pacifism questions

[A Cup of No]

Hey,

I have a few questions. I'd prefer this to be a discussion rather than a debate. I don't want to burn any strawman, so any christian pacifist who is interested in discussing, let me know! we can even take it over to a b-ball thread or something sporty like that.

[GreatWhiteHype2]

Hey,

I have a few questions. I'd prefer this to be a discussion rather than a debate. I don't want to burn any strawman, so any christian pacifist who is interested in discussing, let me know! we can even take it over to a b-ball thread or something sporty like that.

I've never been opposed to a good discussion or two over this topic, and I'm a committed Christian pacifist. I've been a little sporadic here recently though in my participation in threads and/or presence in general; but I'd love to talk. If you wanna pop off a few questions or start a thread in the b-ball court, I'm down

[Duder]

I've never been opposed to a good discussion or two over this topic, and I'm a committed Christian pacifist. I've been a little sporadic here recently though in my participation in threads and/or presence in general; but I'd love to talk. If you wanna pop off a few questions or start a thread in the b-ball court, I'm down

Hi, L and GWH2 -

It's a good subject because it isn't an easy subject.

The Christian pacifist is in an uncomfortable position. Like Jesus in His earthly ministry, he wants to stand for the weak and the oppressed, but it seems sometimes that the only way to do that is to confront the oppressor with force. His natural inclination is to protect himself and his loved ones with all necessary force, and to send in the Marines to stop genocides. To stay his hand, he must have a very strong understanding of how allowing brutes to proceed unchecked is the best thing to do.

Moreover, if he believes that the scriptures are innerent and if he interprets them as being historically accurate, then God would not seem to be a pacifist Himself, having personally commanded battles and genocidal slaughters, and having promised worse to come in the apocalypse. If God is the model of moral behavior (be perfect, even as your heavenly father is perfect) how will the human who imitates God eschew violence?

The Christian non-pacifist is also in an uncomfortable position. He has to deal with one of the most powerful and enthralling public speeches ever recorded - the Sermon on the Mount. He can deal with these paragraphs' unyielding pacifism in one of two ways: He can invent loopholes that are not really present in the text, such as the claim that Jesus was fine with official, governmental violence, and the that peaceful attitude he advises only concerns personal conduct.

Another possibility for the non-pacifist is to entertain the possibility that Jesus never said these things. The words do, after all, seem to be very counterintuitive and against common sense.

If he takes this route, he has to surrendur any committment to the doctrine of scriptural inerrency. But even if he does that, he would have to explain why such a speech as the Sermon on the Mount would have been stuck in. The only reason for a writer to put words into the mouth of the Lord would be to add power to a doctrine that the writer favors. But it is very hard to guess for what reason a doctrine so strange and difficult as cheek-turning would be invented.

The only thinker I know about who addressed this question was Nietzsche. Nietzsche called Christianity a slave religion, and what he meant was this: The weak use Christianity as a way of making the strong feel ashamed of their power. Christianity is a tool of the feeble to emasculate the mighty, and if humanity has not achieved the glorious fate that it might, it is the fault of this effeminate faith.

This is hard topic. I am not prepared to discuss my personal feelings on the matter at this time.

.

[GreatWhiteHype2]

Hi, L and GWH2 -

It's a good subject because it isn't an easy subject.
Amen to that.


The Christian pacifist is in an uncomfortable position. Like Jesus in His earthly ministry, he wants to stand for the weak and the oppressed, but it seems sometimes that the only way to do that is to confront the oppressor with force. His natural inclination is to protect himself and his loved ones with all necessary force, and to send in the Marines to stop genocides. To stay his hand, he must have a very strong understanding of how allowing brutes to proceed unchecked is the best thing to do.

I'd agree that the Christian pacifist is in an uncomfortable position, but I'd suggest every Christian should be in an uncomfortable position. The ethics Jesus commands us to follow seem impossible to follow; but that does not deny their practical import. The lifestyle we are called to follow is not easy, and is not rife with simple either/or ethical decisions.

The first step any of us who follow Christ must take is a willingness to engage the texts of the Bible that stick out to us as uncomfortable or against the worldviews we ascribe to. Those inerrantists who suggest the Bible gives a consistent worldview from Genesis to Revelation are wrong. The fact that some distance exists between events and their inclusion into Scripture, along with the fact that the community had to decide which deserved canonization and which not shows the books of Scripture didn't appear out of thin air, but rather emerged from a God working in the daily life of a specific historical community on a personal level; with that community struggling to figure out how to be true to the demands of this God.

