Posts
I recently spent over an hour watching a debate among Jonah Barnes and Luke Hansen at the podcast, Doctrine and Governance. It was illuminating mostly for what was left out and engaged. Since I literally wrote the book on the subject I felt it was worth explaining those points.
Failure to Define
Barnes never defined pacifism beyond vague gestures toward
“having a peaceful heart” and disliking violence. Having a peaceful heart is
important, it's literally the first chapter of my book, but he never fully explains his position which makes it more
sentiment than consistent theology. Nor did he ever explicitly state if he believed
all violence is immoral. If he does believe that he’ll have to explain many,
many, examples of divine violence. This is usually done using the pacifists’
favorite tactic of minimizing or discounting most scriptures.
Barnes claimed, many, many times, he took a “non-accusatory”
position on pacifism, even as he accused others of “twisting the scriptures” or
just being “idiots.” Yet when he claimed he was on “The Lord’s Side” the moral
framing was clear: if his view is the righteous one, then those who disagree
must be immoral. That’s a great deal of posturing that might be good for a
debate but makes for very poor dialog and ignores the need for justice in this
world. In a massive case of projection he minimized clear war chapter verses
(Alma 48:14; 43:47) a great deal, offered a tortured reading of D&C 98 and
ignored clear statements that we are not command to lay down our arms (Alma
61:12-13). Barnes never considers that if
warfare were inherently sinful, why would the Lord direct His people in how and
where to defend themselves (Alma 48:15; Exodus 14:14; Deuteronomy 20:4)? Why
would the Lord join them in battle in DC 98:37, and bless them with
victory if warfare was so sinful?
I’ll return to this below, but a better reading is to see
how all the scriptures fit together. So instead of discounting the Old
Testament, the war chapters, and the command to use force in DC 98, a person should
understand what it means to renounce war, proclaim peace, and know when
to wield the sword. The answer to that seeming contradiction is the center of
my writing, the first chapter of my book,
and a subject of frequent
discussion.
Pacifism Meets Reality
The greatest weakness of Barnes' position was the failure to
offer hypothetical but likely real world examples, even while claiming that
pacifism “thrives in the real world.” To me, that was a tacit admission that
pacifist theories don’t work in the real world. Reading scripture isn’t
designed to articulate grand castles in the sky, it’s supposed to help us “liken
the scripture” to everyday life (1 Nephi 19:23).
Moreover, Jesus used parables, and the hypothetical example
of the Good Samaritan, Lost Sheep, Talents, Wise and Foolish Builder, and
Sower, to explain His principles. The Book of Mormon is full of examples where
hypothetical beliefs met the sharp edge of the sword where faithful believers
were commanded to defend their families and freedom. Alma 43:47, 48:21–23, and
61:12–14 all affirms the divine duty to protect the innocent, “even unto
bloodshed.”
I’m particularly interested in Abraham’s rescue of Lot.
D&C 98:32 says the Lords Law of War was also revealed to Abraham. And yet when
raiders captured Lot, Abraham didn’t lift a standard of peace and wait for
three trespasses. He launched a sneak attack! But he was blessed by a prince of
peace (Alma 13:18). Clearly, the Old Testament's explanation of D&C 98 differs
from that of Barnes. The famous command “thou shall not kill” should read,
“thou shall not murder.” That’s because Exodus 21–22, immediately after the Ten
Commandments, discusses multiple instances of justified defensive killing.
Discussion of the New Testament often focuses on the
supposed pacifism of the Sermon on the Mount, but Jesus supported the use of
force as well. When talking to soldiers neither John the Baptist (Luke 3:10-18)
nor Jesus commanded soldiers to lay down their arms (Matthew 8:5-13). (John the
Baptist addressed hypothetical future situations when told soldiers to be content with their pay instead of extorting the people for more.) Jesus praised the centurion for his faith! Jesus described parables where the master
used force to compel servants to enter during a hypothetical banquet (Luke
14:23). All four gospels describe Jesus using whips to cleanse the temple.
