Review of Preston Sprinkle's Nonviolence Book

A good while ago I promised a final post on Preston Sprinkle's book, Fight: A Christian Case for Nonviolence, with links to the entire series of posts.  I now make good on that promise and give a few final thoughts.

First Post: Introduction
Second Post: Meaning of 'Violence'
Third Post: Double Effect
Fourth Post: The Sermon on the Mount
Fifth Post: CHRISTIAN Pacifism
Sixth Post: Attacker at the Door
Seventh Post: Just War Theory
Addendum #1: On Good Guys With Guns
Addendum #2: Killer at the Door
Addendum #3: Non-Violence Argument Summarized/Critiqued

My primary objection to Sprinkle's pacifist case runs as follows:

I take as a basic moral truth--one which needs no argument--that it is wrong to shoot babies for kicks.  I do not need the Bible to tell me that it is wrong to go up to my neighbor's kid and shoot him. 

So too I take it as a basic moral truth that there is nothing immoral in shooting a mass murderer in the act of murdering; in fact, it would be better that he be shot than the next innocent person.  One does not need an argument to be justified in believing this.  Ordinary people who have never studied ethics, theology, or the Bible can see this to be true.

"Ah, but God is full of surprises.  Jesus turns the world on its head.  What seems so obviously true to most people is false and what is obviously false is true."

God is indeed full of surprises but this line of thinking leads down the road to a heap of skepticism (plus it sounds awfully Mormon!). If God is SO full of surprises, then for all we know he turned himself evil, he's killed himself, and before he died he intended us to do likewise!  Or if you don't like that example, try this one: God is so full of surprises that even though pacifism is gaining popularity in seminaries and seems reasonable to a lot of theological hipsters, it's not.  God doesn't believe in pacifism, after all.  SURPRISE!

There is no doubt that, as Christians, we believe that God has revealed things to people and that his major revelation to humankind is recorded in the Bible.  One of the traditional reasons given for why he did this is because human reason cannot itself ascend to the lofty heights of moral knowledge without such revelation.  Having said that, it is also clear from the Bible itself that humans can grasp a considerable amount of moral wisdom simply from using the mind that God gave them without the Bible.  God has surprised humanity but he has also given us reason and a conscience which, though affected by sin and fallible, are not inoperable.

In the case of full-on nonviolence--wherein it is thought that no lethal force whatsoever is morally permissible--the burden of proof rests squarely on the shoulders of the pacifist to prove his case.  Sprinkle's best argument regarding The Sermon on the Mount fails to do so.

I will concede this much: his chapter on the Church Fathers has some persuasive force with me and is worth looking into further.  I don't doubt that at least some forms of pacifism were widespread in the Fathers.  The question, however, that needs to be addressed is whether (a) the best explanation for this widespread belief is that it was Apostolic or (b) the best explanation is that such a belief arose from reasonable (though faulty) exegesis in light of mass persecution and execution of saints.  Because persecution was so great, martyrdom was sometimes talked about in euphoric terms.  It would not be unnatural, when death seemed inevitable to so many, to believe that it was God's doing and that resistance was not only futile but against the wishes of God and to interpret Scripture accordingly.

It would also be surprising that the belief is Apostolic given that the Church Jesus founded--"the pillar of truth"--has held for at least most of its history that violent resistance in some circumstances is permissible.

End of Review