Recognizing these movements helps us to see that the ethical expectations of an ancient Israelite and a member of the early church were different. Faithfulness today (post-Incarnation) looks different than faithfulness yesterday (pre-Incarnation). This lends itself to the perspective that God has been working to shape a people...meeting them in their world, in their time, and calling them higher and further. Jesus, in the fullness of time, exploded into our world not only to bridge the gap between humanity and God, but to set the example for what faithfulness to God is. As second Adam, he set the pace for what we are all to aspire to. Most conspicuously, his life of faithfulness was vastly different than "faithful" Jews of his day.

Ethicists today (in the mold of H. Richard Niebuhr) try to relativize the radical teachings of Jesus away by taming his words down to pragmatic, "responsible," actions and stances in engaging with society. This stance, though popular, is deeply flawed in that it allows the societies of which we are a part to define what is "faithful" and what is "responsible" for the church instead of the church defining these terms by itself. I would suggest only these two ideas for moving forward:

1) Christian ethics are for Christians. We should not expect secularists to abide by them. Thus, as John Howard Yoder suggests, instead of asking: "What would happen if EVERYONE laid down their weapons?" the primary question for Christians should be, "What if nobody else acted like a Christian, but we did?" As the church, our primary question is not one of "responsibility" in secular terms, but faithfulness no matter what: recognizing that the pursuit of faithfulness carries tremendous power in and of itself...we are not simply shutting our eyes and covering our ears and chanting "world peace."

2) The church is not an arm of the state nor is it subservient to the state. Our calling is higher, and the expectations of God for us are higher. As Christians, we fundamentally submit ourselves and our agendas and our definitions to God's expectations, agenda, and definitions. As C.S. Lewis suggests, "Fallen man is not simply an imperfect creature who needs improvement: he is a rebel who must lay down his arms. Laying down your arms, surrendering, saying you are sorry, realizing you have been on the wrong track and getting ready to start life over again from the ground floor- that is the only way out of our 'hole.'- this process of surrender-this movement full speed astern-is repentance."


Moreover, if he believes that the scriptures are innerent and if he interprets them as being historically accurate, then God would not seem to be a pacifist Himself, having personally commanded battles and genocidal slaughters, and having promised worse to come in the apocalypse. If God is the model of moral behavior ([i]be perfect, even as your heavenly father is perfect) how will the human who imitates God eschew violence?

This is where it should be glaringly obvious to us that we need to draw a distinction between the free actions of God and the expectations of us His people. It is perfectly logical to say that God uses nations and individuals for his purposes (he used multiple nations in the OT other than Israel to accomplish His ends). However, Jesus' life and teachings showed us what it means on a practical level to be fully faithful...and that is to walk the path of servanthood and sacrificial love. This reality, combined with the fact that we "see through a glass darkly," should toss out the option of violence from the beginning. I'd hate to be the one with blood on my hands from actions I rationalized as "just" when I must answer one day for what I have done before a holy and righteous judge.

God is free to use anything for his purposes. We are not God. We do not have that freedom.

[Darth Executor]

The Christian non-pacifist is also in an uncomfortable position.
I agree, but it has nothing to do with the sermon on the mount. Jesus said "bless the peacemakers", not "bless the pacifists". To show the difference, I gave you a scenario once and asked you a question. I see that you were not concerned with actually learning as you insist on blowing the same horn again. As I do not want to hijack this topic, perhaps you'd like a 1 on 1 discussion in the Basketball Court instead? I promise I won't call you an idiot. :teeth:

[Trinitarian]

Hey,

I have a few questions. I'd prefer this to be a discussion rather than a debate. I don't want to burn any strawman, so any christian pacifist who is interested in discussing, let me know! we can even take it over to a b-ball thread or something sporty like that.

I'm up for such a discussion. I've been a committed Christian pacifist for a long time and have read the literature on Peace and War in Christian perspective fairly widely.

Rando is also someone who you could talk to.

[Amazing Rando]

Hey,

I have a few questions. I'd prefer this to be a discussion rather than a debate. I don't want to burn any strawman, so any christian pacifist who is interested in discussing, let me know! we can even take it over to a b-ball thread or something sporty like that.

Hey Rob- I'm up for B-ball if you are. If so, just shoot me a PM. :wink:

-Another Rob

P.S. And in regard to Darth's question, I just completed a seminary course on the SoM where we dug into some real depth as to its meaning.

