Category Archives: peace

The Case for Non-Participation: Citizenship

20 Replies

The strongest argument for non-participation has to do with a Christian’s citizenship. It’s a case I’ve made before, but I feel strongly enough about it to address it again. To be honest, I think that a true understanding of citizenship limits a lot of the nationalistic expressions and patriotic stances that I see in Christians in the United States.

For many, there almost seems to be a conflation of the Kingdom of God and the nation of the United States. (“God bless the U.S.A.” is less about God and more about the U.S. A.) What’s good for the U.S. is good for God. That attitude runs contrary to what I see in the Bible, where Christians are to live as strangers and aliens, seeking a heavenly city rather than an earthly one.

No man can serve two masters. No one serving as a soldier in the Lord’s service should be distracted by the “civilian affairs” of this world. You can’t be an ambassador of one nation and full-fledged citizen of another.

We are citizens of a nation that spans all earthly borders, includes all nations and races, speaks every earthly tongue. The good of every person on this earth is our business. The welfare of every nation on earth is our concern. Our main prayer is that we be able to lead quiet lives, able to spread the good news of God’s reign.

I don’t see how serving in the military of any one country can fit with that stance. Again, I’m in no place to condemn those who make a different choice. But I know that growing up, I never heard this teaching. I thought patriotism was a natural part of Christianity and military service a necessary part of patriotism. My aim is to help others at least recognize that they are making a choice, one that can have powerful consequences.

Hypotheticals and Hitler

7 Replies

I’m always intrigued both those who claim to be able to rewrite history, even in hypothetical form. From those who claim that Africa would be a major world power were it not for colonialism to those who claim that it was U.S. meddling in Latin America that destroyed many countries’ economies, these people seem to have an insight into history that most of us can’t claim. You would think that Marty McFly and his time-traveling DeLorean would have shown us the intricacies of altering the flow of time, but we don’t seem to have learned our lesson.

When discussing Christian non-participation in warfare, many say that a world history without Christians fighting in wars would be a story of horror after horror. Many point to Adolph Hitler as the ultimate example. “What if we hadn’t stood up to Hitler?”

It seems to me that if we’re going to play the hypothetical game with Hitler, there’s another point to be considered. What if the German Christians had refused to fight? 94% of the German population identified itself as Christian in the 1939 census. What if they had said no to nationalism? What if they had refused to be pawns in a political game? What if the church had consistently taught the preeminence of our heavenly citizenship over our earthly one?

During World War I, the Kaiser’s armies had marched into battle with belt buckles that read “God is with us.” What if Christians everywhere roundly rejected the notion that God chooses sides during war? What if the Christian church around the world had consistently taught pacifism through the centuries?

We wouldn’t have had to worry about Hitler.

Obviously, it’s folly to think we can change one aspect of history without seeing an infinite number of changes. The entire course of history would have changed long before the 20th century had Christians everywhere refused to fight. But if you want to ask “What about Hitler?” then you should be prepared to really examine the question.

Making a Case For Non-Participation

2 Replies

I’m going to shift terms a bit. Since the term “pacifism” brings up many different images in people’s minds, I’m going to focus for now on non-participation, that is, Christians abstaining from military service. I’ll try and lay out some of the reasoning in today’s post, then work on the individual ideas over the next few days.

First, and foremost for me, is the subject of citizenship. That’s a major topic on this blog, one that some grow tired of. I don’t tire of speaking about it, because I see so much confusion around me on the topic. The saying: “The Bible says that we should be good citizens” rarely goes unchallenged. (I agree that the Bible says we should be good citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven, but that’s rarely what the person making such a statement is talking about). I believe that when discussing the idea of citizenship, the saying: “No man can serve two masters” fully applies. As a citizen of the Kingdom of Christ, I can’t afford to become entangled in the affairs of another kingdom.

