Talk:Christian pacifism/Archive 1

Archive 1

NPOV, OR, and Note concerns

There is some tendency in this brief entry called "Christian pacifism" to force a coherence upon all New Testament writers who have addressed some difficult issues surrounding violence and non-violence. Thus what one senses in this brief entry is a tendency to offer rather doctrinaire views in lieu of evidence or even rational argument from some documented source, including the Bible (not as an authority, but only as a source whose teachings can be verified or dis-verified by the appropriate citation). This is not to dispute the claim that Jesus was a pacifist. The larger problems begin when goes beyond that simple claim to the issue of what pacifism implies about the obligation to obey the law, i.e., the secular authorities. Some of the biblical citations are used to create the sense that Jesus was an anarchist. I will not contest this claim, either. My personal view on this does not matter. The problem, however, is that in an encyclopedia one would not expect evangelism or espousal of a particular sectarian doctrine as evidence of historical claims about the views of Jesus the presumed historical figure. By this I simply mean that there seems to be a presumption that all of the writers in the New Testament agreed with the teachings of Jesus. Such a presumption is a matter of faith, and an encyclopedia with a NPOV must be careful to differentiate between claims made from faith and claims made about faith or faiths. I recognize the difficulties of being totally neutral in this area, but substantial evidence exists that some of the writers of the New Testament perhaps did revere state authority more than Jesus might have. I offer these comments only as caveats. A NPOV, that is, cannot assume the coherence of scripture, for such an assumption is a matter of religious faith, and a particular religious faith at that. Jesus might or might not have endorsed state authority. (The simple teaching to "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" is not an obvious or unqualified endorsement of Caesar, i.e., the state, since the context for that quote is the issue of whether to pay taxes to Caesar, and Jesus' views about the love of money are straightforward enough.) None of this is to challenge the overall thrust of this entry. The requirement of a NPOV does require one to entertain the possibility that the various persons who address the issue of "Secular Authority and the Extent to Which It Should Be Obeyed" (the title of a famous tract by Martin Luther) have sometimes bent scripture not only to support their biases, but have presumed a biblical coherence which might be indefensible. If Wikipedia existed in order that an entry on "Christian pacifism" should become a vehicle for arguing for the infallibility of scripture, one might offer such a doctrine here. A NPOV requires, however, that one adopt a skeptical attitude about all such claims when compiling an encyclopedia. This is a friendly criticism of this entry, but it is a criticism that urges caution when citing Paul in Romans, chapter 13 or I Peter, chapter 2 as evidence as to what Jesus of Nazareth said as recounted by those who claim to have been the original witnesses or compilers of what was alleged to have been witnessed by others (i.e., the authors of the four "gospels," but especially the three synoptic gospels). Perhaps the teachings attributed to Jesus' oral teachings should be evaluated for internal coherence, not coherence of the entire body of doctrine called the "New Testament." (That, at least, is one alternative way of proceeding, although it is not without its difficulties as well.) Since there is no absolute certainty that Jesus even existed, it seems fatuous to use an encyclopedia to try to prove that what he might have said was supported by persons besides those who wrote the four "gospels." (Establishing what the various "gospels" say is daunting and problematic enough without expanding the scope to the issue of the coherence of the entire New Testament.) Again, none of this is intended as a refutation of any claim made on the basis of faith, simply as a caveat that an encyclopedia must to the maximum extent possible present a NPOV. On religious matters that is a tall order, but other venues on the web exist for the purpose of espousing doctrine or presenting the results of original research.Landrumkelly 13:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Beyond that, there's the more basic issue that the article currently cites no sources other than the Bible itself. The interpretations of those texts, regardless of their accuracy, plainly require citations and an explanation of their history. Without that, the page appears to be little more than a selective collective of verses compiled together as a work of original research. Folk who know this topic better than I do, please remedy this. MrZaius^talk 14:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Case for note in this article could use some work too - The term "Christian pacifism" originated where exactly? Why and where is it important? What sources do you have to back up your answer? It's plain that good answers to those questions must exist, given number of churches listed at peace churches, but we don't have good answers to any of those questions in this article, to point. MrZaius^talk 14:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Mr. Zaius, for saying much more concisely much of what I wanted to say. The author of this entry has, to his credit, tried to anticipate certain objections: "The following verses and interpretations are used by some Biblical scholars as evidence for Christian pacifism, nonviolence and nonresistance." Yes, indeed they have! Who are they and what did they say? In other words, this is a vast area of controversy that has come down to us as a sometimes bitter dispute between advocates of the "just war" tradition and challenges from those who see Jesus as a pacifist who would not have tried to justify war under any circumstances. Although the "just war" doctrine is often considered to have been a Catholic doctrine, given the writings of Augustine and Aquinas (later canonized as saints by the Church), these writers wrote well before the Protestant Reformation. The result is that, when the split between Protestants and Catholics occurred, the "just war" doctrine went with both sides. More precisely, the "pacifism-just war" debate has continued in both traditions. Furthermore, the debate from the very beginning seems to have escalated into a general challenge to state authority. Christian pacifism thus logically links to Christian anarchism, since the state would not exist if there were no appeals to violence in the name of justice. I do not know when the first dispute was recorded in writing, but Martin Luther thought that he had settled the dispute for all time with his "Secular Authority and the Extent to Which It Should Be Obeyed." This was more like the opening post-Reformation salvo than a resolution of the matter, but Luther's work would certainly be one source that could be cited, as could Augustine's ancient original formulation of the "just war" doctrine in Civitas Dei, The City of God. The term "Christian pacifism" is indeed a phrase that is commonly heard. When did it come into common usage? That would be good to know, and surely someone out there knows the answer. These things might be found under "just war" or some other article on Wikipedia. I have not checked. Certainly there is an allusion to both "Christian pacifism" and "Christian anarchism" in the Wikipedia article on "Pacifism." Anyone trying to build on this beginning article should know what they are up against. This is a vast, vast topic with a huge bibliography already in existence. I nonetheless think that we should thank the original contributor of this article for raising these issues, even if he did not offer much by way of bibliographic support.Landrumkelly 15:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Christian pacifists such as Ammon Hennacy and Keith Akers believe the move away from Christian pacifism began shortly after Jesus' death. They claim Paul distorted Jesus' message and therefore look to passages such as the Sermon on the Mount, rather the whole New Testament, for simplicity and truth (see also Pauline Christianity). nirvana2013 10:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Then say that here. The article as it currently reads looks more like a pamphlet that uses a half dozen selective biblical verses to promote a theological viewpoint than an article about Christian pacifists, their specific interpretations of the Bible, and the history of the movement. Equally important, cite it. MrZaius^talk 10:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I have added NPOV and OR tags, since these continue to be a problem in this article. Dactylion (talk) 21:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Christian anarchism and Christian nonviolence

