Tag Archives: pacifism

Back to Church Sunday reaches out to guys – BYOG

Posted on by
26

Bring your own gun.

From here:

In an effort to increase membership, a number of U.S. churches — including the Church of Christ congregation in this rural village 30 miles north of Columbus — are offering an unconventional public service: Concealed weapons training.

“Church has done a good job with coffee klatsches or whatever, but we haven’t really reached out to guys,” said Jeff Copley, a preacher at the church. “And guys in Morrow Country, they shoot and they hunt.”

Hundreds of students have enrolled in the 10-hour course, which meets the state requirements for earning a concealed weapons permit. The training includes two hours on a church member’s private shooting range.

“I grew up going to church, but hadn’t attended in a number of years,” said David Freeman, 52, a local engineering manager who attended a firearm safety class at the church. “Always considered myself a Christian. I came for the gun classes and have been coming back for two years.”

Unsurprisingly, the National Council of Churches disapproves, making the whole enterprise seem much more appealing:

[T]he National Council of Churches of Christ, which represents about 100,000 Protestant, Anglican, Orthodox and Evangelical churches comprising 45 million members nationwide, endorsed strict gun control in a 2010 position paper.

Conceding the need for an armed police force, the council wrote that “to allow assault weapons in the hands of the general public can scarcely be justified on Christian grounds. The stark reality is that such weapons end up taking more lives than they defend, and the reckless sale or use of these weapons refutes the gospel’s prohibition against violence.”

Is carrying a gun with the intent to defend oneself and family contrary to Christian principles? If it isn’t, is there any reason that a church should not hold classes to teach people how to do it properly?

If it is contrary to Christianity to defend oneself, then outright pacifism might be the only coherent response.

Of course, Anglican clergy would have little hesitation resorting to the ruse employed by 19-20th Century homosexual satirist and pacifist, Lytton Strachey who, when asked: “If a German soldier tried to rape your sister, what would you do”, replied: “I would try to interpose my own body.”

The Anglican Church of Canada and pacifism

Posted on by
2

As a callow youth I was an avid reader of Leo Tolstoy and became convinced that he was on to something in his impassioned support of pacifism.

Time passed and it occurred to me that to be a comfortable pacifist in a society whose order is maintained by the application of force is, at the very least, hypocritical. The Anglican Church of Canada is no stranger to hypocrisy, of course, so it is no surprise that some of its reverend gentlemen support pacifism.

The Rev. R. G. Cross has made his case for pacifism here.

Sadly, he does leave out one of the more interesting comments made by a 19-20C pacifist, Lytton Strachey. His remark is uncanny in its prescient applicability to today’s Anglican clergy. Strachey was a homosexual and when asked, “If a German soldier tried to rape your sister, what would you do”” slyly replied; “I would try to interpose my own body.”

Many would argue that non-violence is not a practical subject to be explored in the church’s life. Since the days of Constantine, the church has supported empire, the concept of the just war and the right of citizens to defend themselves against aggressors.
 Violence appears to be an integral part of the universe, and personal violence necessary, in some instances, to affirm self esteem in the face of continuing injustice and oppression.

[……]

What is the non-violent answer? The rejection of the use of force to achieve social and political goals. It involves refusal to harm another being.

Bishop Michael Ingham reviews the Anglican Church of Canada’s position on war

Posted on by
2

He comes to this conclusion:

The Ecumenical Call discusses the justifiable use of armed force, and concludes “there are extreme circumstances where, as the last resort and the lesser evil, the lawful use of armed force may become necessary.” This is a difficult conclusion for many Christians, and yet it would reflect the broad views of Canadian Anglicans as expressed in these official statements through the years.

A clear and consistent pattern of belief is evident in the documents surveyed here. Violence and war are incompatible with Christ’s teaching. Christian responsibility is to build up communities of peace founded upon justice for all people and for the earth itself. Peacemaking and reconciliation are at the heart of the Christian gospel.

I would have thought that the violent death of God’s son offered as a propitiation for the sins of the world is at the “heart of the Christian gospel”, rather than the polysemous vagueness of “peacemaking and reconciliation”. But, then, I’m not an Anglican bishop.