Comments on: Pacifism: David Lipscomb and Civil Government

By: Richard Hollerman

Richard Hollerman — Sun, 22 Apr 2012 13:35:39 +0000

Alexander, you are entirely correct, I believe. As the Anabaptists point out, there are two kingdoms–the kingdom of God in Christ and the kingdom of the evil one. We owe our allegiance to Christ Jesus. And our relationship to other children of God is a transcultural, transnational one. Scriptures such as John 18:36, Colossians 1:13, and the contrast between Romans 12 (the kingdom of God) and Romans 13 (the kingdom of the world), and other passages would bear this out. Thus, I would give a hearty Amen to your comments. Richard

By: aBasnar

aBasnar — Sat, 21 Apr 2012 07:22:55 +0000

As an Austrian I am not allowed to vote in the US. When I’m there I am a sojourner. As a Christian I am as much a sojourner in Austria as I am as an Austrian in the US. Therefore I don’t vote here either.

Each sojourner that lives in a foreign country, however, has to abide by the laws of that country, but he cannot take influence on them democratically. I have to work to earn my living, I benefit – as any immigrant – from our social system and pay my taxes. As a citizen of Christ’s Kingdom I expect nothing less than the collaps of the European Union and the Austrian state at the return of my King; and I live not only as a sojourner but as a messenger and representative of the coming and eternal Kingdom. This compells me to give higher allegiance to Christ’s laws than to the Austrian laws and can bring me in difficulties, if need be.

And, of course, I since I pledged my allegiance to Christ in baptism I cannot do this to the Austrian flag. I will not fight for them as a soldier, I will not participate in their politics – “Let the dead bury the dead”, I’ll live for the Kingdom. This is a highly offensive and provocative message to preach, isn’t it? But it does bring the Kingdom back into the Gospel.

Alexander

By: Todd Collier

Todd Collier — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 22:36:11 +0000

I struggle with this issue on a regular basis, not from the “going off to fight” perspective but from the difficulty of keeping the politics out of the pulpit in a very hot election year. I think it is proof that we are by no means as separated as we need to be that we allow ourselves to be more defined by the politics of the day than as Christiansor that we have allowed the definition of Christian in the US to cause folks to assume we support one party over another. The issues Lipscomb raised were solidly based on our lives as citizens of the Kingdom of Christ living as sojourners here.

By: aBasnar

aBasnar — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 17:15:40 +0000

The original position of churches of Christ on war and nonresistance was a major issue that made me join that mpovement in spite of my Anabaptist convictions. So far I have not undetrstood why they left that position.

Alexander

By: Richard Hollerman

Richard Hollerman — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 15:52:31 +0000

I was doing some research on David Lipscomb’s book, “Civil Government,” and came across this blog. I read Lipscomb’s book about 50 or 52 years ago, along with H. Leo Bole’s book on carnal warfare and other literature. My own research also convinced me that I should refuse to enter the Vietnam war, thus I had a 1-0 classification and worked in civilian hospitals for a couple years.
Over the years, I’ve collected maybe 100-200 books dealing with Biblical nonresistance and this has been enough to convince me that the early Christians opposed warfare for at least 173 years after Christ. After that, there was some involvement. It was not until the time of Constantine in about AD 325 that things dramatically changed. Of course, by then I doubt that there were many true Christians remaining (because of their semi-magical view of baptismal regeneration, for one reason).
I did know that various ones like Alexander Campbell, Tolbert Fanning, and David Lipscomb opposed Christian participation in war. It is interesting to know that Dave Miller and Johnny Ramsey and others also opposed it. But our main concern should be what Jesus taught and how He lived, and what the apostles and NT writers taught. That is our concern. But it is interesting that for at least 150 years after their time the early church was pacifist.

By: desertwanderer

desertwanderer — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 22:52:00 +0000

Guy and Tim,
I just went back through Jay's post and saw that Lipscomb's book is an e-book. I thought I better read it to make sure my arguments are held in context to what he wrote – come to find out it already existed in my favorites because I had read it a while back. Long story short, my opinion of Lipscomb's stance still stands but will try to reread it for the benifit of comments made here.

Steve Valentine

By: Jerry Starling

Jerry Starling — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 15:04:30 +0000

Based on what I know of the lives of the two men, I really believe Lipscomb displayed more of the Spirit of Christ than did Wallace.

This is not the criteria – or is it? A bad tree cannot produce good fruit.

Wallace's approach to disagreement of almost any kind was to drive those who disagreed with him from the church – whether they were premillenialists, pacifists, or people who used the RSV Bible! He campaigned relentlessly on these issues – and many of the attitudes holding the church back today traces back to his influence.

When I was a student at Alabama Christian College, most of the faculty were pacifist (and this was in the mid-1950's). Some of the notable pacifists were R.C. White, Leonard Johnson, Rex Turner, and others. I knew men who had served in C.O. camps where they did suffer abuse. I myself carried a 1-AO draft card, which meant I could be drafted, but as a non-combatant. I was too young for Korea and by the time Vietnam heated up, I was 5-A, which meant I was too old. I was nearly drafted during a Berlin crisis at the end of 1961, but I never got the call after I passed the physical.

My own leanings have been decidedly pacifist, but I have come to recognize the concept of the "just war," though I still think of war as a great evil regardless of how honorable our purposes.

By: desertwanderer

desertwanderer — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 15:02:30 +0000

Brad,
Your very welcome.

I got out this past July when the Army looked me in the eye and said you're not fit for duty. I blew out a knee while on duty shortly after returning from Iraq. That combined with the news that I just learned I am kin to Alaxander Campbell through my grandmother on my father's side indicates I should become a pacifist

By: desertwanderer

desertwanderer — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:30:57 +0000

Tim,
I agree with you on several of those points. Jay prefaced this series with the notion he (with us in tow) would study this to come to a conclusion on the issue(even to the point that Jay's stance may change by the end of the study). In Jay's first step he brings out Lipscomb's stance as exibit A in drawing conclusions and it does not influence me at all because it appears to me Lipscomb has gaping holes in his argument.

My earlier post was to refute Lipscomb more than the idea of pacifism. I am open to changing my stance if the evidence is compeling. So far, what has been produced (Lipscomb) does not do it for me and I was stating why.

Steve Valentine

By: bradstanford

bradstanford — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:00:42 +0000

Thanks, Steve.

I think national defense is super important, as long as it remains defense. I think of Nehemiah while he rebuilt the wall: half the men building, the other half standing guard. Everybody is armed, just in case. Evil will call Good out whenever and wherever it can. Notice, too, that Nehemiah didn't waste energy on going to a foreign place to take care of the enemy in advance. He simply said if you come into my yard, you get to meet my dogs.

[Full disclosure: I have a family heritage full of military service, and I enlisted in the Air Force during Desert Storm. Wasn't sent (too green), but made it possible for the more experienced to be sent, and do what they were trained to do. I got out when Congress asked people to get out!]