Defence

Jesus speaks of turning the other cheek. What limits, if any, do you see on this?

Defence seems necessary in some sense for nation states. Or your neighbours could just walk in and take what they like.

But what about personally? Martyrs accepted their lot; I assume these are examples for us if persecuted. And Christians, in times past as well as the present, who find themselves under unfavourable rule often just get on with life as best they can as far as I see. I know zero about Greek independence from the Ottomans (except it happened), but that was some form of uprising I take it. French resistance in WWII, to take one example I'm more familiar with, seems valid. Do actions have limits, or does (almost?) anything go?

I have pondered this with Ukraine. I pondered the exceptionally remote possibility that if I were a citizen of an invaded country, is there one Christian response? Those, were they Quakers?, who were gaoled rather than serve? Is it conscience? Is there a duty to one's country? It all seems rather a muddle to my simple mind.

Comments

  • DafydDafyd Hell Host
    The just war theory in Christian holds that one may, under certain circumstances, take up arms to defend someone else. A ruler has a duty to defend their people.
    This has been abused.
    But I think Ukraine's self-defence for example meets all the criteria.
  • Climacus wrote: »
    Those, were they Quakers?, who were gaoled rather than serve?

    Most UK conscientious objectors who were jailed 1914-18 were extreme pacifists, rather than Quakers specifically. Indeed, Quaker men of conscription age were approached with something approaching reverence - reverence is a direct quote from an assessment of UK tribunals at the time - because they tended to go through on the nod to a frontline ambulance unit rather than prison. It's difficult to generalise, but as a generalisation (!) British Quaker men tended to accept a duty to serve, but not to fight.

    You had to try very hard to end up in prison as a British conscientious objector in the Great War, because there was a process to sort people into other work, and only about 1500 (off the top of my head) ended up rock breaking at Dyce or Princetown.

    They were called 'Absolutists'.

    By comparison something like 5.5 million men served in the army, and another half a million in the navy 1914-1918.

    There were more conscientious objectors in the UK 1939-1940 (about 60,000), but again Absolutists who would do nothing at all for the war effort were a tiny minority (ie most were content to do something for the war that didn't involve carrying a firearm).

  • betjemaniacbetjemaniac Shipmate
    edited November 2024
    FWIW analysis of the WW2 British numbers is actually harder, because the country was geared up for the war much more in 1939, because of the experience of WW1. Lots more occupations were 'reserved' - ie exempt call-up liability - and it was relatively straightforward to quietly get into one of those rather than wait for an opportunity to refuse the call-up. Consequently, there'll be a grey area of 'pacifists' working in essential industries who were simply never properly surveyed on their opinions.

    I know this because my grandfather was one of them until the winter of 1940-41, when the Blitz (he lived in London) changed his mind, and he decided - as he told me - that the result of the conflict raging in the world mattered more than his own personal beliefs, and he went through the process of release from the electricity company, and joining the army, which he then served in from 1941-46, 8th Army, from the desert all the way up Italy.

    Not a lot of fun.
  • Climacus wrote: »
    Jesus speaks of turning the other cheek. What limits, if any, do you see on this?
    I think the bigger question is “what was Jesus talking about when he spoke of turning the other cheek?” I’m going to throw out there that it had nothing to do with defense—at least physical defense—of self or others, so its application to something like the Ukraine scenario is misplaced, I think.

    Specifically, what Jesus says is “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also . . . .” Note the action is “strikes you on the right cheek.” In other words, “if anyone slaps you.” That is not a physical attack that requires physical defense; rather, that is an insult.

    And note that Jesus specifically says “the right cheek,” and remember that Jesus and those listening to him when he gave the Sermon on the Mount were in territory occupied by Rome. Remember that, at the time, the right hand was considered “clean,” and the left hand (in Latin, the sinister hand) was considered unclean. And note that this particular saying is part of a trio of sayings, all of which have to do with treatment by Roman soldiers or occupiers.

