Just Call Me A Pacifistic Non-Pacifist???

While my views of government, war and peace have drastically changed in the last two years, I do not stand on solid ground. I’m always listening, learning and asking.

If I had to label myself, I’d say I take on a more Anabaptist view, believing Jesus taught not to kill, but understanding that a pro-active civil disobedient discourse is sometimes necessary.

However, in the last few days I’ve asked myself some tough questions:

How do we untangle the violence of the crucifixion?

How do we make sense of a father that would demand this of his son?

If we believe God is non-violent, why did s/he want/need to use the cross?

Couldn't there have been a non-violent atonement?

My convictions are unchanging, but I’m open to discussion, exploration and discovery.

Lead on.


  1. Based on the responses left at your other site, I was beginning to wonder if I was once again finding myself isolated and alone in my views.

    These are good questions to wrestle through and I don't know if there's an easy answer to any of them (but I'll try). I find it easier to 'untangle' the violence of the crucifixion by reminding myself it was an act carried out by Man set apart from God. Could we really expect anything different?

    The question of why did He 'want/need' to use the cross is much more difficult for me. I tend to think it is related to the fact that this might be among the ultimate sacrifices God could display. One of the cruelest deaths possible for His one and only son. Enduring the brunt of human cruelty just to make a point about love and forgiveness. Powerful stuff. And yet, why not just set things back in order? Why not just speak to all of humanity with a neon sign (so to speak)?

    The sacrifice resonates deeply with me, especially when I'm in a 'whiny' mood,...and maybe that's the point.

  2. i am right there with you! especially when it comes to the pacifist stuff.


Post a Comment