Christian anarchism and Christian nonviolence do not necessarily coincide. There are many scholars who support one view, but not the other, such as René Girard among others. --Mlomize 02:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. nirvana2013 10:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Article title - Merge

Should the article be titled Christian pacifism or Christian nonviolence? Comments please. I much prefer Christian pacifism, it is not only more specific (nonviolence leads to pacifism) but can also describe the differing views of the Category:Christian pacifists. At the moment the article is just a list of bible passages, which does not make much of an article (see criticism above). If "Christian pacifism" becomes too large, a sub-article for "Christian nonviolence" can be started. nirvana2013 10:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC).

The article in its current state should be called Christian nonviolence. The two scholars cited in the article, Walter Wink and Rene Girard, more often refer to their ideas as Christian nonviolence instead of Christian pacifism. For instance, Walter Wink's recent book is called Jesus and Nonviolence: A Third Way. Rene Girard's theological interpretations are primarily based on the idea of violence and nonviolence, or "nonviolence or nonexistence." There are many more examples.

Christian nonviolence and Christian pacifism are similar, yet they have a different scope. I agree with your point, nirvana2013, that Christian nonviolence is more limited in scope than Christian pacifism. Christian nonviolence is only one subset of Christian pacifism. This article is not concerned with all ideas of Christian pacifism, such as Christian vegetarianism, anarchism or communal simple living. I agree with the previously mentioned comments that this article does not fulfill requirements for a complete Christian pacifism article. This article was never meant to be called Christian pacifism. I created this article because I wanted to provide an organized way to access different scholars' views on the specific topic of Christian nonviolence, not the more multifaceted topic of Christian pacifism. If you want to start a new article about Christian pacifism, please feel free to do so. You can link to Christian nonviolence from there. So far, there is only enough information in the article to be called Christian nonviolence.