[Mark_S]

I'm not a full fledged pacifist yet, but every day I find myself getting closer to that position

[Amazing Rando]

I'm not a full fledged pacifist yet, but every day I find myself getting closer to that position

Mark- in my book, it doesn't matter whether you call yourself by the Christian pacifist label or not, and abide by the abstract philosophical principles such a commitment would entail. The important thing for me is that you recognize that the good news of Jesus Christ is inherently a life-affirming one, and that as such, any decision to take human life is a very serious matter.

Classical "just war" thinking in its purest, most original form (such as that proffered by Augustine) respects this fact. Many modern day Christians who think they are being faithful to the just war theory are in fact simply attempting to cover their glorification of violence with pious language. In all its ugly unexamined assumptions, it's nothing more than a medieval crusader mentality.

I'd like to share a few brief comments from a seminary textbook of mine that address the legitimate application of just war criteria:


We have sought to make clear that any legitimate Christian use of just war theory must be based on nonviolence and justice, as taught by Jesus. A Christian who supports just war theory should see it as the most effective way to minimize violence and injustice, not merely to rationalize making war. "Just war theory does not try to justify war. Rather, it tries to bring war under the control of justice" [citing Holmes]... Walter Wink calls the rules of just war theory "violence-reduction criteria."
...

Just war theory should not be based on an argument that in a time of war, Jesus is no longer Lord and his wat is no longer relevant. Privatism argues that Jesus lordship and teachings on peacemaking apply only to individual, private relationships and not to the obligation of governments to seek peace.... It seems to us that all these ways of marginalizing and compartmentalizing Jesus' Lordship set up some other lord- the government, the need for retribution or nationalism- as lord over the rest of life. They are therefore idolatry...

We argue that just war theory is not autonomous. Either it serves the purpose of reducing violenceand seeking justice under Christ's lordship, or it serves some idolatrous loyalty such as rationalizing a war we have an urge to make...

Once Christians define just war theory as a way to try to decrease violence and injustice, they receive a second benefit: they are clearly affirming nonviolence and justice. So they can be more honest in affirming Jesus' teaching of peacemaking and justice. They no longer need to deny that Jesus teaches peacemaking in order to defend their loyalty to just war theory. That denial was a losing argument.... Rather, if they want to argue for just war theory, they need to argue that it is the most effective way to implement Jesus' way of peace and justice in a sinful world.

In other words, Christian pacifists and those who are seriously commited to the Augustinian just war tradition have this in common- they both affirm the inherent nonviolence of Jesus' gospel proclamation, and both seek ways to reduce the violence in the world. There is significant common ground between the Christian pacifist tradition (especially as it was lived out in the first three centuries after Christ) and the just war tradition which developed in the fourth century. What I and many others lament is the fact that many Christians have taken up the language of "just war," ripped out its heart and original intention (fidelity to Jesus' nonviolent gospel proclamation) and simply baptized it and employed it in the cause of idolatrous nationalism. The "just war" then becomes "whatever war my country happens to be fighting" and the "enemy" becomes "whoever my country tells me to kill."

Anyway, I apologize for using your comment as a soap-box for something I've been meaning to get off my chest for a while. Mark, I recognize in your heart a genuine commitment to Jesus and the honesty and courage to admit that Jesus' way is the way of peace. Whether or not you choose to call yourself by the pacifist moniker doesn't much matter to me. From what I can tell, you've hit the most important issue already. :thumb:

[Duder]

I agree, but it has nothing to do with the sermon on the mount. Jesus said "bless the peacemakers", not "bless the pacifists". To show the difference, I gave you a scenario once and asked you a question. I see that you were not concerned with actually learning as you insist on blowing the same horn again. As I do not want to hijack this topic, perhaps you'd like a 1 on 1 discussion in the Basketball Court instead? I promise I won't call you an idiot. :teeth:

Hello, Darth -

I would happily talk with you in the BB Court or anywhere else about what the issues are.

However, I am not ready at this time to say what the correct stance on Christian pacifism is, because I don't know.

[Darth Executor]

Hello, Darth -

I would happily talk with you in the BB Court or anywhere else about what the issues are.

However, I am not ready at this time to say what the correct stance on Christian pacifism is, because I don't know.

Oh, I understand that. My purpose is merely to correct some of the misunderstanding that you may have. I will start a topic later today.

