This time, Driscoll, an author and the pastor of a large church in Seattle, has said something outrageous and, apparently, confused about Christian pacifists--those Christians who take Jesus very seriously when he talks about 'turning the other cheek', and refuse to participate in any kind of violence. Christian pacifism instead advocates non-violent resistance to the powers of evil.
But Driscoll pretty much dismisses pacifism as something for pansies, and Jesus, he points out, was no pansy.
On his blog, Jonathan Merritt has asked a few prominent Christian pacifists to respond. Shane Claiborne and Scot McKnight, among others, offer brief responses that, I think, make a nice (and quick) case for Christian pacifism.
My favorite reaction came from Preston Sprinkle, the author of Fight: A Christian Case for Non-Violence:
In spite of the fact that Romans 13 doesn’t mean what Driscoll thinks it means, in spite of the fact that Driscoll’s Hal Lindsay-like literal reading of Revelation finds little support among respectable commentators, and in spite of the fact that Jesus’s nonviolent life and nonviolent commands as well as the nonviolent exhortations of Paul (Rom 12), Peter (1 Pet 2-3), and John in Revelation (throughout) are completely ignored, what I find most entertaining about Driscoll’s sermon is his description of pacifists as pansies. Martin Luther King, who courageously led the charge against segregation, was a pansy. Charles Spurgeon, who boldly denounced warfare and violence, was a pansy. André and Magda Trocmé, who refused to use violence when they helped rescue 5,000 Jews from deaths camps during WWII, are both pansies. The leaders of the Christian church for the first 300 years of its existence—all of whom were pacifists—were also pansies.
You can read it all on Jonathan's blog over at RNS.