Matthew 5:21-22 sets the expectation that merely not murdering is not enough to live in accordance with God's will. We must be free of hatred as well. Matthew 5:44 asks us to love our enemies. I don't see how there's any justification there for violence of any kind. Taking someone's life against their will is murder and is not an expression of love. *You can't kill someone if you love them.* Jews have their 6th commandment (you shall not murder), and the Buddhists have their 1st precept (I vow to abstain from taking life). It seems that Christianity would also command a life of pacifism. I know there are pacifist Christian sects. My question is why they are a minority in Christianity?

In short: **Are Baptists generally for or against going to war?** It seems Baptists have a general freedom in their personal beliefs. Is there a general consensus on going to war or avoiding it?

> 13 When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 In the temple courts he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. 15 So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. 16 To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!” 17 His disciples remembered that it is written: “Zeal for your house will consume me.” - John 2:13-17 NIV This passage can easily be read to be a "violent" reaction from Jesus. Leaving aside Niebuhr and pontifical statements *against* Christian Pacifism, how do Christian Pacifists interpret and apply this passage of scripture?

My understanding is that early Christians were generally pacifists. Today (at least in the U.S.) Christian pacifists are a bit hard to come by. Many quote [Romans 13:1-3](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2013:1-3&version=NIV) to support Christian involvement in war: > **1** Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. **2** Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. **3** For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. In light of this verse, and other Biblical or historical evidence, *what is the case to be made for Christian pacifism?*

My friend is a pacifist Christian and said that not only was Jesus Christ a pacifist, but that the Early Church Fathers as well were pacifist - is this true and was the early church pacifist, if so what did the Early Church Fathers believe on pacifism?

In Matthew 5:38-40 Jesus Christ tells us that if someone hit you on the right check that you the other check to him also, does this means as Christians that we are supposed to remain pacifist and that we are not allowed to fight back if somebody attempts to attack us? Because in Matthew 5:38-40 Christ says: > 38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a > tooth for a tooth: > > 39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall > smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. > > 40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, > let him have thy cloak also.

It seems that I once heard that [Quakers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quakers) are pacifists, but I'm not sure if that's just a rumor or not. What is the Quaker doctrine regarding war and killing people as a soldier in the military? If they think it is wrong, what is the biblical basis for this belief? Also, do their beliefs extend to being a soldier in the military under any capacity (such as a chaplain, for example)?

Christian Pacifists, for example Mennonites, are often portrayed (and indeed frequently portray themselves) as believing that violence, especially lethal violence, is never justified. I am sure this is not *actually* the case, as God explicitly causes the death of several people in various circumstances in the Bible. Furthermore, God orders the Jews to kill people at various times for various reasons, and seems to condone and approve of killings such as, for example, those done by Esther, where the killer is not visibly ordered to perform the killing by God. While I'm sure there is an explanation, I am unsure what it is, so: When (i.e. in what situations) do Christian Pacifists believe killing is acceptable and when do they think it is actually *good* and why do they think these things, keeping in mind the various justified killings we see throughout the Bible and Sacred Tradition.

I have heard from many Orthodox that one should repent of *any* act of violence, including violence committed in self-defense or in the service of military duties. As I understand it, true repentance includes a genuine belief that facing the same situation again, one would act differently. How can this be squared with the church's non-pacifism? The church plainly is not pacifistic and has recognized in several places the unfortunate need for violence in this world. For Catholics there is no inconsistency, for one doesn't repent of just violence. But this seems to be a problem for the Orthodox, at least from my reading. How does Orthodox Theology resolve this apparent contradiction/paradox?

I'd like to know if there are any non-pacifist Christian traditions or denominations, either historical or contemporary, that object to individual participation in the military as a non-combat chaplain, or to military chaplaincy in general. I see several possible reasons why Christians might not serve as chaplains: 1. A view of pacifism that forbids any connection with the military 2. A view of the state that forbids association with the military in this particular capacity (e.g., concerns over state establishment of religion) 3. Moral opposition to a particular action that is required of chaplains (such as performing same-sex marriages) I'm most interested in #2, but also #3. I imagine that there are multiple examples of #1, but that's another question. Regarding #3, I'm aware that there is ongoing fighting in the U.S. between Christian groups and the Pentagon over what chaplains can and can't do. I'm not looking for an example of one that is fighting, but one that has rejected the idea entirely.

One of the things I've heard about Jehovah's Witnesses is that they've been persecuted by governments for their pacifism : > They do not work in industries associated with the military, do not > serve in the armed services, and refuse national military service, > which in some countries may result in their arrest and imprisonment. > They do not salute or pledge allegiance to flags or sing national > anthems or patriotic songs. Jehovah's Witnesses see themselves as a > worldwide brotherhood that transcends national boundaries and ethnic > loyalties. Sociologist Ronald Lawson has suggested the religion's > intellectual and organizational isolation, coupled with the intense > indoctrination of adherents, rigid internal discipline and > considerable persecution, has contributed to the consistency of its > sense of urgency in its apocalyptic message. And from Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in the United States > Throughout the history of Jehovah's Witnesses, their beliefs, > doctrines and practices have engendered controversy and opposition > from governments, communities, and religious groups. Many Christian > denominations consider their doctrines to be heretical, and some > religious leaders have labeled Jehovah's Witnesses a cult. **Members of > the religion have also met with objection from governments for > refusing to serve in the military, particularly in times of war.** Many > individuals consider their door-to-door preaching to be intrusive. > These issues have at times led to persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses > in various countries, including the United States. Is their pacifism based on a rejection of all violence, or is it more a reflection of their beliefs about, and behaviour regarding governments?

> Do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. (Matthew 5:39 NASB) Do any denominations, historical or current, take this command literally? Which ones?

>The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke Do Christian Pacifists tend to argue against the sense of Burke's famous quote by affirming God's Sovereignty and trusting that He will not allow evil to flourish unchecked regardless of the actions of 'good men'? or Do Christian Pacifists expect specific non-violent action to be effective in halting the advance of those committed to achieving their aims by violence without regard to the restraints of the rule of law or basic human compassion such as terrorist groups? What are some of the important doctrines of Christian Pacifism that speak to these issues and how might they be applied to real world examples such as the Jewish Holocaust of the second world war and the current regime of the Islamic State?