Part One: European Origins
This is not a topic I would have naturally written about, but SP made a comment that got me thinking and I turned up enough material to form the basis of what I thought would be a decent essay. Before I get into it, a few parameters and disclaimers. I’m using Protestantism in a fairly broad sense. Most of the early reformers (e.g., Luther & Calvin) would have decried the groups I refer to as heretics. Early modern here refers to a generally accepted period in European and North American history that runs from c. 1485 – 1800. Third, I’m sticking to developments in western and central Europe and North America. Fourth, most of the focus will be on pacifism and non-resistance as it relates to war. That is, I won’t be dealing with topics such as the death penalty or the role of judges. Disclaimers: I’m not suggesting the groups covered below are the only sources of pacifism. There are pacifist groups in Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and other religions. There is also a strong thread of secular pacifism which emerged in the twentieth century.
Anabaptists & Pacifism
Anabaptist is a name given to a large number of smaller groups (some of whom don’t self-identify as anabaptists) including Mennonites, Amish, Hutterites, Swiss Brethren, Schwenkfelders, and Dunkers (the various Baptist churches in the United States are generally not considered to be anabaptists). The first clear ideas of pacifism among Protestant groups emerged from European anabaptist groups. As early as 1524 Conrad Grebel (c.1498-1526), a founder of the Swiss Brethren, wrote to a fellow Protestant declaring that:
The gospel and its adherents are not to be protected by the sword, nor are they thus to protect themselves…True Christian believers are sheep among wolves, sheep for the slaughter; they must be baptized in anguish and affliction, tribulation, persecution, suffering, and death; they must be tried with fire, and must reach the fatherland of eternal rest, not by killing their bodily, but by mortifying their spiritual, enemies. Neither do they use worldly sword or war, since all killing has ceased with them—unless, indeed, we would still be of the old [testament].
In 1527, Swiss Brethren leaders issued what came to be known as the Schleitheim Confession, an attempt to bring unity to anabaptist beliefs. Article VI concerned “the sword” and declared that using the sword for correction was the responsibility of secular rulers, not the church. Nonetheless they did attempt to address the question of “whether a Christian may or should use the sword against the wicked for the protection and defense of the good, or for the sake of love.” The answer to this question moves in the direction of non-resistance but, at least to my mind, is less definitive than many anabaptists hold. Using the example of the woman taken in adultery (John 7:53ff), the article concludes, in part, that Christians should follow Christ’s example, “in mercy and forgiveness and warning, to sin no more. Such [an attitude] we also ought to take completely according to the rule of the ban.”
However, one of the leaders of the Schleitheim meeting was much clearer on the question of pacifism. Michael Sattler apparently once declared that “if the Turks came into the country, no resistance should be offered; indeed, if war could be morally justified, he would rather fight against the Christians than against the Turks.” About a year after Schleitheim, Sattler and a number of other Swiss Brethren were arrested and charged with both religious and political crimes. All were found guilty and executed. This did not deter people from converting to anabaptism and the faith spread through various parts of Europe and grew numerically. Increasingly, anabaptists embraced non-violence as a defining value. Menno Simons, founder of the Mennonites wrote, “Our fortress is Christ, our defense is patience, our sword is the Word of God, and our victory is the sincere, firm, unfeigned faith in Jesus Christ. Spears and swords of iron we leave to those who, alas, consider human blood and swine’s blood well-nigh of equal value.”
Anabaptist commitment to pacifism and non-resistance was not only theoretical, it was put into action more than once. A German anabaptist, arrested for his faith, told his interrogators, “The world regime is after the flesh, but the Christian regime is according to the spirit…the Christian’s arms and warfare are spiritual against the sovereignty of the devil…the Christian’s arms are the armor of God, that is truth, righteousness, peace, faith, sanctity, and…the word of God.” Dutch Anabaptist Dirk Willems was arrested by Catholic authorities because he rejected infant baptism. He escaped from his prison and, as he fled, crossed an iced-over pond. A guard pursuing him fell through the ice and Willems, driven by his pacifist views, turned back to pull the man from the water before he drowned. This delay led to Willems being re-captured and he was burned at the stake.
Dirk Willems Rescues His Pursuer
As time passed, anabaptist groups began to grapple with exactly what actions were, and were not, permitted by their beliefs. As early as the 1560s, some Dutch Mennonites prohibited their members from serving in any office which required wielding the coercive power of the state (constables, magistrates, etc.). It also seems this prohibition was extended to drilling with the town militia. This prohibition carried significant social cost because drilling was a pathway to town citizenship which conferred certain rights and privileges. In the seventeenth century, Dutch Mennonites decided to withdraw their investment from the Dutch East India Company because they determined the company was clearly a quasi-military organization (more accurately, as one historian has put it, it was a state-sponsored armed pirate operation). Mennonites even began to discipline merchant members who armed their own ships against pirate attacks.
