MovieChat Forums > Hacksaw Ridge (2016) Discussion > Are Desmond Doss's ultra-pacifistic view...

Are Desmond Doss's ultra-pacifistic views actually biblical?

posted 5 years ago by Wuchak (8732)
27 replies | jump to latest

In short, no.

But, first, let me say that this is an interesting real-life tale that needed to be told and the movie is a good war flick only marred by laying on the heroic element too thick in the last act as well as the lack of depth in the peripheral characters, which makes them uninteresting. The latter is in contrast to the outstanding "Platoon" (1986) which featured several well-defined characters.

The movie's about an individual -- Desmond Doss -- who believed in ABSOLUTE pacifism, which is a peaceable attitude that refuses to ever turn to violence, even in response to evil or for the purpose of national defense. He thinks this is supported by the Bible and, specifically, the New Testament, but it isn't.

The Christian Scriptures support LIMITED pacifism, which is a peaceable attitude that only resorts to violence when justified. Christ's instructions to "turn the cheek" related to responding to a backhanded slap to the face, which was an insult in that culture. In other words, we could all save ourselves a lot of trouble in life if we learn to ignore the antagonism of various morons who would like to divert our focus and ruin our day. The Old Testament teaches this as well: "A fool shows his annoyance at once, but a prudent man overlooks an insult" (Proverbs 12:16). So Christ was talking about giving an antagonist a break for the sake of peace in situations of personal offense; he wasn't referring to cases of severe criminal acts or defense of one's nation.

For proof, Jesus' ministry team had a treasury box and some of his workers carried swords for protection from thieves/murderers in their travels. You see, Christ & his disciples weren't absolute pacifists.

On two occasions, the Messiah got a whip out and chased all the fools out of the Temple - throwing over tables, swinging the whip and yelling. He was a Holy Terror, pure & simple, and this caused the legalistic religious leaders to fear him and plot murder (John 2:13-17 & Mark 11:15-18). Harmless pacifists don't inspire fear like this.

Moreover, Romans 13 clearly states that the righteous laws of human governments are ordained of God for the purpose of punishing criminals, domestic & foreign, who threaten the lives of citizens. This includes the right to execute when appropriate. The passage puts it like this: “they are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.”

The majority of sane Christians realize this, but there are a few extremists, like Doss in the movie, who refuse to be balanced with the Scriptures on this matter and insist that violent conflict is never appropriate. Wrong. Sometimes it's necessary, like after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, unprovoked, murdering over 2300 innocents and wounding 1100, or when a piece of sheet thug threatens your kin, physical or spiritual. The recent justified shooting of an evil assailant intent on mass murder at a Texas church assembly is a prime example: https://www.foxnews.com/us/texas-church-shooting-man-take-out-gunman-west-freeway-church

[–] FredBurroughs (21447) 5 years ago

What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

[–] Wuchak (8732) 5 years ago

This is a movie board devoted to discussing films and the topics they inspire. In this case the subject is the protagonist's ideology of absolute pacifism, which he thinks is supported by New Testament Scripture. While there's no doubt that Doss was a remarkable hero in WW2, this thread explores that claim and finds it false: The New Testament supports the position of limited pacifism, a peaceable attitude that only resorts to violence when justified.

[–] FredBurroughs (21447) 5 years ago

Would you be complaining about this slight discrepancy if he batted away a grenade to save your life? Assume it was headed straight for your mouth and it broke your teeth in the process.

And then your pants fell down and you started crying as all soldiers both Allied and Japanese stopped all fighting to point and laugh at you before your head exploded into a million tiny bits. Would you prefer that, or would you prefer being saved by someone with a slightly differing ideology from yourself?

[–] Wuchak (8732) 5 years ago

I plainly acknowledged the courageousness and heroism of Doss. What he did during the Battle of Okinawa was awesome.

But that's not the issue here. The issue is his belief in absolute pacifism -- the idea that it's always wrong to resort to violence -- and whether or not the New Testament actually supports this position.

Why is this topic important? Because many viewers are going to watch the movie -- believer and unbeliever -- and naturally wonder if the Christian Scriptures support Doss' position. They don't, they support limited pacifism as detailed above, which is a big difference. To illustrate: With absolute pacifism there would've been scores of worshipers murdered at that Texas church, but with limited pacifism only two innocents died before the wicked thug was justly wiped off the face of the earth.

[–] FredBurroughs (21447) 5 years ago

So you're essentially clarifying a potential discrepancy that might arise for people who don't read or understand the text themselves?

[–] Wuchak (8732) 5 years ago

It's a legitimate point of discussion provoked by the movie in question, my friend. It's what this board is for.

Obviously you don't find the topic relevant or interesting and that's your prerogative.

[–] FredBurroughs (21447) 5 years ago

It's a valid topic you've laid out, and I'm just trying to understand your point of view. If you don't mind extrapolating on some of the generalities that you've thrown out, I would love to hear your uniquely-worded thoughts on the matter.

