This article from Mark Driscoll has angered from the pacifist movement.
To summarize the article, Driscoll basically said that calling Jesus a pacifist is a sin. Here is a portion of what he says.
Today is a season of patience as Jesus Christ waits for people to come to repentance. Jesus is not a pansy or a pacifist; he’s patient. He has a long wick, but the anger of his wrath is burning.
He also attempted to distinguish the difference between killing and murder. Here is an example.
God is the author of life and sovereign over death, and Romans 13:1–4 shows us that, to an extent, God delegates his authority over life to those lawfully appointed leaders—the state, or the “governing authorities” (Rom. 13:1). Sometimes, in order to encourage virtue, discourage vice, and reduce personal vengeance and anarchy, it is right for the state to take the life of a criminal or to use violence to defend against oppression and attack.
If someone tries to murder you, and you defend yourself with lethal force in order to protect the lives of you and your family, that’s not murder. When a police officer gets out of their car and suddenly comes under heavy fire, if they return fire and kill the person who’s trying to murder them, the officer is not guilty of sin.
Many have taken a choice, a serious conscience choice to be a pacifist. Some, well not some, many, actually resonate with the non-violent choices Jesus made. One example that comes quickly to mind is when Peter strikes one of the guards arresting Jesus with a sword. Jesus heals Him. Another quick example would be the concept of the teaching of turning the other cheek.
However, there are verses where Jesus showed some anger. One quick example is in when he turned the tables on the money changers. Or the example of His anger towards the “religious” of the day. Both perspectives have some points.
So, two questions.
1) Is Jesus a pacifist.
2) What is the difference between killing and murder? Is there one?