In some jurisdictions, anabaptists negotiated with local rulers to gain exemption from military service. This often meant paying a fine or finding a substitute to serve in their stead. Some towns in central Europe agreed to specifically draft Mennonites (and others) into the fire service during sieges, thus allowing them to avoid combat. In some towns, Mennonites would voluntarily bring food and drink to the men standing watch on the walls during a siege. By the 1660s, some governments had a fairly permanent policy of levying fines on Mennonites in lieu of military service.
In 1633, the Hutterites moved to embrace pacifism in essentially all cases. That year, when servants of a local nobleman turned up to requisition horses, members of the Huttterite community at Sobotiste (present-day Hungary) resisted the requisition with axes, sticks, and pitchforks. Although no one on either side was seriously injured, the violence itself shocked Hutterite leaders. Later that year, the leadership condemned the violence and issued a statement declaring, “We therefore command you by the power which the Lord has given us…that henceforth no brother shall protect himself with violence from robbery, iniquity and pressure.” It did, however, seem to leave the door open for resisting threats of physical violence with force.
Before we leave anabaptist pacifism, a brief comment on one of the most famous of anabaptist events, the Munster Rebellion of 1534-35. Most definitely not a pacifist event, one of the Rebellion’s leaders, John of Leiden believed he had been called to use the sword to purge the world of evil to prepare for Christ’s return. In case you hadn’t noticed, this didn’t go well. But, historians have presented compelling arguments that the Anabaptists who seized control of Munster were a splinter group and did not represent the mainstream of Anabaptist thinking. For example, while the siege was taking place, an Anabaptist group in Amsterdam publicly and explicitly rejected the Munsterite position.
Siege of Munster
Quakers & Pacifism
The Quakers, or the Religious Society of Friends, were one of a number of radical groups which emerged in England in the early seventeenth century. Originally public troublemakers who sometimes stood naked in the streets to preach and, at other times, disrupted church services, the Quakers began to mellow somewhat by the mid-1600s. Friends’ founder, George Fox, appears to have personally embraced a form of pacifism early on. In 1650, Fox informed some government militia recruiters that he “lived in the virtue of that life and power that took away the occasion of all wars.” Despite this, Fox preached to soldiers in the 1650s with some converting to the new faith. There is no record that Fox encouraged them to leave military service. Furthermore, when Cromwell’s Protectorate fell in 1659, many Quakers rushed to join militia units, including some who took up positions of command.
While Fox did not speak out against this, there is clear indication that he continued to struggle personally and doctrinally with the issue of Christians and warfare. At the heart of this was Fox’s commitment to the concept of the Inner Light, something that became a central tenant of the Quaker faith. Essentially, the Inner Light is the idea of the presence of God dwelling within every human regardless of their spiritual condition. (The Inner Light is a hard to define idea and one I don’t understand exactly. Here is one explanation). With respect to the topic at hand, through much of the 1650s, it seems that Fox believed that any person would, through spiritual growth which would lead them to more clearly understand the Inner Light, embrace pacifism. That is, for Fox, pacifism was intuitive and the result of personal spiritual evolution rather than reasoned from scripture as the anabaptists did.
However, by the 1660s, Fox and Quaker leaders came to believe that pacifism had to be embraced by anyone who identified as a Friend. In 1661, London was briefly thrown into turmoil by the Fifth Monarchy uprising, led by men who believed that they were about to usher in the millennial kingdom. Although the Quakers were not involved in the uprising, some in the government suspected they were. To counter these suspicions, within days of the uprising, Fox published a denial of Quaker involvement which was presented to Charles II. The declaration included the statement that “the Spirit of Christ, which leads us into all truth, will never move us to fight and war against man with outward weapons, neither for the kingdom of Christ nor for the kingdoms of this world.” Thus, war was a sin against the Inner Light and, by the 1660s, pacifism and non-resistance had become enshrined as bedrock Quaker values.
This stand could bring the Quakers into conflict with the state. Quakers in England fell afoul of the notorious naval “press.” Although some were willing to perform non-combat duties, even this was sometimes not enough. Richard Seller was pressed and offered to perform non-combat duties instead. According to Seller “they beat me very sore on the sand, and I refusing to go on board, they hoisted me in with a tackle on board of the ketch that pressed for the ship called the Royal Prince…[so] that I fell into a tub, and was so maimed that they were forced to swaddle me up with clothes … and they hauled me in at a gun-port on board.”
End of Part One. Coming up in Part Two: Protestant Pacifism comes to British North America
Thank you for this article, Raven!
