Discussion Jumpstarter
Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Question 10
The speaker distinguishes “pacifists” who may fight when “justice is on our side” from the non-resistant person who will not even defend himself because he sees “the image of God” in the enemy; what would have to change in your view of justice, self-preservation, and the image of God to accept that “thorough” logic—and where does modern evangelical teaching about grace, freedom, or “protecting your family” most collide with it?
Another way to ask: What would need to change in how you think about justice, self-defense, and the image of God to refuse even protecting yourself from an enemy? Where does modern evangelical teaching (like “protect your family” or ideas about freedom and grace) most clash with that view?
Discussion Jumpstarter
Direct Answer
To accept the speaker’s “thorough” nonresistant logic, justice would have to be viewed through enemy-love rather than winning, and self-preservation would be surrendered—even to the point of letting an enemy kill you—because the enemy bears God’s image. The transcript doesn’t address modern evangelical slogans directly, but it clearly conflicts with any teaching that treats violent self-defense as a Christian duty.
- The speaker distinguishes pacifists who oppose war but may fight when “justice is on our side” (e.g., some Quakers in the Civil War; similar patterns in World War I).
- He says pacifists can be “drawn into war,” while nonresistance is different.
- Nonresistant definition: “one who will not even defend himself.”
- The reason is theological and relational: “He sees the image of God in the other person.”
- The outcome is radical: “he will let that person… kill him. But he won’t.”
- He says pacifists often are not “that thorough,” and “thorough” is the better word.