The second topic that comes into play is that of the powers behind the nations of this world. We too often buy into a Western point of view, a sort of dualism that separates the physical and the spiritual. That’s not a biblical world view. Though God uses and limits the kingdoms of this world, they are under Satan’s rule. I’m fully aware of how that sounds to Western ears; I’m asking us to try and see things from a different world view, what I think is a more biblical world view. In the Bible we see a direct relation between spiritual powers and the nations of this world.

The third topic has to do with Jesus’ specific teachings which place limits on the use of force. Obviously this is included in the first point, for if we are members of Christ’s Kingdom, His teachings about how to live in that Kingdom apply to us. While He did not come to contradict the Law, He did come to redefine much of it. His words “You have heard it said… but I say…” were part of a re-envisioning the Law. Where vengeance was once part of the code, forgiveness has replaced it. Where there was once a defining of “neighbor” and “enemy,” Christ applies love across all lines. Where the limit was once the taking of life, now Christ even forbids anger and hatred. I’ll even include here what Paul says about leaving all revenge to God. (And the teaching of Revelation, as discussed last week)

A practical consideration has to do with the deceit and trickery that surrounds modern government and modern warfare. Somehow we seem to be so aware of this element when it comes to matters of domestic policy, yet are willfully blind to it in military matters. Attempts to peek behind the curtain are labeled “bashing America” or being unsupportive of our troops.

That should be enough to start the discussion. I’ll probably add more as the discussion goes. But those general areas should be enough to get us started.

Is Cornelius like Onesimus?

5 Replies

Steve Ridgell posed an interesting question to me. Could the situation of military men in the New Testament be similar to that of slaves and slave owners? Could it be a case of “Each one should remain in the condition in which he was called” (1 Corinthians 7:20)?

I need the input of some of you who know church history. I know that the early church did not advocate the elimination of slavery, but do you suppose Christians felt free to buy slaves?

Some thought questions for the weekend.

Good soldiers of Jesus Christ

1 Reply

One other New Testament point against pacifism needs to be examined. What about the positive references to soldiers? Why would Paul compare Christian life to soldiering if being a soldier was inherently sinful? Why encourage Timothy to endure hardship as a “good soldier of Christ Jesus” if being a soldier were unthinkable?

It could be pointed out that the New Testament does use bad people to teach lessons: the unjust steward in Luke 16, the corrupt judge in Luke 18, the idea of Jesus coming as a “thief in the night.” But that doesn’t seem to be the case here. Christians aren’t told to imitate any of those men, yet Timothy is told to be like a soldier.

I think we have proof yet again that military life was not repugnant to the early church. This seems to fit with the Book of Acts, where Paul and others seemingly showed courtesy and respect to military men. (Though it should be pointed out that respect was shown to all men; Jesus and His followers only showed anger and condemnation toward those who pretended to be religious but had ungodly hearts)

This is a far cry, however, from Christians choosing to become soldiers. As I pointed out in the comments on Tuesday, pagan worship was an integral part of Roman public life. There was no separation of church and state. Ritual sacrifices were a regular occurrence in military life. It would have been extremely difficult for a Christian to be part of the army without being pressured to be a part of those pagan activities. Rome’s triumphs were victories for Rome’s gods; could Christians contribute to that?

My understanding of 2 Timothy 2:4 prevents me from considering a military life, even as it refers to soldiers. (!) How can I, as an ambassador of the Kingdom of Heaven, pledge my loyalty to an earthly kingdom? How can I get involved in “civilian affairs” while I’m serving as a soldier of Christ? I don’t see how I can serve two masters, being a soldier of Christ and a soldier of a human nation.

Could what we see in the New Testament possibly be the path for us: respect for those who serve, yet separation for ourselves? That’s the path I feel called to at present. I’ll present more of the whys next week.

[The artwork is of Sabbas Stratelates, 3rd century Christian who became a general in the Roman army, then was martyred upon refusing to renounce his faith. Taken from Wikimedia Commons]