Furthermore, there is tentative reason to argue that Christian nonviolence and Christian pacifism are not always compatible. Is a mentality of spiritual warfare more compatible with nonviolence or pacifism? Christian authors, such as John Piper, argue that Christians have become too spiritually pacifist (i.e. complacent) with their feeling of urgency to help others. Nonviolence does not carry as strong of a sense of passivity as pacifism. One may be a spiritual warrior for God and also be nonviolent.--Mlomize 03:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

"This article is not concerned with all ideas of Christian pacifism, such as Christian vegetarianism, anarchism or communal simple living." I would say nonviolence is the seed leading to pacifism (killing or defending yourself against humans), vegetarianism (killing animals for food) or anarchism (withdrawing support for violent governments). Nonviolence is the more "multifaceted topic". I disagree that pacifism is complacent or passive (a common misconception amongst advocates of Just War), one only has to look at Category:Christian pacifists for examples of individuals risking their own lives to help others. Its just that their help does not consist of violence. nirvana2013 07:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that nonviolence is the key to pacifism. You cannot have pacifism without nonviolence. I also agree that pacifism does not have to be passive and true pacifism is never passive. I was not stating that pacifism is passive. Instead, I mean that pacifism is MORE OFTEN associated with passivity due to the broad definition of pacifism. For example, Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi more often referred to a movement for nonviolence, instead of a movement for pacifism. Christian nonviolence is necessary for Christian pacifism, but Christian pacifism is not necessary for Christian nonviolence.

Furthermore, I thank you for your passion to make an article about Christian pacifism. The currently cited scholars in this article deal more with the idea of Christian nonviolence, than Christian pacifism. My reasons are mentioned above. Please let me know if you have disagreements with my reasoning. If you no longer disagree, please move the article to its original title, "Christian nonviolence," or write a new and different article about "Christian pacifism."--Mlomize 23:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see this debate to continue for the time being before moving the article back to Christian nonviolence, for several reasons:

• Input is needed from more editors in order to reach consensus.
• If nonviolence is the seed which leads to pacifism, vegetarianism and anarchism, then there are currently articles for Christian vegetarianism and Christian anarchism, but one will not exist for Christian pacifism. At the current time there is not enough content to support two articles, one for Christian nonviolence and one for Christian pacifism. If we were to make two articles, I would expect other editors to merge them back together.
• I believe what we are really talking about is the perception of what the words pacifism and nonviolence mean to us. As a word pacifism, like anarchism, has been run down by governments and the media for many years. For many people a pacifist conjures up images of a passive, frightened tree hugger, and an anarchist as a violent madman. However in reality the word pacifism means something quite different, and is pretty similar in many ways to nonviolence.

I would support a move of the Category:Christian pacifism to the more generic Category:Christian nonviolence, as this could then list other articles to do with nonviolence, such as Christian vegetarianism and Christian anarchism. P.S. Good to meet another proponent of nonviolence. Peace and blessings, nirvana2013 10:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

In response to your points one by one in order:

• I agree about a needed consensus. Note, nirvana2013 did not seek consensus to move the original article from Christian nonviolence to Christian pacifism.
• Currently, the idea that other people would merge the two articles is hypothetical. Moreover, from the above mentioned reasons, Christian nonviolence and Christian pacifism are not fully congruent. Hence, it would be unreasonable to merge the two articles.
• While there are inherent subjective editorial views in making this article, I tried to do the best job possible to cite the way specific professional scholars talk about the subject of Christian nonviolence and Christian pacifism. Walter Wink and Rene Girard (who make up the key referenced section of the article) focus their work on Christian nonviolence, not Christian pacifism. There is no such support given for the title "Christian pacifism" for this article. The onus of subjective editorial views lies more on Christian pacifism than Christian nonviolence.

