Chapter 23
SHOULD WE LAY
DOWN OUR SWORDS?
Like most conceptual terms, it is not accurate to paint “pacifism” with a quick broad brush. One form of pacifism is to never strike back, which was practiced personally by Martin Luther King, Jr. While in the midst of a speech, a man jumped on stage and struck him in the face, knocking him down. King, a former wrestler, got back up and offered the man his chair on the stage. ¹
Another form of pacifism allows for the defense of one's own physical person and immediate family or small group. This form is possibly, but not necessarily in agreement with Jesus, when taken in context of several different teachings; it's never accurate to extrapolate only some of what Jesus said, as conservative Christians often do. ²
Jesus drew a distinct line against war and violence. ³ From an accurate historical perspective, war is invariably about either protecting one's own wealth or taking someone else's wealth and almost always, about both. Thus, war is not the same as self defense, which is protecting one's physical person.
In war, soldiers are compelled to obey orders from the top down, regardless of how right or wrong they personally believe them to be. Following orders from the top down in WWII, soldiers who may never had previoulsy violently attacked anyone, dropped atomic weapons on a large civilian population.
No side is right in war, because seeds of one conflict trace to a previous conflict. Just as seeds of WWII trace to WWI and back even before the American Revolution, which was also about wealth; not paying taxes being a primary revolutionary motivation. One of the supposedly most “justified” wars in U.S. history is WWII, because Japan attacked the United States.
The problem with this theory is, long before Pearl Harbor, we had gained substantially monetarily by supplying England and France with weapons. And at the time, we were attempting to blockade supplies coming into Japan, which was a threat to their population's survival. It is not that Japan was right and we were wrong but rather, war is invariably about both sides being wrong. No nation profiting from a war is guiltless concerning that war.
Perhaps the best American historical example of justifiable self defense in regards to war, is when Colonel Chivington attacked and massacred a tribe of natives, who were sleeping inside their homes with white flag raised. If there was ever a justified response, it is how American natives responded to Sand Creek. 4
Jesus taught the way to achieve peace is to lay down our swords. This solution is so obvious, a small child can easily understand what apparently, is too profound for many educated historians and conservative preachers to grasp. In the book of Revelation, this command is repeated and, those who resort to violence and war as a means to an end, are placed on the wrong side of God, human rights and human history. 5
Is laying down our swords wise? Are you smarter than Jesus? 6
You decide.
NOTES:
1. I have been unable to locate documentation for this Martin Luther King, Jr. incident online, but I have seen actual video footage of the altercation, so I know for a fact that it happened. Whether or not you choose to believe this incident took place, nevertheless it is a good illustration of "turn the other cheek" extreme pacifism.
2. Luke; 22:35-38. It is not necessarily true that this teaching of Jesus refers to self-defense, as it appears rather, to have been an "off-hand" comment and matter of fact statement to his followers, that when he was no longer with them, they would have great trouble, as of course, history confirmed; it is indicative to note Jesus said that the only two swords available for a large group of people were "enough", which is hardly cause to rip this out of context to justify a so-called "pre-emptive" or any other war, as moder Conservative Christians do. Jesus very clearly draws a line against war in Matthew and again, in Revelation very similar language is used and a clear line is drawn, placing those who promote violence and war as a means to an end, on the wrong side of God, human rights and human history.
In the historical context of the time of Jesus, in a society without the kind of police protection we take for granted today, it was probably common to openly display a sword while traveling, as a warning protection against highwaymen and other common thieves, similar to how a car alarm is used today to hopefully scare away an auto thief. It is quite possible that this is what Jesus was referring to in this passage in Luke, rather than using a sword as a violent means to an end; it perhaps pays to study a little history before drawing erroneous conclusions that very obviously contradict the teachings of Jesus elsewhere.
Jesus very clearly spoke against violence and physical retaliation in several places in the New Testament, including the so-called sermon on the mount, where he specifically warns that those who teach otherwise are against both God and their own selves. According to the Bible itself, scriptures are not of any "private interpretation", meaning among other things, that a small passage cannot be used to shore up an off-center, hypocritical position, in disregard of the larger context. Nobody who has read the teachings of Jesus can honestly justify the current war in Iraq or, any other war that the United States has participated in. Much of what modern Christianity pretends is based on the Bible is rather, based on an extrapolated text used in this type of hypocritical fashion, where conclusions are drawn to "fit" a pre-conceived conservative or other traditional bias; conclusions that are clearly wrong in the light of other passages found elsewhere.
It is extremely misleading to ever refer to the teachings of Jesus as a "sermon". Unlike the incredibly arrogant, boring and just plain ignorant sermons one may have had the misfortune to endure here in modern-day America, the "sinners and common people" heard the words of Jesus gladly. It is a sure bet that if the people who watch "Leno", "Letterman" and "Saturday Night Live" do not like the religion you are promoting, then it is the wrong religion, as ALL religions are. Jesus often spoke caustically and vehemently against conservative fundamentalists, calling them all manner of vile names known to his society, which is a primary reason why the sinners and common people liked him; i.e., consider "The Church Lady", one of the most popular skits on "Saturday Night Live". God does not need a religion, nor does he need anyone to defend him; creation itself speaks for God, as well as does humanity's shared "endowed" conscience.
3. Matthew 26:52, repeated in Revelation, Ch. 13 and also, agrees with several of his other teachings found elsewhere. And, agrees with what the angels sang at the birth of Jesus, "Peace on earth, goodwill towards the people" (all of the people on Planet Earth), as well as with the prophets Isaiah, Joel, Micah and several others. This is a good example of why ripping a small incident related in Luke 22 out of context, leads to the utter hypocrisy and blindness of conservative religion; fundamentalism being the opposite of what Jesus and the New Testament teaches.
4. Sand Creek Massacre.
5. Revelation Ch. 13.
6. It should further be noted that a sword in 1st Century Palestine symbolized the strength and might of Rome; a sword being THE weapon of choice of the Roman army, Roman soldiers being feared for their great sword wielding ability. Thus, the command to put away one's sword had supreme military significance to the people Jesus was talking to. Jesus commanding this in a land controlled and policed by the Roman army, after he had already been taken captive by Roman soldiers, represents one of the most radical and bravest things known in the history of civilization. It is probably very fair to conclude, given the repetition of this command in Revelation and in the context of several other teachings of Jesus, that followers of Jesus, regardless of what their own governments choose to do, are to refrain from practicing war and anarchy and rather, to promote peace and goodwill. It is never okay to obey man rather than God, as conservative Christians habitually both promote and practice by twisting a teaching of Paul in Romans completely and entirely out of context. Paul stated that we should not resist "the power" while his own friends were being routinely rounded up, cast into prison, severely beaten and often murdered. The ensuing chaos after the United States attacked Iraq, which as of 2008 had resulted in well over one million people losing their lives and a great many more lives utterly ruined, is a very good example of why resisting what Paul called "the power" by the force of violent war and anarchy, is a very bad idea. Conservative Christians who pretend otherwise are clearly hypocrites beyond any and all known hypocrites. The price for religious hypocrisy is very, very high, filled with blood up to and beyond the saddles of human history's twisted and violent horseman of untold apocalypse.
Other Books by Richard Aberdeen Click Here to eMail the Author Copyright © by Richard Aberdeen Copyright © by Freedom Tracks Music No part of this material may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including printing, photocopying, recording or by any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the author: Inquires click here. Appendix Revolution and Revolution/Side B are open copyright and may be reproduced or utilized as desired. |