    In the culture of the day, a “superior,” such as Roman soldier, would strike an “inferior” with the back of his right hand, hitting the inferior on the right cheek. When a soldier struck an equal, they did so with their right fist on the left cheek. This was just one way of reinforcing the very strict class distinctions of the time. By offering their left cheek, Jesus’s followers would either by inviting the one insulting them to treat them as an equal (by using the right hand) or to use their “unclean” hand. Either way, it was Jesus’s follower who, without violence, was holding the moral high ground.

    So when Jesus suggests offering the left cheek, he isn’t saying “go ahead, be a doormat, let them beat you up.” He’s saying “challenge them, nonviolently, to treat you as an equal, not as an inferior, or to see that they, so to speak, have unclean hands.”

    This saying from Jesus was a major influence in the nonviolence movements of Gandhi, MLK and others.


  • I think decisions about defense have to be taken with one's own role and responsibilities in mind. For example, when our enemies pushed us out of the church we led (along with more than half the other members) and thereby lost us Mr Lamb's job and income, we did not fight back. But when they began persecuting the people who left with us (car damage, stalking, and threats of arson and kidnapping), we immediately made it clear that if they kept on, we would see them in court. Because a shepherd has a duty to protect the flock, whatever he may accept for himself.
  • Alfred the Great was a devout Christian but he was hot on self defence for his kingdom.
  • I feel as if @Nick Tamen is on pretty solid footing here. I was taught something similar a long time ago.
  • Dafyd wrote: »
    The just war theory in Christian holds that one may, under certain circumstances, take up arms to defend someone else. A ruler has a duty to defend their people.
    This has been abused.
    But I think Ukraine's self-defence for example meets all the criteria.

    Agreed.
  • Blimey, Lamb Chopped, I've heard of some pretty nasty church spats but that sounds like a pretty extreme one to have been on the receiving end of ...

    On the issues of Quakers and pacifism, my impression is that their position is more nuanced than no violence at any price. My brother was told of Quakers who bore arms in WW2 as they believed that Nazism was such an extreme menace that it could only be resisted by force.
  • On the issues of Quakers and pacifism, my impression is that their position is more nuanced than no violence at any price. My brother was told of Quakers who bore arms in WW2 . . .

    One of those WWII Quakers was Richard Nixon, who would eventually go on to authorize a massive (and Congressionally unauthorized) bombing campaign against Cambodia.
  • It was, but it was part of a larger trend in the local community where churches/temples/community groups suffered coups-de-etat by power-hungry members who had realized that it was easier to gain positions of leadership this way than to earn it (via education or simply serving over time) legitimately. We were the fourth group in the Vietnamese community to suffer this sort of attack, and the first to survive, even if not whole. There was a suggestion that the ringleaders in each individual case had been in contact with one another, which is vaguely possible, but in any case it does no good to think about it now.

    We picked up what remained of our work, took the willing 60% and relocated to a sister church's basement--where we remain to this day. (Our adversaries took their handful of people and ran them into the ground within two years, when the group formally dissolved. We know all this because several of those people were calling us on the phone to apologize for their role in this--they were terrified of the violent threats, and they hoped we wouldn't blame them. Some of them managed to make it back to our group in the years to come.)
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    On the issues of Quakers and pacifism, my impression is that their position is more nuanced than no violence at any price. My brother was told of Quakers who bore arms in WW2 . . .

    One of those WWII Quakers was Richard Nixon, who would eventually go on to authorize a massive (and Congressionally unauthorized) bombing campaign against Cambodia.

    Ok, I was thinking of British Quakers, and in very few instances, but that is a salutary point.
  • Oh my Lamb Chopped! I recall knowing of an event, but my goodness.

    Thank you all for the responses, corrections, additions, etc. I had not heard that explanation, Nick Tamen; as with all new interpretations (new to me, not in time), one I will ponder and wrestle with.
  • It was a very long time ago (2005-2006) and we're all very much recovered from it, by the mercy of God. Well, I'm afraid we live rent-free in the heads of our old enemies, and they pop up every once in a while to make our lives interesting (mostly by slander); but the rest of us are living our lives and happy.
  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    edited November 2024
    Spot on @Nick Tamen. Jesus was obviously only talking of ordinary social situations, of subverting abuse of power with soft power.
Sign In or Register to comment.