[GreatWhiteHype2]

Oh, I understand that. My purpose is merely to correct some of the misunderstanding that you may have. I will start a topic later today.

Or maybe to leave room for the possibility (however small) that you might *gasp* learn something from Duder's perspective too?

[Darth Executor]

Or maybe to leave room for the possibility (however small) that you might *gasp* learn something from Duder's perspective too?

Unlikely. The only pacifist here that I've ever learned anything from (regarding this subject anyway) is Rando. Duder has a history of bad interpretation of scripture.

[GreatWhiteHype2]

But it is very hard to guess for what reason a doctrine so strange and difficult as cheek-turning would be invented.

The only thinker I know about who addressed this question was Nietzsche. Nietzsche called Christianity a slave religion, and what he meant was this: The weak use Christianity as a way of making the strong feel ashamed of their power. Christianity is a tool of the feeble to emasculate the mighty, and if humanity has not achieved the glorious fate that it might, it is the fault of this effeminate faith.


On a strictly sociological and philosophical level (and I emphasize strictly), Nietzche's got a point that a lot of Christians don't get. However, I would not call Christians "weak" unless we were talking about employment of worldly power. By refusing to engage in the warfare the world engages in (whether physical or class), we are in fact employing and calling on a greater power: the Creator of the Universe who will fight for us. Our willingness to consistently and rigorously apply this approach to our societal interactions WILL emasculate the mighty and provide a powerful counter-narrative to the secular championing of the "nation" and/or "capitalism" or any other prevailing philosophy that claims lordship.

This is precisely why the nonviolent sacrificial love lifestyles all Christians are called to live are not, in fact, "effeminate," but instead turn the claims and thought patterns and expectations of the world on their head (which, ironically, is taking the twisted worldly perspective and placing its created purposes back firmly where it was meant to be). The book of Romans most sweepingly deals with this theme (which is why I hate that it's been reduced to the "Roman Road"); we live like humans were created to live, while everyone else stumbles in the dark and foolishly claims they're walking in the light.

So that begs the question: do we accept the world system to be the world "as it is" and work from within the system, or do we maintain critical distance (even from more "free" systems of governance or economics) and seek to be fundamentally faithful to the Lordship of Christ? This is radical stuff. Biblically speaking, the burden of proof rests on those (like the brothers Niebuhr) who would seek to make the claim that we make ourselves subservient to the system and work to "transform" it with certain Christian principles. Ironically, history has worked so that "pacifists" and other "fringe groups" have had the burden of proof shifted onto them and have to explain why their perspective is "responsible" engagement with society. Twisted, I tell you. Twisted.

[Mark_S]

Thanks for the response Rando. While I think I was walking down this road for almost a decade now, you are the one who pointed out that fact out to me a few months ago.

I only hesitate to call myself a pacifist because I'm not entirely sure of what is all meant behind the label. Basically, I feel trapped (or perhaps torn) between personal feelings, politics/government, what I think God's will is, and how all these piece together.

On a personal level, I can't stomach death and violence anymore. Maybe its because I've seen it too up close and personal, maybe its another reason, I don't know, but somewhere along the line the immune system that I have built up for violence is completely gone. Its gotten to the point where fictional TV and movies disturb me, the news repulses me, and those hypothetical situations that pit the welfare of a loved one against causing harm or death to another person makes me physically ill.

The political and government aspect muddles things somewhat, and is compounded by the nature of a republic/democracy. On a personal level its very easy to say: "Let the government be the government and just live the life that God has called me to" The problem in this is, of course, that we participate in the government. Certainly the government has the power to wield the sword, but does that mean it should be supported. Certainly there are just wars but when is that. Obviously this is an issue that I have fully worked through yet, there always seems to be another "but" that I run into.

God's will is something I'm still searching for. Right now I think it comes down to a matter of faith. We all have heard about the ethical dilemma of a man who is forced to chose between stealing bread or letting his family starve. To this I would ask the man where his faith in God is, that he would believe God would let him starve. Turning this into the topic at hand, where is my faith that I would believe Jesus, who promoted peace, would lead me into a situation resolved only by violence. Of course, living that faith is something else entirely. I don't know if I'm capable of that yet.

Well this isn't terribly comprehensive. Just a few rambling thoughts for the day.

[Amazing Rando]

Thanks for the response Rando. While I think I was walking down this road for almost a decade now, you are the one who pointed out that fact out to me a few months ago.

