. (Revelation 16:14, 16) It says that Jesus Christ will take the lead in this, that he "carries on war in righteousness." (Revelation 19:11, 14, 15) Jesus Christ is rightly called the "Prince of Peace." (Isaiah 9:6) But he is not a pacifist. He has already fought a war in heaven to clear it of all God’s rebellious enemies. (Revelation 12:7-9) Soon he will fight another war "to bring to ruin those ruining the earth." However, his followers on earth will take no part in that divine judgment.—Revelation 11:17, 18.
True Christians love peace. They stay completely neutral in the world’s military, political, and ethnic conflicts. But, strictly speaking, they are not pacifists. Why? Because they welcome God’s war that will finally enforce his will on earth—a war that will settle the great issue of universal sovereignty and rid the earth of all enemies of peace once and for all.—Jeremiah 25:31-33; Daniel 2:44; Matthew 6:9, 10.
True Christians love peace. They stay completely neutral in the world’s military, political, and ethnic conflicts. But, strictly speaking, they are not pacifists. Why? Because they welcome God’s war that will finally enforce his will on earth—a war that will settle the great issue of universal sovereignty and rid the earth of all enemies of peace once and for all.—
So God isn't a pacifist. That doesn't mean a bunch of religous nuts aren't either.
a pacifist denounces war. i'd like to see any WTS literature that denounced WW2, during or to the run up of WW2. does anyone know of any?
Amazing...they sure are quick to run back to "old light" in this whole thing. I thought anything back that old was null and void. I bet if you used that same WT issue and all to point out a flawed dogma (i.e. 1914 or any of a plethora of others) they would scream bloody murder about how wrong it is to go back that far and to old light, that it's outdated information and should be put behind us.
Coon
Witnesses are in opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes. Witnesses refuse to bear arms on moral or religious grounds. Witnesses are not to own guns even in self-defense. If persecuted, Witnesses are not to fight back. They can print what they want and deny what they want, but pacifists they are.
What planet are you from?
I know for a fact that some do own a gun!
As for Christians being pacific, didn't Jesus order his followers to buy swords?
Jesus Himself NEVER defended Himself in such a matter but Trusted in his Father to take care of Him. Not even in The Temple His Father’s House did Jesus “ward off blows”.
No, he threw a tantrum, overturned tables and seats, and lashed at people
Jesus was the agressor. Couldn't he trust his father to take care of himself?
It's like every jw thing - they just don't like YOUR war.
a pacifist denounces war. i'd like to see any WTS literature that denounced WW2, during or to the run up of WW2. does anyone know of any?
I'm also curious about this.
It's like every jw thing - they just don't like YOUR war.Seems so. I read at http://www.pbs.org/perilousfight/social/objectors/ :
The Selective Service Act of 1940 exempted any person who, "by reason of religious training or belief, is conscientiously opposed to the participation of war in any form."
Because Jehovah's Witnesses opposed WW2 but not all wars, draft boards routinely denied their requests. Of 16,000 men convicted of draft resistance during the war (and sentenced to a maximum of five years), 6,000 were rejected CO's, and 3/4 of those were Jehovah's Witnesses.
So out of all rejected conscientious objectors who were sentenced to prison during WWII, a full three quarters were JWs(!) I'd always believed that the reason JWs who were drafted in the U.S. had been sent to prison was because as conscientious objectors they were against fighting all war and also because they would not do any non-combat duties. Because the Selective Service act was strictly enforced ( opposed to the participation of war in any form) ...
They fight only when God commands them to do so, because then it is theocratic warfare.
...was it the references to theocratic warfare in the JW literature that helped to put JWs behind bars? Were JWs using the term "theocratic warfare" before/during WWII? Interesting thread...
A rejected conscientious objector is not eligible for non-combat duty, right?
Again, I was always told that the reason why JW COs were jailed in the U.S. was because they refused to fight and they refused to do any non-com duty, not because they were rejected as conscientious objectors at the get-go due to the fact that JW doctrine does not oppose the participation of war in all forms...
Sorry for all the questions...I'm just trying to make sense of this...
edit...
Ok, I found something interesting that helps toward answering my questions at http://www.geocities.com/BourbonStreet/Delta/8317/MY_TESTIMONY.HTML :
Facing The Draft Registration for the draft confronted me, during the latter part of 1968. Notwithstanding that this was a time when the absolute worst battles of the war were taking place, the real reason that the draft was an issue was the fact that Jehovah's Witnesses are categorically opposed to war, and to any participation in military service.
I happened to have been assigned to a Selective Service Commissioner who had a long-standing reputation for being merciless toward Jehovah's witnesses. This, I was told, was especially true because of the "police action" in Vietnam. As the custom went, for all JW's, I applied for exemption from service on the grounds that I was an ordained minister. The exemption was denied. Instead of being exempted from military service, I was given the dreaded 1-A-O classification. Under Selective Service rules, a classification of 1-A meant the person was eligible for induction into regular service; 1-O meant the person was a conscientious objector, and NOT eligible for induction. The classification 1-A-O meant that the person was s conscientious objector, but could be inducted into the service to do non-combatant duty on a military base or hospital.
Jehovah's Witnesses refused to serve as non-combatants, because they believed such service to be tantamount to supporting the military machine. Unfortunately, such refusal came with the price of a five year sentence to the federal penitentiary. One acquaintance of mine – a member of my home congregation – was sent away in early 1969 because he refused to accept the draft board's assignment.
edit
Just learned a lot at http://www.umc-gbcs.org/uploads/news/124consc_object.pdf