Now please answer the question that I asked.

[–] Wuchak (8732) 5 years ago

My original post is long enough and offers appropriate detail. If you would like further exposition on a particular point, just ask.

As for answering your specific question, it's superfluous because I already addressed that point: Many viewers (not all viewers) are going to watch "Hacksaw Ridge" -- believer and unbeliever -- and naturally wonder if the Christian Scriptures support Doss' position. My opening post supplies evidence to prove that they don't, as does Ace_Spade's comment below.

The New Testament supports limited pacifism. There's a huge difference between these two forms of pacifism that can be observed in the Texas church shooting: With absolute pacifism there would've been scores of worshipers murdered, but with limited pacifism only two innocents died before the thug was justly executed.

[–] Ace_Spade (9544) 5 years ago

I suppose the fast answer is...maybe...?

There's a lot of ways to read a lot of verses in the Bible and numerous theological positions to take. I think an argument can be made for total pacifism.

If Doss felt his life was in danger or saw somebody being murdered, he'd probably try to wrestle away the knife, even if he didn't hit that person or hurt them, he'd probably try to stop it from happening.

The verses you quote are pretty good evidence that "absolute zero violence" isn't Biblically accurate. The Old Testament's commandments are even flexible with killing and violence, despite "thou shalt not kill" sitting on the top ten.

But, ultimately, I think the Bible promotes love and care for others. The central message is to serve God and care for His creation and His people, so...violence as close to zero as possible, certainly. But can you raise a hand to strike down somebody about to do harm to a third person - a weaker person? It's a good bet that the Bible/God would be cool with that. Defending the weak seems quite Biblical to me.

Now, war throws a monkey wrench in here in terms of the justification for violence on a geopolitical scale. I'd argue that any reading of the Bible would find the holocaust so abhorrent that the liberation of those under that grotesque yoke would be justified in violent counter action.

[–] Wuchak (8732) 5 years ago

Thanks for the feedback, Ace. While you flirt with siding with absolute pacifism you clearly settle with limited pacifism as being the balanced position in interpreting the Scriptures on the topic. Anytime someone says something like "We shouldn't resist physical violence, except when..." that person supports limited pacifism. A good example would be if someone broke into your abode and threatened your loved ones with rape/harm/murder. Would you kick back and just let it happen or would you try to stop the thug if it was within your power to do so? Christ said "If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into" (Matthew 24:43). It's just common sense.

[–] Ace_Spade (9544) 5 years ago

While I would agree that the Bible is more limited pacifism than absolute pacifism, I was mostly pointing out that some people do read it with absolute pacifism in mind. I'm not sure how those people might respond to someone attempting to visit harm on their loved ones. I'm sure they would become limited pacifists quickly.

And, again, I agree generally, but I think Matthew 24:43 is a metaphor and can't really be taken as prescribed action. (You could also argue that, "would not have let his house be broken into" might just mean holding the door closed or letting the thief know he is observed without, say, plowing him in the face).

[–] Wuchak (8732) 5 years ago

It's just a common sense statement from the Lord about a homeowner protecting his abode from wicked thugs: He would not allow it to happen. Whether that's through guarding the windows with a club or pulling out the heavy artillery is irrelevant – he would do whatever it took to prevent the crime.

Old Testament Law permitted the Israelites to slay a thief breaking into their houses at night (Exodus 22:2-3), although they weren’t permitted to kill the thug if he broke in during the day, unless of course he was armed & dangerous. But, at night, the homeowner couldn’t make out if the thief was armed and therefore had the right to put a stop to a potentially life-threatening situation. This shows (1) that God cares even about the lives of thieves and (2) that deadly force is sometimes necessary and justified.

Of course we're currently living in the New Testament era where believers are instructed to submit to the governing authorities and the moral laws thereof: “they are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer,” which includes the authority to execute (Romans 13:1-6). Breaking into homes & threatening people is a crime; so is assault in general. Citizens have the right to protect themselves and their loved ones; this is part of submitting to the governing authorities and the moral laws thereof.

We have to separate personal offenses, like insults, from criminal acts. As noted in my OP, it’s wise to turn the cheek a couple times when we’re insulted and pray for the persecutor, which prevents the situation from escalating (and will hopefully have a positive impact on the offender). Serious criminal acts are a different story and citizens have the right to protect themselves from wicked thugs and seek justice through the legal system, which holds the criminal accountable to his/her crime. Otherwise there would be no justice and thugs would just continue in their thuggery, which God HATES (Isaiah 61:8).

When Paul was wrongly apprehended and threatened to be whipped he insisted upon his rights and evaded the flogging altogether (Acts 22:22-29). Paul didn’t have a martyr complex; he refused to allow himself to be abused if it was within his power to evade it.

[–] Wuchak (8732) 5 years ago

As far as the "monkey wrench" of being in the military and the potential of going to war goes, John the Baptist’s answer to some Roman soldiers who asked him what they should do is revealing: John said “Don’t extort money and don’t accuse people falsely – be content with your pay" (Luke 3:14).