I only hesitate to call myself a pacifist because I'm not entirely sure of what is all meant behind the label. Basically, I feel trapped (or perhaps torn) between personal feelings, politics/government, what I think God's will is, and how all these piece together.

On a personal level, I can't stomach death and violence anymore. Maybe its because I've seen it too up close and personal, maybe its another reason, I don't know, but somewhere along the line the immune system that I have built up for violence is completely gone. Its gotten to the point where fictional TV and movies disturb me, the news repulses me, and those hypothetical situations that pit the welfare of a loved one against causing harm or death to another person makes me physically ill.

The political and government aspect muddles things somewhat, and is compounded by the nature of a republic/democracy. On a personal level its very easy to say: "Let the government be the government and just live the life that God has called me to" The problem in this is, of course, that we participate in the government. Certainly the government has the power to wield the sword, but does that mean it should be supported. Certainly there are just wars but when is that. Obviously this is an issue that I have fully worked through yet, there always seems to be another "but" that I run into.

God's will is something I'm still searching for. Right now I think it comes down to a matter of faith. We all have heard about the ethical dilemma of a man who is forced to chose between stealing bread or letting his family starve. To this I would ask the man where his faith in God is, that he would believe God would let him starve. Turning this into the topic at hand, where is my faith that I would believe Jesus, who promoted peace, would lead me into a situation resolved only by violence. Of course, living that faith is something else entirely. I don't know if I'm capable of that yet.

Well this isn't terribly comprehensive. Just a few rambling thoughts for the day.

Mark- blessings on your journey, dude. :smile: Don't worry about whether or not to call yourself a "pacifist" at this point. That's truly unimportant compared to really following Jesus and taking up your cross. May God's richest blessings come your way!

-Rob

[Duder]

On a strictly sociological and philosophical level (and I emphasize strictly), Nietzche's got a point that a lot of Christians don't get. However, I would not call Christians "weak" unless we were talking about employment of worldly power. By refusing to engage in the warfare the world engages in (whether physical or class), we are in fact employing and calling on a greater power: the Creator of the Universe who will fight for us. Our willingness to consistently and rigorously apply this approach to our societal interactions WILL emasculate the mighty and provide a powerful counter-narrative to the secular championing of the "nation" and/or "capitalism" or any other prevailing philosophy that claims lordship.

This is precisely why the nonviolent sacrificial love lifestyles all Christians are called to live are not, in fact, "effeminate," but instead turn the claims and thought patterns and expectations of the world on their head (which, ironically, is taking the twisted worldly perspective and placing its created purposes back firmly where it was meant to be). The book of Romans most sweepingly deals with this theme (which is why I hate that it's been reduced to the "Roman Road"); we live like humans were created to live, while everyone else stumbles in the dark and foolishly claims they're walking in the light.

So that begs the question: do we accept the world system to be the world "as it is" and work from within the system, or do we maintain critical distance (even from more "free" systems of governance or economics) and seek to be fundamentally faithful to the Lordship of Christ? This is radical stuff. Biblically speaking, the burden of proof rests on those (like the brothers Niebuhr) who would seek to make the claim that we make ourselves subservient to the system and work to "transform" it with certain Christian principles. Ironically, history has worked so that "pacifists" and other "fringe groups" have had the burden of proof shifted onto them and have to explain why their perspective is "responsible" engagement with society. Twisted, I tell you. Twisted.

Hello, GWH -

I see what you mean about Nietzsche. There never was a more poison-penned anti-christian, and yet at the same time he seems to have understood Christianity more deeply than many Christians. He is one of a relative few writers that took Jesus' non-violence seriously, at any rate.

It is ironic that some Christians I have read on this board sound like Nietzsche in their scorn of pacifists. And it has seemed to me, reading some posters, that Nietzche's arguments for the will to power would seem quite proper and reasonable to them.

These posters would say, I think, that Nietzche was right in his sociology and his ethics, but mistaken to think that Christianity was inconsistent with his views. Odd, isn't it?

I agree that Nietzche did not understand Christianity. But he understood it better than the pacifist-scorning Twebbers! Nietzche at least took Jesus at his word about the avoidence of retribution and violence.

Where Nietzche erred was in his characterization of Christianity as a "woos" religion. It is not for wooses. Jesus' strategy of dealing with violent attack is the harder road. It deals with the brute by showing him and all who are watching that the brute is being a monster. It is a stategy that proved effective in the middle twentieth century in India and in the South of the United States. It transformed societies. But no cowards could have employed it!