Again, I ask you to move the article back to Christian nonviolence and/or create a separate article for Christian pacifism (even if the Christian pacifism article will be short; it is better to be a short article than an inaccurate article), especially if nobody posts their thoughts about this in the coming days. --Mlomize 02:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

<-----Continued to left

"nirvana2013 did not seek consensus to move the original article from Christian nonviolence to Christian pacifism." - I believe the original article you created started out discussing "pacifism" but has since shifted to "nonviolence" [1]. "Christian nonviolence and Christian pacifism are not fully congruent." - From Merriam-Webster dictionary: Pacifism = opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes [2]; Nonviolence = abstention from violence as a matter of principle [3]. They seem pretty congruent to me. "The onus of subjective editorial views lies more on Christian pacifism than Christian nonviolence." - All text written in the article is linked to specific individuals. nirvana2013 08:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The Merriam-Webster dictionary gives an accurate, yet simplistic definition of "nonviolence" and "pacifism." Notice, Wikipedia has separate articles of pacifism and nonviolence. Furthermore, the idea of "Christian pacifism" and "Christian nonviolence" adds another layer of meaning. Thus, one would instead need to look up "Christian pacifism" and "Christian nonviolence" in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. I do not understand what you mean by, "All text written in the article is linked to specific individuals." Please try to answer the question about all the currently referenced scholars in this article preferring to generally use "Christian nonviolence" rather than "Christian pacifism" in their writings. Wikipedia aims to represent the general scholarly knowledge about a certain topic. Unless certain information has references, it has little place in Wikipedia. In the original form of the article I aimed to talk about nonviolence. [4]. I never aimed to make a Christian pacifism article because that would include Christian love, Christian vegetarianism, Christian simple communal living, Christian anarchism and more; although, it seems that I may start a Christian pacifism article soon because of our discussions. Christian pacifism runs the full spectrum of the meaning of Biblical Shalom. Shalom = Peace = Pacifism. Nonviolence is a subset of Biblical Shalom. A person may be nonviolent but far from the completeness (wholeness) found in Shalom or Christian pacifism.

Some people may confuse Christian pacifism with regular pacifism. They are two different ideas. For instance, Roman pax does not mean completeness, whereas Hebrew Shalom does mean completeness. The Roman conception of peace would be almost equivalent to nonviolence, whereas, the Hebrew conception of peace (Shalom) has far more components that are listed above. You can read a short article from the Jewish Fellowship of Reconciliation, Jewish Peace Sources. It is far easier to equate nonviolence and pacifism, than Christian nonviolence and Christian pacifism. It can even be argued that some peace churches support Christian nonviolence, but not Christian pacifism. --Mlomize 04:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I will go forward with creating a separate Christian nonviolence article in no less than two days unless somebody disagrees with the above reasons (nobody has yet responded to the reasons posted on 25 July 2007). I will transplant the sections that deal specifically with Christian nonviolence, rather than Christian pacifism. These sections include "Active nonviolence", "Sacred violence", and a few of the "External Links." --Mlomize 04:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

"Christian pacifism" results in over twice as many google hits as "Christian nonviolence". I will move the article back to "Christian pacifism". nirvana2013 10:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

There's a slight, nuanced difference between the terms in that pacifism can refer to state actions, but nonviolence almost always refers to non-states and individuals, the way I'm used to hearin' it used. I agree with you - Should merge nonviolence here. Will flag accordingly to generate more discussion. MrZaius^talk 14:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The number of Google hits is irrelevant in choosing between "Christian nonviolence" and "Christian pacifism", because it is more important to do what makes sense, not what is popular. --Mlomize 02:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

N/M. Could have sworn there were two separate articles, one of which I was thinking could be merged here. MrZaius^talk 14:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Moved article back from Christian nonviolence to Christian pacifism. No consensus for this move. nirvana2013 (talk) 16:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Right. There was no consensus. Thus, you should not move this article per WP recommendations. Non-violence is much wider than anti-war pacifism. It also includes non-violence in personal life and a lot of other things. This should be moved back and changed accordingly, while the Christian pacifism is a different subject.Biophys (talk) 18:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Text deletion

"Christian pacifism is supported by peace churches and Christian anarchists." Why was this deleted? It is true, see Ammon Hennacy, a Christian anarchist. I have re-inserted the text. nirvana2013 10:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