Bear in mind that John was preparing the way for the ministry of Jesus Christ by calling people to repentance (Mark 1:4). If merely being a soldier is intrinsically evil John would have said something like, “It’s wicked and sinful to be a soldier; flee from the military or you will suffer God’s wrath!” You’ll find no such statement anywhere in the New Testament, whether from Jesus, Paul or anyone else. Simply put, governing authorities need police and military personnel to fulfill their God-ordained mandate to maintain societal order, which includes protecting the country from enemies, foreign and domestic (Romans 13:1-6).

This is not to say, of course, that individual Christians don’t have the right to object to military service due to personal conscience or what have you. In such cases the military is better off without them since their hearts wouldn’t be in it, so to speak (see Deuteronomy 20:8 & Judges 7:3).

Nor am I saying that corrupt governments shouldn’t be resisted or corrected, like the Nazi-led government in Germany during WW2 or the Japanese “constitutional monarchy” of the same era (which was, in effect, a military junta). A good biblical example of resisting corrupt government can be observed when the prophet Nathan made a bold stand against the gross corruption in David’s monarchy (2 Samuel 12:1-10).

[–] aavfreak (3313) a year ago

The Old Testament's commandments are even flexible with killing and violence, despite "thou shalt not kill" sitting on the top ten.

The more accurate translation is "thou shalt not murder." There is a huge difference between the two.

[–] Ace_Spade (9544) a year ago

I did know that, although I do thank you for parsing the distinction.

[–] aavfreak (3313) a year ago

You're welcome.

[–] Joogle83 (4472) 5 years ago

it was choice to be a Pacisitific yes the bible verse but Blessed are The Peacemakers applies for Doss's case why are you criticizing him for that we need more Middle ground not Radicalism

[–] Wuchak (8732) 5 years ago

As my post pointed out, there are two forms of pacifism: absolute pacifism and limited pacifism. Doss and others like him have the right to be absolute pacifists and I respect their decision. That's not the issue of this thread. The issue is whether or not Doss' belief in absolute pacifism -- as depicted in the movie -- is actually supported by the balanced New Testament scriptures (notice I said "balanced"). The answer is 'no'; they support limited pacifism.

[–] Joogle83 (4472) 5 years ago

stop disrespecting our veterans

[–] Wuchak (8732) 5 years ago

No offense, but do you lack reading comprehension? I didn't disrespect anyone on this thread, including Doss.

[–] BillySlater (4241) 5 years ago

I don´t see how he is being disrespectful. Seems like he´s making some very valid points.

[–] [email protected] (2017) a year ago

Doss is not a Christian, he's a Mormon. Besides that's his particular individual beliefs influenced likely by him almost killing his brother.

[–] Wuchak (8732) a year ago

Actually Doss was a Seventh Day Adventist. And, despite that sect's dubious adherence to Ellen White's teachings and some legalism, they're decidedly evangelical Christian, although many believers view them as a borderline cult.

[–] [email protected] (2017) a year ago

JW, Mormons, 7DA, and unbaptized protestants are not Christians. If they are, might as well include Judaism and Islam as well.

[–] Wuchak (8732) a year ago

Like I said, SDAs are considered Evangelical Christians by respected theologians due to their core doctrines on the nature of Christ, etc. Its just that their adherence to Ellen White's teachings and elements of legalism (e.g. rigid sectarianism, strict Sabbath observance and dietary rules) paint them as a borderline cult. So, they're no where near as dubious as Jehovah's False Witnesses or Mormons.

unbaptized Protestants

The New Testament details three baptisms and the only baptism necessary for redemption is the baptism into Christ (Galatians 3:26-27 & Romans 6:3), which refers to being spiritually regenerated (Titus 3:5).

Water baptism is merely the symbolic testimony of what has already taken place spiritually through the baptism into Christ (e.g. Acts 10:47-48).

So, regardless of what 'tag' a person embraces, like Protestant, if the person hasn't experienced the baptism into Christ via repentance & faith (Acts 20:21), they're not a genuine believer and therefore don't have eternal life (John 3:16 & 3:36).

[–] Gary O. (1009) a year ago

Agreed. While I respect Doss' zeal and commitment to his faith, I don't agree with his belief that the Scriptures advocate absolute pacifism, as the Israelites were commanded by God to go to war and also to execute the death penalty against persons found to have committed certain crimes. Scripture also provides for killing in legitimate self-defense.

Also, as you so ably point out, many modern translations of the Bible render the Sixth Commandment as 'You shall not murder.' To hold otherwise, that is, that ALL taking of life is prohibited, makes absolutely no sense, as we all kill to live, even those who hold to absolute pacifism.

My point, and I believe yours is as well, is that the Scriptures make certain logical exceptions to the Sixth Commandment.

Kudos.

[–] Wuchak (8732) a year ago

Appreciate the input, brah.