There’s definitely an anabaptist sitting on one of my shoulders saying that my faith requires non-resistance from me. I really struggle accepting that, and wonder where the line should really be drawn.
As one who is attracted to some of the ethos of the Anabaptists, it’s good to see a topic where I differ from them. Now I don’t have to become Amish. ?
I suspect if you saw someone trying to rape a child, you just might employ a wee bit o’ force.
On the kid?
I keed, I Keed…
Exactly. It’s actually a much easier issue to digest when harm comes to others. Employ the amount of force required to stop the harm in the moment and to prevent it from happening again, if possible.
OTOH, How many punches am I supposed to take before I swing back? I know what I think, but I don’t know that I can support the answer using my faith.
Zero punches. If you’ve ever taken a real punch to the head, and you’re not prepared or your opponent isn’t wearing gloves, you’ll know that your chances of doing much in the way of effective self defense afterward are pretty low.
You should not be required to ever allow another to hit you first–there’s a good chance that you can end up dead that way.
This is one of the interesting points about people really committed to a pacifist doctrine. They’ve made that decision well ahead of time knowing that, once things go bad, there will really be no way to change your mind.
An interesting twist on ‘no atheists in fox holes” logic.
I can’t accept a philosophy that is likely to result in my personal physical annihilation. I understand that they have a real belief in the spiritual over the physical, but I’ve never been able to understand philosophies that contain the seeds of their own potential destruction.
I agree on a cultural or societal level (something that would result in the end of society if applied universally isn’t a good philosophy). On an individual level, I can accept self-sacrifice in furtherance of more important things.
Wait, that’s sort of incorrect. I remember at a time in my life I believed that it was better to occupy the moral high ground. I remember a discussion of the film “Romero,” in which I advocated that the peaceful tactics by the film’s namesake were the appropriate response to violent oppression.
It seems that evil can be perpetuated far easier than good can overcome it as long as there are those willing to commit atrocities in the name of power and oppression.
But, also, there are very good things to be said for the effectiveness of nonviolent protest such as the civil rights movement fostered. It just seems that nonviolence plays a very long game that seldom really benefits the people in the here and now who are oppressed.
“…turned back to pull the man from the water before he drowned. This delay led to Willems being re-captured and he was burned at the stake.”
Geez, that’s gratitude for ya!
Huh, I was aware of the press gangs but had never really looked into it. It’s amazing there weren’t way more mutinies for what basically amounted to white slavery.
Resistance to the press gangs was not uncommon in North America. There was a significant overlap of anti-impressment sailors with Sons of Liberty.
Most of the early reformers (e.g., Luther & Calvin) would have decried the groups I refer to as heretics – kill them all and let god decide?
As early as 1524 Conrad Grebel (c.1498-1526), a founder of the Swiss Brethren, wrote to a fellow Protestant declaring that: – in modern parlance, what a cuck… I am no true Christian but that is not a philosophy O can get behind. I am all for on initiation but in self defense do whatever it take to fuck up the other guy
Also as a joke is they said the sword but made no pronunciations against heavy machine guns
Or flamethrowers!
/Elon Musk
Shepard Book and kneecaps.
Pretty much. There is some debate over to what extent Luther and Calvin drove the execution of anabaptists, but both, at the very least, stood by in silent support.
OT: Holy shit….
We are already living in the “Brave New World” world…
They merely “fortified” the election.
Yeah, Kate over at Small Dead Animals had this up at 6:00 AM my time (when I was too bleary-eyed to completely grok it), but the utter lack of self-awareness in the article along with the arrogance of believing that only these people truly understood democracy and therefore were uniquely positioned to “fortify” the election was breathtaking. This article is going to be used as proof that the fix was in, regardless of how they try to spin these “fortifications.”
As well it should be.
This is literally an example of the elite pissing on me and telling me it’s raining.
I mean, I’m watching it hold its squibby little chode, forcing out a hot, sputtering stream of walnut brown piss mixed with blood right on to my leg, yet they call it fresh rain that makes flowers grow.
they actually wrote this? holy fucking shit.
If the system is so fragile that a self-appointed cabal of Paladins must rise to defend it, perhaps it’s time to consider completely reforming it and building a sturdier framework?
My fear is that the sturdier framework they’re working towards is one man, one vote, one time
And why wouldn’t it be? They know best and the input of the dissenters is neither needed nor desired.
“We have to destroy it to save it.”?
That was my first thought.
Something something redacted
These fuckers are applauding the introduction of honest to god fascism in this country. Please do tell your stories you arrogant self-congratulatory bastards, please do.