As you can see in the "Christian anarchism and Christian nonviolence" section above, Christian nonviolence and Christian anarchism do not necessarily coincide. If people agree to move this article back to "Christian nonviolence," Christian anarchism will not be a core idea in the article. Moreover, Christian pacifism and Christian anarchism do not necessarily coincide. Although some Christian anarchists will protest this, there is good reason to say that Christian pacifism and Christian anarchy are not necessarily dependent on one another. The talk page on Christian anarchism explains both sides of this. A person can be a Christian anarchist and not support nonviolence (nonviolence is necessary for supporting pacifism), although nirvana2013 on the Christian Anarchism talk page seems to state otherwise. If a person sincerely tries to obey God above obeying earthly authorities, that person may still resort to violence, such as self-defense, and retain the identity of a Christian anarchist, but not Christian nonviolence. The idea that a Christian who uses violence necessarily becomes a Christian terrorist, instead of a Christian anarchist, is unfounded. The use of violence for self-defense versus terrorism are two different ideas. One can legitimately be a Christian anarchist and practice violence for personal self-defense. On the other hand, peace churches necessarily support Christian nonviolence. Christian anarchism may be mentioned in the See Also section; however, it does not constitute a core idea for Christian pacifism or Christian nonviolence. If you no longer disagree, nirvana2013, would you please return the text to its previous form? --Mlomize 23:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

"Christian pacifism and Christian anarchy are not necessarily dependent on one another." I agree. Even though I am not one of them, there are some Christian anarchists who do not believe in total nonviolence. Also there some Christian pacifists who do not believe in anarchism, such as John Howard Yoder. Hence we need two articles. nirvana2013 09:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Text deletion 2

I have added a link to the Socialist Party USA Faith Commission, which primarily gathers Christian socialist pacifists. You don't have to agree with them, but it shouldn't be deleted.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.89.75‎ (talk • contribs)

Yes it should - It's borderline offtopic and an inaccurate/out of date URL. See the move notice? This isn't about politics: If they've published a specific document about nonviolence or pacifism and Christianity, post that and it'll stick. Better yet, write real prose in the article and use it as a source. If you can't, post it to dmoz - The Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate links/a linkfarm. MrZaius^talk 20:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Love Your Enemies

Mlomize, I am surprised you deleted the bible passage "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you", given that you inserted the external link loveyourenemies.org [5]. About half the external links you inserted refer to the term "Christian pacifism" rather than "Christian nonviolence". There are other passages I would also suggest inserting, including "Blessed are the peacemakers". However, if they are going to be deleted straight away then I will not. I do not want to get into an edit war, this is an article on Christian pacifism/nonviolence after all !! nirvana2013 07:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The criteria for adding links in "See Also" and adding specific unreferenced text to the content of the article are different. About a month ago, this article was flagged because it did not have references and included unsupported Bible quotes. I have since fixed this by adding references. I do not see any conflict or war in trying to reference an idea in the article. You can think of it as a challenge to grow from. I am thankful that other people have challenged me to explain and stretch my understanding in this field. I deleted many of the previous quotes I added myself because I could not find a way to reference the ideas. Some of the websites that are in the "See Also" section are not scholarly. Instead, they are a source of references to scholarly information. Lastly, the definitions of "Christian pacifism" versus "Christian nonviolence" are defined by scholars, not people who make a reference website. --Mlomize 04:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Further Biblical reference suggestions

• Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you (Luke 6:27).
• Put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword (Matthew 26:52).
• Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God (Matthew 5:9).

In addition to the above I would suggest inserting the following passage quoted by non-pacifist Christians as evidence for the right to bear arms under a "Criticism" section, plus common Christian pacifist views countering this argument:

• He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one (Luke 22:36). nirvana2013 07:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the bible falls under WP:RELY, strangely enough. Either way, though, we can't use the wiki to push a philosophy - We need to use this space to explain who does and why/when/where. MrZaius^talk 13:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC) PS: http://www.wikia.com/wiki/Bible_Study exists if you just want to discuss verse and perform original research.

I was just going to suggest the same three. I added "love your enemies" to the first quote. Note that all such verses should be taken in context, not just extracted by themselves, so include the whole story of Jesus being arrested by a violent crowd, his companions trying to defend him with violence, and Jesus healing his enemy and not resisting.