[Keith Johnson]

Mark- in my book, it doesn't matter whether you call yourself by the Christian pacifist label or not, and abide by the abstract philosophical principles such a commitment would entail. The important thing for me is that you recognize that the good news of Jesus Christ is inherently a life-affirming one, and that as such, any decision to take human life is a very serious matter.

Classical "just war" thinking in its purest, most original form (such as that proffered by Augustine) respects this fact. Many modern day Christians who think they are being faithful to the just war theory are in fact simply attempting to cover their glorification of violence with pious language. In all its ugly unexamined assumptions, it's nothing more than a medieval crusader mentality.

I'd like to share a few brief comments from a seminary textbook of mine that address the legitimate application of just war criteria:


We have sought to make clear that any legitimate Christian use of just war theory must be based on nonviolence and justice, as taught by Jesus. A Christian who supports just war theory should see it as the most effective way to minimize violence and injustice, not merely to rationalize making war. "Just war theory does not try to justify war. Rather, it tries to bring war under the control of justice" [citing Holmes]... Walter Wink calls the rules of just war theory "violence-reduction criteria."
...

Just war theory should not be based on an argument that in a time of war, Jesus is no longer Lord and his wat is no longer relevant. Privatism argues that Jesus lordship and teachings on peacemaking apply only to individual, private relationships and not to the obligation of governments to seek peace.... It seems to us that all these ways of marginalizing and compartmentalizing Jesus' Lordship set up some other lord- the government, the need for retribution or nationalism- as lord over the rest of life. They are therefore idolatry...

We argue that just war theory is not autonomous. Either it serves the purpose of reducing violenceand seeking justice under Christ's lordship, or it serves some idolatrous loyalty such as rationalizing a war we have an urge to make...

Once Christians define just war theory as a way to try to decrease violence and injustice, they receive a second benefit: they are clearly affirming nonviolence and justice. So they can be more honest in affirming Jesus' teaching of peacemaking and justice. They no longer need to deny that Jesus teaches peacemaking in order to defend their loyalty to just war theory. That denial was a losing argument.... Rather, if they want to argue for just war theory, they need to argue that it is the most effective way to implement Jesus' way of peace and justice in a sinful world.

In other words, Christian pacifists and those who are seriously commited to the Augustinian just war tradition have this in common- they both affirm the inherent nonviolence of Jesus' gospel proclamation, and both seek ways to reduce the violence in the world. There is significant common ground between the Christian pacifist tradition (especially as it was lived out in the first three centuries after Christ) and the just war tradition which developed in the fourth century. What I and many others lament is the fact that many Christians have taken up the language of "just war," ripped out its heart and original intention (fidelity to Jesus' nonviolent gospel proclamation) and simply baptized it and employed it in the cause of idolatrous nationalism. The "just war" then becomes "whatever war my country happens to be fighting" and the "enemy" becomes "whoever my country tells me to kill."


I'm not sure my comments will advance the discussion or not. I have called myself a type 2 pacifist, by which I mean: I am not opposed to tpolice-type violence against a criminal but I am opposed to warfare. I draw a distinction between a criminal who makes the choice to commit a crime and a soldier who is fighting for his country--I don't think it's OK to kill a person just because he lives in a different country from me.

Jesus' admonition to turn the other cheek isn't as easy to interpret as you might think, IMO. The context of jesus' teaching was that we ought not demand justice for those who strike us, demanding that they pay for their crimes with an eye for an eye--we may have a right to that justice but as Christians we ought to forego that right in favor of loving our enemies. But it doesn't seem to me that jesus was even addressing the dilemma of what we should do when someone else is being threatened by violence. Supposing violence was necessary to protect a victim from an assailant, is jesus saying that we should leave the victim unprotected rather than use the means necessary to protect him? I don't see that such was jesus' point.
But surely it is true that loving our enemies means we have to be very careful before we use physical force against them. We at least have to make sure we don't use more force than is necessary, even if force is sometimes justified.

But I don't think military force is justified and I think military action might be incompatible with Christ's teaching. I noticed this once when my church was praying for the safety of our military personel in Iraq and Afghanistan. We were rightfully praying that our friends and family over there would come home safe. But we ought to be offering the same prayer for their[/i[ friends and family as well, and for the civilians who are suffering from the war. But that entails praying that [i]our bombs and bullets miss their soldiers just as we pray that theirs miss ours. I can't logically make that prayer and support the war at the same time.

your friend
Keith