If there is one obvious thing I now see is how the people that argued that somehow the Italians & Germans should have seen what was coming and fought the rise of the fascists, never got it. People are bamboozled into this shit. And it is happening again, by people ushering fascism in under the fucking guise of fighting fascism of all reasons…
In-fucking-sane…
The giddy tone of that article which I could barely get one paragraph into was nauseating. These fuckers “won” and now they’re rubbing it in America’s face.
For more than a year, a loosely organized coalition of operatives scrambled to shore up America’s institutions as they came under simultaneous attack from a remorseless pandemic and an autocratically inclined President.
They rigged the system but Trump is an “autocrat”. . .
FORTIFIED!!!!
a loosely organized coalition of operatives
Sounds like a conspiracy, to me.
I saw Sargon’s take on this. Yeah, I guess we can’t accuse them of hiding anything when they rip the mask off.
In order to save the Republic, we must destroy it.
Makes me think of the Sci-Fi trope where a machine intelligence decides that in order to save the earth they must destroy all humans.
$100k in Facebook ads was election interference, but this was just fine.
Maybe their ultimate undoing will be their inability to keep their mouths shut. I can hope anyway and if they step out of the shadows on this I don’t want to ever hear anyone disparaging conspiracy theorists again.
They sure as hell want you to know how conniving and clever they are, and have no remorse or fear of repercussions…
Per a recent NR podcast, most politicians prefer to be called evil over stupid.
Any prominent person who publicly admits to being part of this is both. The smart ones we’ll never know about.
Apologies: corrupt, not evil. See about ten minutes into Radio Free California.
*corrupt, not stupid. ?
The coolest class I took in college was “A History of Organized Crime in America.” I learned a lot of valuable things from that class. One was that the mob could only thrive if people kept their mouths shut (hence the concept of “omerta”). Snitches were wacked in very unpleasant ways to send a message. The witness protection program helped end this and bring down some big mobsters.
These people have not learned that lesson. Hopefully you’re right.
Holy shit, that sounds awesome.
I’ve been a huge Mafia/organized crime history buff ever since I saw Goodfellas at about age 15. I’m reading a history of Italy right now, and I hope it touches on the political/economic/social conditions that provided fertile ground for the Mafia to grow.
I did a paper on Lucky Luciano back in high school. I loved every minute of the research and writing.
And it was ‘The Godfather’ for me, youngster 😉
The excellent YouTube channel of Michael Franzese, an exMafioso turned preacher and a good storyteller if you’re interested:
https://youtube.com/user/MichaelFranzese
Also Sammy the Bull’s channel, another surprisingly good teller of mob tales:
https://youtube.com/channel/UC2qsQ8pUNhhANzMIy6kha2w
My favorite class from college was World Energy Economics (really) by this guy (he was at Northeastern at the time).
Absolutely laid clear, even *cough*30*cough* years ago, that “alternative energy” could never fulfill our energy needs and nuclear is the only thing that had any hope of significantly replacing fossil fuels.
“As long as I could remember, I wanted to be a gangster….scholar”
It really was awesome. The teacher was from the east coast. He had a friend who was killed in a mob hit. We had to read about 6 books, and he had some taped interviews from some of the authors and the people in the books. The test was a ton of memorization, but I’m happy to say I set the curve for the class.
The other thing that we learned was that, where there’s money there’s crime.
I took “The Sociology of Serial Killers”, “The Philosophy of Sex”, and a bunch of other cool shit, but none were as cool as taking several semesters of scuba diving.
Time doesn’t play nice with my browser, but I got the gist of it from the first couple paragraphs. Exactly as expected, and likely coordinated by a bevy of non-profits that are paid out of the “benevolence funds” of many of these corporations.
And your tax dollars.
They get a perverse joy out of using the proles’ money to oppress and offend the proles.
I’m sure people will insist that Biden won through sheer organic, grassroots support. The capacity for DoubleThink is great.
Remember all the times that Deep State people openly stated that the intelligence agencies are all working together to take down Trump? When CNN literally admitted that they’re no longer doing unbiased journalism but rather anti-Trump activism? These things were stated outright, but some people still insist that they’re “conspiracy theories”.
My PA GOP operative buddy said that single college-educated women really hated Trump. That explains everything. If you don’t believe it, you’re a conspiracy theorist.
But they love cats.
single college-educated women really hated Trump
That demographic has been 60%+ Democrat since the 80s, if not earlier.
They want government as Sugar Daddy.
Hopefully the fuckers that burned Dirk Willems had a run in with karma.
If only the Stadtholder knew of this!
Fucking funny…
I grew up in Munster, right on the Illinois border. Mom and dad still live there. Last night mom was lamenting the rise in car jackings, from all those Illinois people. I took it upon myself to mention that we’re having no such problems in the land of heavily armed rednecks.
I think the article refers to another Munster
We didn’t spell ours with dots, and it was named after a guy.