And please don't add yet another "Criticism" section. We should be removing these, not creating more of them. Alternative viewpoints should be handled in a neutral, professional way, not just conglomerated together into a single poorly-written, disjointed, "criticism" section. — Omegatron 01:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, the story of Jesus driving people out of the temple with a whip was once pointed out to me as an example of "righteous anger" or violence. — Omegatron 01:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Most Christian pacifists do not believe in "righteous anger". The Christian right would argue that the invasion of Iraq was righteous. nirvana2013 (talk) 08:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Citation farm

This is now a citation farm. There are large sections that consist only from Bible citations and contain no explanations. This should be fixed. It is O'K to have only a few most important citations. This is encyclopedia.Biophys (talk) 18:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

NPOV Statement.

"This opposition to violence and war is a minority view in Christianity" Um, what? Back that up please. --RabidMonkeysEatGrass 02:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted the sentence. nirvana2013 (talk) 08:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Misattribution of Quote

I think the quotation of the so-called "Prayer of St. Francis" needs to be removed or needs to be clearer in its attribution. The famous prayer beginning, "Lord, make me an instrument of Your peace..." is universally referred to as the "Prayer of St. Francis", and is thought to originate with him. The prayer is indeed beautiful and in the spirit of St. Francis, but as the Wikipedia article on the prayer notes, it does not appear in its present form earlier than 1912. A couple of good sources on this are http://silkworth.net/aa/stfrancis_c.html and http://recoverytimes.com/stfrancis.html. The point is that no one who has done scholarship on St. Francis attributes this prayer to him. If the quote stays, I think it needs to be made clear that it is attributed to St. Francis but does not originate with him. Even better, I think it ought to be removed, since the idea of the quote is to argue for a Christian pacifism; and the use of a spurious (albeit famous) quotation undermines the argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Turmarion (talk • contribs) 15:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

More Quotation Problems

The quotes from Clement of Alexandria are taken out of context and do not support a pacifist position. At least, the quotes I could find. The one attributed to his Fragments needs to be more specific (which fragment?) in order to be useful. I am unable to find the Lactantius quote in the place cited, and the quote sounds metaphorical. As it stands, it is hardly a convincing statement that Lactantius was a pacifist. Unless someone is able to defend the relevance of these quotes, I will delete them--along with the so-called Prayer of St Francis. Dactylion (talk) 15:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to delete any out-of-context or inaccurate quotes. Some of the quotes here are not reliably sourced: there should really be a reference to a specific work, and ideally a link to an online edition of that work. -- Radagast3 (talk) 02:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I've done a cleanup and tidy to address WP:OR and WP:NPOV issues, as well as trimming some dubious quotes and adding references. -- Radagast3 (talk) 13:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Old Testament and New Testament

Should there be sub-sections titled "Old Testament" and "New Testament" under "History", as per Christian vegetarianism and Christian anarchism? Please discuss, or feel free to make edits as per suggestion.Nirvana2013 (talk) 16:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Added a section called "New Testament".Nirvana2013 (talk) 19:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Article scope

The article seems to assume that Christian pacifism is the norm based on sciptures and the writings of some early Christians, but this is only supported by selective use of passages and writers. As far as I know the Montanists are the only early Christian sect who can be described as pacifists. Before jumping in and adding sourced material I thought I should ask regular editors for their opinions. ma'at (talk) 10:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree the article needs work and expansion. I have also heard claims that the Ebionites and Essenes were pacifists. Nirvana2013 (talk) 11:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, As it happens I'm in midst of preparing notes on possible Jewish pacifism in the form of the Essenes:

The Jewish writer Philo of Alexandria (c. 15bce – 50ce) described the pacifism of the Jewish sect the Essenes and how they did not involve themselves in the making of weapons or any items that could be put to evil ends. The Dead Sea Scrolls discovered in the Judean Desert at Qumran in the middle of the 20th century are thought by the majority of scholars to have belonged to an Essene community. The eschatology of the Qumran community embraced the expectation of a final violent war, with heavenly and earthly dimensions, between the sons of light and the sons of darkness. The difference between the description of Philo and the scrolls discovered at Qumran, which look forward to a war with the gentiles, has led to the opinion that the Essenes were not absolute pacifists. Martin Goodman notes that no other ancient source that describes the Essenes mentions the pacifism described by Philo and speculates that whilst Philo may be describing his own form of ideal piety it is significant in itself for describing one strand of Jewish thought in the first century CE.