(Mason and Pulsipher tried to explain this away as “only” violence against
objects and animals. But similar violence in the Book of Mormon was enough for
Ammon to main and kill people.) Jesus said that he didn’t bring peace but
brought the sword (Matthew 10:34), and in another instance, fire and division
(Luke 12:49). Jesus killed a fig tree for not being fruitful (Mark 11:12-14).
When struck, Jesus didn’t turn the other cheek (John 18:22-23).
Expanding to look at New Testament more broadly, Paul says
the rulers are appointed by God as “agents of his wrath to the wrong doer”
(Romans 13:4; see below). And Jesus promises in revelation that he will kill so
many people that the blood will flow like a wine press for 200 miles (Rev
14:20).
Last but not least, our new prophet, Dallin H. Oaks gave a talk where he described how we must ask ourselves, "where will it lead?" His entire talk was based on hypothetical situations where a person might take preemptive action.
Twisting
In addition to misreading scriptures, the claim of twisting
scriptures with overburdened reasoning is a frequent tactic of internet
sophists to sound simple but decisive, and make opponents look manipulative and
weak with mental
gymnastics.
But matters of war and peace are not decided by who has the
best slogan. That might sound strong on a discussion board, but ethics of war and peace are best determined by how dozens
of scriptures interact with each other. (Such as how someone might “renounce
war” and “resist bloodshed with your sword” at the same time.)
For those who claim to be experts on peace and love, and pacifists are among the most arrogant people I've met, they should be able to move beyond bumper
stickers to explain their point using scriptures, including likely
hypotheticals. It’s not quite a bumper sticker, but Barnes’ catch phrases are
an indictment of his shallowness, not my depth.
Moral Logic and Justice
Finally, there was a singular point where Barnes declared: “Justice is the last thing I want.” That is an astoundingly privileged comment from someone who has never experienced a grave injustice. The victims whose blood “cries from the ground” (Genesis 4:10; 2 Nephi 28;10) deserve more than passive compassion. It sounds a bit like Game of Thrones but it’s accurate, until the afterlife, the only justice a person receives is what is delivered to people by a secular government. That is why God said that rulers are “agents of wrath to the wrong doers,” and Thomas Aquinas cited ruler’s need to “deliver the poor and needy” (Psalms 81:4).
Justice entirely deferred to eternity is justice denied on
earth. In short, tell the families of 9/11 victims or Jews in Europe during the
Holocaust justice is the last thing they should receive. They should be okay with the perpetrators of
heinous rape, mutilation, and murder living their entire lives, smiling with
the sun on their face, having meals and every joy they could have. Meanwhile
the victims spend countless hours in tears, feeling like a storm cloud is
always raining on them…all because Jonah Barnes has a vague aversion to
violence to the point he says that he doesn’t want “justice.” But the Book of
Mormon directly repudiates that opinion when Alma taught that mercy can’t rob
justice (Alma 42:25). That is even more important in matters of war and peace,
and explains why Bib Netanyahu, for example, seems so motivated to pursue war.
Only eliminating Hamas, (or the less perfect peace deal that disarms them and
bars them from power) was justice for the innocent victims of Hamas’ barbaric
rampage and a defense against future attacks.
Conclusion
I didn’t even get to many other topics. For example, Barnes
drew shaky parallels between modern conflicts and ancient wars, equating acts
like Hiroshima
or Pearl Harbor defense with evil. War is terrible but pretending that all use
of force is immoral doesn’t make us holy, it makes us irresponsible and idle
witnesses to slaughter. Scripture, history, and reason converge on a simple
truth that peace sometimes requires courage.
We can wield the sword with clean hearts, but we cannot lay
it down while evil thrives. We should abandon bumper stickers like “war is bad”
or Barnes’ favorite, “we aren’t commanded to pick up arms.” And realize that we
must love our neighbor enough to stop their slaughter using our God given right
to defense ourselves.
Thanks for reading. If you liked this work please consider donating using the paypal button below, or purchase one of my books linked in the top left.
You can find my thoughts on war and politics on twitter @DeaneOnWar
I'm creative too! You'll find my fiction under the pen name MT Deane.