Herman Munster? Hell of a guy.
He later became a judge.
Two yoots.
The ironic part is that I preferred The Adams Family.
You have good taste.
Yeah but that Marilyn Munster though. Hubba hubba.
No love for Mortiscia?
Remember when TV was so enlightened that a married couple could engage in a little whip play onscreen without people freaking out?
Better than being named after a bland, squshy cheese.
Poor American.
YOU TAKE THAT BACK, RAT!
…is there a less interesting Euro cheese? There may very well be one that I’ve never tried because nobody’s bothered to import it.
*takes up classical boxing pose*
See? Ireland! Cais Dubh is yummy.
Spud and I were given some Alsace Muenster. “Bland” was the last word I’d use- after having it in my car for an hour, it left a permanent reek, a a the parking attendant BO from Seinfeld. It persisted until I gave the car away.
B. linens or a different reek?
Death and regret.
Ewww Megasphaera.
Interesting! I spent a couple of years living among Quakers in my “past life” about 30 years ago. First hubby, though not Quaker himself, attended a Quaker seminary, and we lived on campus. In my experience, when someone tells you they’re a Quaker, you don’t know much about their beliefs unless you ask some more questions. They seem to run the gamut from conservative Christian to folks who probably belong among Unitarian Universalists, but they like the silent meeting for worship.
Likewise, weekly meetings may be indistinguishable from a mainstream Protestant service, but with a brief period of silence in the middle, or they may meet in silence with no one saying a word the entire time unless they feel moved by the Holy Spirit to do so.
I worshiped at an Open Plymouth Brethren church when I was but a wee lad.
It was . . . different.
Originally public troublemakers who sometimes stood naked in the streets to preach and, at other times, disrupted church services, the Quakers began to mellow somewhat by the mid-1600s. – Diogenes was a better troll
I don’t think the Quaker Oatmeal guy was wanking it at passers-by.
…I’m assuming you know that reference even if that brand of rolled oats imported into Romania.
He’s now Assistant Secretary of Health.
Such transphobia icanteven.
Would letting the chasing guard drown necessarily be against the pacifist doctrine? The guard did not have to give chase. His falling through the ice could be construed as an act of God to give Willems the ability to escape. Sort of like drowning the army of Pharaoh to let the Israelites escaped on a much smaller scale.
That’d be a literal Old Testament justification, which they seem to have directly eschewed.
This has always confused me a bit… Religious people have told me that Jesus dying on the cross negates the Old Testament in a way. But aren’t the Ten Commandments in the Old Testament? How are they still in effect?
I’m not trying to play “gotcha” or try to de-convert anyone; just trying to understand what people believe and why.
I’ve never personally heard anyone say that it negates the old testament. I’ve always heard more along the lines of amending. So the fundamentals aren’t tossed out.
I’m also of the opinion that anyone who’s getting legalistic with their faith is trying to do one of two things (not mutually exclusive, it could be both) – control others, or look for a loophole for themselves.
I didn’t have time to read the article to see the details of the drowning guard situation, so I’m not going to weigh in on that.
There are three interpretations
1) Jesus negated the old testament – usually very liberal denominations
2) Jesus amended the old testament – a mix of liberal and moderate denominations
3) Jesus fulfilled the old testament (exposed its true meaning and purpose) – literalists of various stripes.
It’s hard to be a literalist and adopt view 1 or 2. Matthew 5:18 is pretty clear.
“For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.”
Admittedly, the people who told me that did not seem very well read on theological matters. They seemed to be the types who believe because they were told their entire lives that the Bible is the truth and anyone who says otherwise is a bad person, and they had been given various weak explanations to deal with the tougher theological questions.
And I know not all Christians are like this. Heck, I think it would be fascinating to pick the brain of someone who has read Thomas Aquinas and really put a lot of logical thought into their religious belief (e.g. Tom Woods).
I am first to admit that I am poorly read.
Goyim are selective in their decisions about which Mosaic laws are applicable and which are not. Basically, if it’s too inconvenient, they don’t believe it’s applicable. My view is that Mosaic law only applies to Jews, and none of it should be cited as justification for goy practices.
I had a Fundamentalist friend some years back who was a member of a sect that eschewed alcohol. I asked, “Didn’t Jesus turn water into wine?” He sighed and responded, “Yeah, I wish he hadn’t done that.”
You’re still missing out on the wonderful flavor of bacon. Take that Mr. Hebrew.
I agree with him. All that power and he chooses fucking wine.
Well, whiskey hadn’t been invented yet.
A friend and me got some Chick tract pushers twisted up on the water into wine miracle (“It was a kind of jelly!” “King James bible? Every word the literal word of God? They had a word for jelly when it was written”).