I was thinking of including this in a section dealing with Hebrew scriptures, since some argue for Christian pacifism based on, for example, the swords into ploughshares passage and also material involving Jewish views on military service prevailing at the time of Jesus. ma'at (talk) 13:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

It looks good, although I just had a re-think on the Essenes. As they are a Jewish sect would they not be better placed on Judaism and peace? An example of the Christian take on the swords into ploughshares passage is the Plowshares Movement. What do you think? Nirvana2013 (talk) 17:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Take your point. I know some who make dotted lines between the Essenes->Ebionites->Early Christianity. In the context of pacifism I have seen this grouping contrasted with the Zealot movement, both strands representing opposing responses to foreign influences. The only merit I can see in including a passage like the above would be in describing any pacifist milleu from which early Christianity emerged. Maybe if at some point I dump on my user page notes relating to Christian pacifism then seek opinions as to what to include. The reason I asked initally was the thought that the article was at some point intended to be a history of Christian pacifism, i.e the groups right through to the modern day who espouse non-violence, but imo the page seems to be more focused on proving how early Chrisitians were pacifists. In terms of page content the former seems perfectly ok but the latter should really present both sides of the debate? ma'at (talk) 14:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on whether the Old Testament section is used to show either how past and present Christian pacifists interpret these scriptures (as per Christian anarchism), or how they were followed at the time. It is whether or not Jewish pacifists are deemed to be outside the scope of the article. Just to note, I believe some of the Church Fathers and early Christian monastics were pacifists too. Nirvana2013 (talk) 17:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The only justification I can see would be the one I mentioned above but maybe the connection is better made via Jewish non-pacifism and the early Christian community in Jersusalem:

The Zealots were a significant political force in the first century CE Palestine. Whereas the Sadducees, Pharisees and Essenes sought an accommodation with the Roman authorities the Zealots were hostile to such rapprochements and resorted to violence to achieve their ends.

Ninian Smart notes that Sadducees regarded Jesus as a “dangerous character” and that he had had evicted the moneychangers from the Temple. Whilst Jesus had shown no direct signs of launching a revolution he did have amongst his disciples Zealots. Paul Johnson argues that the early Jerusalem Church did not accept the views of St. Paul who attempted “to disassociate Christs teaching from Judaism” because of Jewish irredentist politics, and his failure to persuade resulted in the Jerusalem Church drifting closer to Zealotry and Nationalism.

Regarding pacifist Fathers of the Church and monks: The contrary arguments from those who reject the idea of pacifism as being a notable trait in the early Church typically include a) The texts do not relate to pacifism and are taken out of context. b)The writer is dealing with military service issues, e.g issues relating to idolatory etc. c) they are not the works of Church Fathers d) Whilst undoubtedly there is pacifistic monks in the early centuries of the Church there is equally undoubtedly extremely violent monks who were responsible, for example, for the assaults on pagans and their temples. An historian of the Roman Empire writes:

“Among the early Christians the sect of the Montanists alone was opposed to military service. Monasticism was a product of the 4th and 5th centuries. Apart from their refusal to participate in pagan rites, the early Christians showed no disposition to evade their civic duties.”

If I dump notes on my user page you would be welcome to add your own source material and from this we could discuss what to add to the article. ma'at (talk) 14:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Started article stub at Early Christianity and pacifism. Nirvana2013 (talk) 12:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Are Jehovah's Witnesses pacifists?

I have moved a section on the Jehovah's Witnesses to Persecution of Christians. It seems more relevant here. In terms of the above question, your input would be appreciated here. Nirvana2013 (talk) 16:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

As conscientious objectors, they merit a mention here. That's what people come to this article looking for.--MacRusgail (talk) 13:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe this has been answered by another editor here. Nirvana2013 (talk) 20:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

They should be mentioned, the fact that they believe that Armageddon is a case of justified warfare is irrelevant. The word pacifism means rejecting practical, worldly, political and physical warfare - not to reject that God has the right to smite whomever he wishes.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1