Talk:Peace churches

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Peace churches article.
Article policies
Politics Portal
This article is supported by WikiProject Anti-war, a collective approach to organizing and unifying articles related to the anti-war movement. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

[edit] redirect

I redirected the "Peace Church" article to "Peace Churches", which already included all the information from the "Peace Church" article, reproduced here in its entirety:

Peace church, or the historic peace churches, designates those Christian denominations that have opposed the use of violence, and in particular participation in war, on the grounds that it is opposed to the teachings of Jesus.

The best known of these groups are: Mennonites, Brethren in Christ, Quakers, Amish, and the Hutterites. Many members of these churches are conscientious objectors to military conscription.

The Jehovah's Witnesses are also opposed to military participation, but are not usually grouped with the historic peace churches.

mennonot 09:41, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Conscientious objection in the United States today

I still think that the fact that conscription in the U.S. ended in 1973 is relevant. However, are there people today seeking discharge on the basis that they have joined or otherwise been converted to peace churches or other pacifist faiths or philosophies after volutarily enlisting? This is an important issue if true. It has been established that conscientious objection is no basis for failure of young men to register, because the concept is that if conscription were ever resumed, the exegencies regarding its relationship with c.o.'s could be worked out at that time, and that in any event the mere act of registration does not in any way imply a waiver of the right to apply for c.o. status if conscription were to recur.

Rlquall 18:48, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] What Jesus said

You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." (Matthew 5:38-42, NIV) "But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you," "Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you. And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also. Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again. And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise."

[edit] Church Links.

I added a section for links to the churches mentioned in the article. I think this would be a good idea in case the reader wanted to know more about their theology, etc. If anyone has other *verified* church links, that would be great. Also, I'm trying to keep them in alphabetical order for convenience.

[edit] Community of Christ

I noticed someone added a link to the Community of Christ (fka RLDS). Can anyone confirm if they take a strong doctrinal stand on pacifism? Their website was somewhat vague. AFAIK, the Utah Mormons (Brighamites) have never taken a peace stance.

I left the link for now but reordered it to keep the list alphabetic.

[edit] Inappropriate redirect for "Christian pacificsm"

That this page of "Christian pacifism" points to "Peace churches" seems to be inappropriate, if not inaccurately myopic. Christian pacifism is a mode of Christian ethics that has a far wider participation than just the Peace Churches. In fact, it seems that most of today's writers for Christian pacifism are not even categorically Anabaptist. Case in point is Stanley Hauerwas; though a student of John H. Yoder, is himself Methodist. Then we have other folks such as William Willimon, Rodney Clapp, Lee C. Camp, Phillip Kenesson, William Cavanaugh, Dan Bell, and Michael Budde... who alone cover a wide range of Christian starting places. But over all, it is most disturbing that there is no mention at all of John H. Yoder! It really seems as though someone wrote the Peace Church's page and decided to create forward without diligently considering what they were doing.

Christian Pacifism should have its own, appropriate, page.

[edit] Severe violations of Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View

The section entitled "Biblical foundation for Christian pacifism" simply reeks of NPOV violations. It is filled with interpretations of the Bible that many do not agree with, even many Christian pacifists. Nowhere in this section are there references to other points of view about the indicated passages in the Bible, nor are there references to scholarly discussions of these issues. The Bible is referenced as though it were completely unambiguous on the subject of war, yet history is filled to overflowing with stories of nations that have used the Bible to justify every military act. As it stands, this section comprehensively violates the WP:NPOV guidelines. To quote from these guidelines: "To write from a neutral point of view, one presents controversial views without asserting them; to do that, it generally suffices to present competing views in a way that is more or less acceptable to their adherents, and also to attribute the views to their adherents."

To conform to Wikipedia style guidelines, this entire section will have to be rewritten so as to describe the controversies and alternative interpretations that surround these issues. I am neither a biblical scholar nor a historian of religion, and cannot do this myself. I wonder also, whether any of this material — even rewritten from a neutral point of view — really belongs to an article entitled "Peace Churches". As a Quaker pacifist myself, I tend to agree with the anonymous editor who wrote earlier that a discussion of the biblical foundation of Christian pacifism belongs to an article on Christian pacifism as a system of thought, rather than to an article on Christian churches of peace. — Aetheling 15:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Aetheling's statement in all aspects. I welcomed the new user and asked for sources for this particular interpretation. My suggestion is to see if any are forthcoming and if there are none, then the new material should be removed in a week or so. JonHarder talk 15:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with all of Aetheling's and JonHarder's points. I removed the material. The Biblical interpretations are my views, and are not based on academic sources. I recognize this material is controversial and did not address this adequately. I would appreciate if someone would help in the creation of Biblical sources for Christian nonviolence and/or point me to wikipedia pages that analyze Biblical interpretations on any given subject as a reference. I created a wikipedia page called "Christian nonviolence", especially in light of the discussion about the redirect from "Christian pacifism" to this "Peace churches" page. "Peace churches" ought to explain the traditions and historic roots of Christian pacifism, whereas a page about "Christian pacifism" or "Christian nonviolence" ought to explain the Biblical and theological theories. I included a "Biblical references about Christian nonviolence" section on the "Christian nonviolence" page which tries to catalog Biblical passages that may potentially support Christian nonviolence. I tried to limit the amount of Biblical interpretation. If I have violated NPOV guidelines again, please mark the article.--Mlomize 07:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Self-Defense?

Which church groups allow self-defense, but not participation in war? It might be a valuable addition to the article and would help clarify the opening section. 66.191.17.168 15:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Community of Christ (fka Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints)

Should there really be a mention of the Community of Christ as they do not teach or advise against their members from military service? They peace activites are interesting, but I don't know that they can be classed as a peace church. 68.113.47.60 17:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christadelphians

I believe the Christadelphians also are a peace church of sorts. 71.92.157.85 (talk) 18:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Church of Christ section re "conservative"

I modified this section to add the added identifier of "politically" to conservative members of Churches of Christ, as otherwise this statement that conservative members not being nonviolent is confusing. From a doctrinal standpoint, the Lipscomb nonviolent view would be the "conservative" (older) doctrine, though it's apparent that the author meant that people who would self-identify as "conservatives" (politically or culturally) would be in favor of a more innovative (as opposed to conservative), mid 20th century doctrinal outlook (eschewing nonviolence). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.126.212.126 (talk) 02:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cryptic abbreviations

"the Community of Christ (fka RLDS)" Does "fka" stand for "formerly known as"? If so, it ought to be spelled out, explained, or linked to an explanation. As for "RLDS," I can't even venture a guess. What does it mean? Unfree (talk) 09:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)