There’s also the line that Jesus turned the water into non-alcoholic wine.
That isn’t what anyone around the 1st century would have called wine.
People just have to face it, alcohol is okay provided you don’t engage in gluttany and drink to excess.
alcohol is okay
Woo-hoo!
provided you don’t engage in gluttany and drink to excess.
Dammit!
I’ve heard that line many times.
It makes no sense at all.
non-alcoholic wine
No such thing.
Press grapes and put the juice in a container. Wine happens on its own.
It takes modern sanitation and preservatives to prevent wine from happening all on its own.
“Oenos” is unambiguous. So is “yayin.”
provided you don’t engage in gluttany and drink to excess.
I’m out.
I had no idea they had access to yayo back then
I think it has to do with the idea of Christ as the paschal lamb–the scapegoat onto whose shoulders all the sins of the world are heaped, and through his sacrifice, are forgiven. The old ways of dealing with sin are turned on their heads in favor of love and forgiveness, but it doesn’t change the requirement to live in a holy way.
Jesus understood that we were too fucking stupid to comprehend ten commandments. So he distilled it down to “love thy neighbor as thyself” and “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”.
Still too complicated for us monkeys, apparently.
Love God with all your heart, your mind and your soul.
Love your neighbor as yourself.
Seems pretty straightforward.
V’ahavta et adanai elochcha, v’chol l’vavacha, u’v’chol nafsh’cha, u’v’chol miyodecha.
Much better in the original Hebrew.
I recall in my Catholic upbringing it was that the Ten Commandments were simplified into the Golden Rule (do unto others as you would have them do unto you), and honoring God through the new covenant enacted through Jesus’ sacrifice.
The Old Testament spells out a virtuous life. Obeying every jot and tittle of it fulfills God’s covenant with Abraham and Moses.
However, you are a sinner and you will fail to do that. Christ succeeded and by His truly innocent death and resurrection, He established a new covenant.
Obeying God’s laws as laid out in the Old Testament is good and pleasing to Him. But it won’t save you from damnation for your sins. Only Christ can do that.
Once saved, you grow closer to God the more you follow His rules.
That’s a rough gloss of the doctrine as I understand it and most major denominations hold to it. Anything more specific would get into some heavy theological differences between denominations.
It really goes back to the early disciples. Was Christ just a reformer of Judaism and should the early Christians only try to convert Jews or should they try to convert the pagans as well? The worldwide proselytizers won out. So, the Old Testament was shelved except for whatever was liked or supported a groups’ view.
“Make disciples of all the nations”
“The Perils of Pauline.”
I remember back when I was a kid that proselytizing was an obligation. That seems to have been radically de-emphasized in the past fewf decades.
Would letting the chasing guard drown necessarily be against the pacifist doctrine?
In spirit, if not in letter. I’d guess that they’d point to the parable of the good Samaritan as to creating the duty to save the guard.
Taking a broader view, it’s about a radically literal interpretation of “love thy neighbor as thyself”. When the guard and his life are just as important as you and your life, then risking your recapture to save his life is more than a fair trade. It’s a very foreign way of thinking and something that I have a hard time accepting (to my shame), but I think it’s a viable interpretation of the relevant scriptures.
Agreed. But I could see we’re just giving chase is a form of attack, so I suppose it fits with the mentality.
Or what trashy said.
This stuff is outside my pay grade.
I swear I read that as “gay parade”.
something something “compensation”
I swear I read that as “gay parade”.
talk to the Edit Fairy.
I tried to read that Time thing about the election. Couldn’t do it.
I have apparently been living in some sort of alt-history universe for the past two years, because I didn’t recognize any of the stuff she was talking about.
She was gloating that unions, big biz, and big tech conspired to control the election “to protect it from trumpelos”.
She actually believes, deep in her heart, that this was a good thing — saving civilization from evil.
This is interesting. Thanks!
Very interesting essay, Raven!
While I completely understand the philosophy and its consistency with following Christ’s teachings, it would take a much better man than me to actually live it. Like Swissy’s example up there, certain circumstances demand the hammer.
Looking forward to part 2!
“its consistency with following Christ’s teaching”
Yeah, this is actually one of the main discussion points for this issue. Pacifists (& others) will point to Christ’s willingness to die on the cross. Others will point to him tell his disciples on the night he was arrested to gather their swords together – while at the same time rebuking one of them for striking a servant.
It’s a tough one to untangle. Was his death an act of pacifism? I don’t think so, but I can see how people would interpret it so.
Also, look at all the various arguments about the “turn the other cheek” statements from the Sermon on the Mount. Everyone looks for loopholes.
