Steve Valentine

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.

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

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

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!]

(1) Personally, I believe that the founding of cities was an act of rebellion against God, particularly in Cain's case. And I agree that human governments are a natural outgrowth of those cities. I've discussed those ideas more in depth in past months on my blog, if you want to read more.
(2) God almost exclusively used ungodly governments as agents of his punishment.
(3) [Steve's 4] I often hear people point to Paul's use of his Roman citizenship and rarely hear them point out the time he used his status as a Pharisee. (Acts 23:6) I am convinced that both of those things fell into the category of "rubbish" in Philippians 3. That's what leads to Paul's emphatic statement at the end of the chapter: "But we are citizens of heaven."

We are aliens in this world, here on a diplomatic mission on behalf of our kingdom. We pledge loyalty to one kingdom: the kingdom of heaven.

Grace and peace,
Tim Archer

i didn't see your more lengthy post the first time.

Regarding your #1, i'm reading Lipscomb's book now, and he acknowledges that human government began before Babel. He mentions the establishment of Nimrod. i think his statement about Babel here should be understood more metaphorically–as in, all the events of Gen 3-11 represent the "origin" of all the worlds troubles.

Regarding your #2, God certainly does use at least some evil governments as agents of His wrath. He did use Babylon and Assyria to punish Israel. But He also turned around and condemned the very actions of those two kingdoms which He used to correct Israel. That certainly doesn't imply that all governments are therefore evil. And it does demonstrate that all governments, evil or not, have the potential to be instrumentally good. All i'm saying is that given Babylon and Assyria as examples, potential for instrumental good doesn't demonstrate that government is intrinsically good. i don't know if this is what Lipscomb would say though.

Regarding your #3–man, yeah. i agree. i don't know how you could draw super measurable lines without committing to some fuzzy criteria. i haven't gotten far enough in the book myself to see what justification Lipscomb offers for his views.

Regarding your #4–we are taught to pay taxes. Thus we are paying for benefits. Paul is an poignant case because he does bring up his own citizenship a couple times and uses it to further his ministry-interests. But do we have anything that demonstrates to what extent Paul actively supported his government? Not sure–that's an honest question.

–Guy

Just wanted to say that's a beautiful thought and beautifully put. –brought a tear to my eye.

"Thy kingdom come."

–Guy

It seems common-sensical that pacifism might make outreach to military men tough. But considering other non-violent revolutions in history, maybe it's a tactic that defies common sense. Perhaps like Brad is arguing, the sheer moral force of such a tactic would over time trump any violent resistence or inclinations to violence. i will say that, wherever you stand on this issue, we should trust that God's ways will accomplish God's purposes, even if we can't understand how.

–Guy