Argument against Pacifism pt.1

When I worked at agricultural training school in Florida we had many young people from Mennonite Central Committee(MCC) come through so we talked about pacifism several times.  One of the staff, who had served as a missionary to Mozambique claimed that MCC’s in country training included teaching people how to work a pump action shotgun.  The racking of the slide, or firing of a blank or rubber bullet was very useful in scaring off assailants.  At first I thought that was a sensible real-world adaption of their pacifist belief.  But then I realized that it only worked to frighten people because there were others who loaded their shotguns with lead and were willing to kill.  It wouldn’t work without those people.  That is how I feel about pacifism in general.  Where do you find pacifists?  Generally, in countries with strong rule of law enforced by violence or the threat of violence.  I have a hard time classifying “true” Christianity as a cultural parasite.

The New Testament gives a very positive pictures of soldiers and those who enforce the rule of law.  John tells them to do their duty and be content with their pay(Luke 3:14), a centurion had greater faith than all of Israel(Luke 7:9), a thief affirmed the justice of capital punishment and Christ, by his silence, gave his assent(Luke 23:40-43), a centurion was an upright, and God-fearing man (Acts 10:22).  Christ said to turn the other cheek but that if he strikes you on your right cheek (Matt 5:39) and the “right” is significant or it wouldn’t be there.  He also tells a parable assuming everyone understands the protection of property (Luke 11:21).

What I find really odd if we are not to be in a position where we might take another’s life is Paul’s repeated use of soldier metaphors.  If being a soldier were inherently wrong, why does Paul refer to “fellow soldiers” and encourages believer to be a “good soldier?”  Could he just as easily encouraged them to be a good rapist for Christ Jesus, getting the seed of the word past all resistance?  Sorry, that is really crass and I ashamed I thought of it but I think the point is valid.  In I Cor 9:7 Paul talks about soldiers, vine tenders, and shepherds.  Are two good and one bad, inherently? Is one good and two bad (because it it wrong to kill people or get drunk)?  Couldn't Paul find three inherently good examples and not muddle things?

Why talk about the armor of God?  It seems odd Paul would point out as example to imitate metaphorically, people who are in disobedience to Christ.  In the wisdom of God, he chose those metaphors because any people through out time who have a language to read God’s word in will, by necessity of the predatory nature of sinful man, be under the protection of the rule of law and will have soldiers/warriors to look to. 

They only point I contending for is that being in the position to enforce the rule of law is not inherently wrong. Terrible atrocities have been committed by soldiers. There are times when we are called to give our lives for Christ.  But persecution is different than crime.  See pt.2 for a biblical example.