Me? I believe that acts of violence are absolutely contrary to Christ’s teachings, but I am not Christ. I would without hesitation use violence to protect me or mine. Does that make me a sinner? Of course, but with any luck (or grace), I’ll be forgiven!
I believe that acts of violence are absolutely contrary to Christ’s teachings
I get hung up on him flipping the moneychangers’ tables. That was violence by any reasonable definition. However, we only get one example by which to judge when violence is justified. The gathering of swords is way too abstract for me to derive anything beyond the concept that weapon ownership isn’t forbidden.
If weapon ownership is permissable, then there must be a circumstance in which their use is also permissable.
Correct. Unfortunately, the pacifists would disagree and would hem and haw about how to justify their belief. Not saying that they wouldn’t have good faith arguments, but it’s plainly obvious, at least to me, that you’d have to flat out ignore some parts of scripture to get to the point where no violence is ever acceptable.
Just like how some of the teatotalling denominations skip over the whole water to wine thing.
UMC – not teatotalling, but no alcohol at communion. They taught us that it wasn’t about alcohol being bad, but that you shouldn’t put a stumbling block into your neighbor’s path.
I vaguely recall an old joke (from Reader’s Digest?) in which an old Quaker or Amish guy points a gun at a burglar and says, “Friend, I would not harm thee for the world, but thou standeth where I am about to shoot. “
I’ve heard that joke many times. It was always a Quaker.
Christ is quite plainly addressing the moneychangerers’ presence as a trespass issue. It’s his father’s (and his) house, with established rules for what is and is not permitted. And they’re there in plain violation of the orders.
Not an NAP violation.
I generally choose to believe that Christ taught in parables that were meant to illuminate a concept more so than be taken literally.
I choose to believe Christ walked away from most teaching sessions rubbing his brow and mumbling angrily to himself.
*sigh*
Coming up on my third year with the company, and I’m now getting my fourth different boss. Maybe this one will actually do one-on-ones and the like. My last two bosses I’ve gotten quarterly calls about getting a bonus, and the annual review.
At least they keep paying me (and giving me bonuses).
Direct supervisor or some other sort of overboss?
Direct supervisor.
Sheesh. I’ve not churned direct supervisors that fast at any job.
We had one company in Iraq go through 5 company commanders in 9 months… 🙁
That’s a lot of grenades.
Ticket-punchers?
2 dead, 3 wounded. It was a truck company.
Fuck IEDs.
Sorry I made the flip comment above about frags.
Ah. The ticket-punchers would have avoided that posting like the plague.
Sorry.
New normal, you don’t have a magic wand, etc.
“At that rate, it’s going to take ten years to get back to full employment,” Biden said. “That’s not hyperbole, that’s a fact.”
The president spoke while meeting with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats in the Oval Office to discuss his $1.9 trillion coronavirus spending plan.
“This is about people’s lives, it’s not just about numbers,” he said, noting the rise in mental health cases, drug abuse, and suicides in the United States.
Biden thanked Senate Democrats for passing a budget reconciliation bill to move his plan forward with a simple majority.
“People are really feeling the hole; they don’t know how to get out,” he said. “You’ve given them a lot of hope.”
Biden vowed he would speed the American recovery with the glut of new spending, again explaining why he wanted to err on the side of spending too much rather than too little.
“We can fix it. We can fix it,” he said. “And the irony of all ironies is, when we help them we are also helping our competitive capacity for the remainder of this decade.”
Going by unemployment rates alone, we’re already 5 years into the recovery that happened from 2009-2020. Saying it will take a decade implies things are going to get a lot worse when they’ve actually been trending better at a rapid pace.
Pay attention to them when they speak. They fully intend on making things worse.
*your avatar here*
Who has two thumbs and left his continua craft around here *somewhere*?
Our financial advisor called us this morning out of the blue to check in.
One thing he made sure to note was that things could get tricky by the end of this year and in to next because of inflation. He wanted me to know that I’m in a good position to deal with it, etc etc.
But I still thought it was odd, and telling, that he’d call about that in specific.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_Hymn_of_the_Republic
Unfortunantly, American Protestantism has been as much a tool of the pacifist movement as the war movement. Using the ideation that God and country are unified in a righteous war of justice has been been a tool of the war maker for as long as there have been war makers.
Good article. Thanks Raven.
Mennonites ? We out here!
*thankfully Grandpa Tres was tossed from the church. While I dig the hats, I cant grow a beard
Like, physically tossed out?
It’s better than being tossed *in* the church.
– 1 salad
“shunned”
The nice form of ex-commuication, I suppose
Ah, I was wondering if he had been bodily flung from…The Body.
Relevant: Mennonites don’t get covid
Love it.
Shared.
Are Mennonites allowed tall cans or is that a big no no?
There’s always loopholes. For example, we have a robust community of Dunkers here (we call ’em Dunkards or Old Order). They dont go HAM on the ‘wordly goods” like the Amish- they drive, have electricity, and such, they’re expected to do without TV, some appliances, things like that. Well, since many of them have a small business, thats their out. Maybe no TV in the house, but one in the shop “for customers”. No phone or computer in the house, but since “the business” needs them…
While they drive, the cars (or more often, minivans) are generally plain. But I immediately think of a Dunkard plumber and roofer that both have “work trucks” that are easily $60-70K vehicles.
the Tall Cans loophole may reside in “just keep it in the barn, not in the house, Ezekiel”
We have a lot of Mennonites in my area, fine cooks if a bit bland sometimes-they own a lot of restaurants, but decent enough people from what I’ve seen.
Back when I lived in Charlottesville, I used to see Mennonite women at stores sometimes. It was interesting – they’d always wear dresses, but they were modern (though very modest, obviously) dresses. Yet they still wore those little bonnets on their heads, which was how you knew they were Mennonites.
My buddy Tim in high school- everyone has a “type”. For some guys, maybe its black chics. Or latina, asians, or thai lady boys. For me, the Larger Ladies.
But for him it was Dunkard broads. Some were notorious sluts, known to do “everything but THAT”. He’d date them and try to push the envelope. Anything in a denim skirt (they seemed to make them from hand-me-down Levis) and a bonnet.
I knew a Mormon girl in the Marines who was a wild child. She was from rural Colorado, and the minute she got away from the watchful eye of her family and church, she released her inner freak.
One of my drinking buddies was a lapsed Mormon (both of his siblings were lapsed as well, as I recall).
It was something like the mirror-image of “the zeal of a recent convert”. Or the zeal of a recent convert to booze-baggery, I suppose.
/thinks back to the lapsed JW’s I knew
It checks out.
Hard times is comin’. Be prepared
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-mWK_kcZMs
I refuse to get any stranger than pruno.
Whelp, BigFin has learned from Big Tech
I cannot remember the exact name of it now, but there was an Obama-era “Operation: XYZ” that targeted the banking and finance sector to clamp down on badthinkful people. It’s not so much that “Big X” leads “Big Y” as they’ve been tacitly sharing strategies all along.
It was Operation Choke Point. Took me a bit to find the right combination of search terms.
Chokepoint:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point
Wasn’t that Chokepoint?
Chokepoint, if memory serves.
I think Lou Reed was in charge of it, too.
Unfortunately, after he died drugs fell out of his ass, and the Cleveland Browns were his pallbearers.
The Fed and their contractors most certainly have access to all these data already. BofA involvement here is mostly a parallel construction.
Who better to remind than Judge Nap? https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/nov/4/us-governments-appetite-for-spying-on-americans-re/
I may have to brush up on my Bank Secrecy Act (BSA)/Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) compliance training to see what – if anything – BofA HAD to give the Feds in response to a request. Not that I doubt BofA would’ve happily offered up anything the Feds asked for, required or not. They’re bad&evil.
“In order for evil to triumph good men need only do nothing.”
I am not a pacifist but a strong believer in the NAP. Keep your hands to yourself and I will not take them away from you.
Not to pester, but SP informs me she sent you my email address so we can discuss an offer you recently made.
Ah, ok. I guess I should check my email this month. I will reply.
“People are really feeling the hole; they don’t know how to get out,” he said”
You know who else felt a lot of holes ?
A miner?
Randy West?
Big John?
An unlucky lineman?
Cheese grater QC inspector?
Shia LaBeouf?
Blackburn, Lancashire?
Dirk Diggler?
The feed wheels on continuous-stationary-fed printers?
“Pay attention to them when they speak. They fully intend on making things worse.”
This. They have been saying it out loud for over a decade.
I once said to a proggie relative; “Obumbles told. you he was going to fuck. you to death and you are going to vote for him?”
Her: “Huh? whaaaa? No he didn’t.”
*I pull up the video of Obumbles saying ‘Under my plan energy prices would necessarily skyrocket’. I explain that the majority of the price of everything…tennis shoes, cars, bread, water…everything is the cost of the energy it takes to produce it*
Her: blank face and sputtering.
A month later I reminded her of me showing her the video. She denied having seen it, so I showed it to her again. A few months later even after seeing it twice she denied having seen it. I showed it to her a third time. I would be willing to bet if I brought the subject up today she would deny any knowledge of it.
“Once a person has been demoralized you cannot fix them. You are stuck with them. No matter how much authentic information you give them they cannot draw a sensible conclusion.” – Our buddy Bezmenov
Fuck every single idiot that voted Democrat.
Information contrary to her worldview literally could not make an impression. Scary. And I suspect all too common.