Onward Christian soldiers?

So what do we do with the positive examples of soldiers in the New Testament? Doesn’t the existence of men like Cornelius mean that soldiering is not inherently sinful? To the dismay of hardline pacifists everywhere, I’d say yes. It does show that soldiers can be pleasing to God.

Just to try and anger everyone, let me point out that the text doesn’t tell us whether Christians becoming soldiers is pleasing to God. Since we don’t see that in the New Testament, we can’t argue either way from these examples. Did these men continue soldiering after becoming Christian? Did they limit their participation in any way? Those questions go unanswered.

But I find the soldiers in Luke 3 fascinating. Who are these guys? It’s extremely unlikely that these were Jews who had joined the Roman army. They might be Romans who had become Jews, though it’s more likely they were god-fearers at best. Still, it’s an incredible sight to see these representatives of Rome coming to a crazy Jewish prophet for spiritual guidance.

And the guidance John gives reminds us that, at that moment any way, these soldiers were performing police duties, rather than fighting on the front lines. But he doesn’t say “Resign,” nor does he rebuke them for their position.

The centurion with great faith (Matthew 8) is another important character. He gets nothing but praise from Jesus. No “Go and sin no more.” No “Sell all your weapons and give the money to the poor.” Nothing but “Go! It will be done just as you believed it would.”

Cornelius was a man pleasing to God. His example upsets the theology of many, especially with the text’s emphasis on the role of Cornelius’ good works in his being chosen by God. Good works done while serving as a Roman officer.

Some thoughts on these examples:

  1. Like it or not, in each instance we see men who are serving in a role that today would be a police force. I know that doesn’t set well with those who want to argue that Christians can never bear arms nor with those who want to use these men to argue for Christians serving in the military.
  2. Contrary to what you may have heard, however, the early church was not completely pacifistic. In reviewing a book called Defending Constantine, Ben Witherington refutes that idea rather thoroughly:
    • Both Tertulian and Eusebius relate a story of Christians in Marcus Aurelius’ army who prayed for water for the troops
    • Historians can point to solid evidence that there were Christians in the armies in North Africa and the eastern and western fronts
    • When Constantine had his vision of the cross, he sought out Christians among his troops to help him interpret the sign
  3. As I’ve written about before, Hippolytus gives us insight into how some Christians dealt with military service: soldiers who were converted didn’t have to quit, but they were limited in what they could rightfully do. And Christians were not allowed to join.

While the examples of soldiers in the New Testament doesn’t settle any issues, it does remind us that pacifists need to be careful not to overstate their case.

11 thoughts on “Onward Christian soldiers?

  1. nick gill

    Were you able to find out anything useful concerning whether the Luke 3 soldiers were Roman troops or Jewish temple guard troops?

  2. Tim Archer Post author

    Nick,
    I’ve had my books boxed up for several weeks (they’re painting “any day now” in our offices), so I feel like I’m researching with one hand tied behind my back. I haven’t found any insight into that, but the admonitions about extortion, etc., make more sense in my mind when referring to Roman troops. Given the “den of robbers” atmosphere in the temple, however, I guess it’s not impossible that it be referring to the temple guard.
    A quick look at online commentaries finds several suggestions that these could have been Jews in Herod’s service.
    Grace and peace,
    Tim Archer

  3. guy

    Tim,

    i’ve heard people say before that the early church expected two kinds of people to quit their jobs: soldiers and actors. Are there NO early sources that say this? Is this pure folklore?

    –guy

  4. Tim Archer Post author

    Guy,

    That may be a reference to the same document I took the Hippolytus quote from, the Traditio Apostolica. It’s from Section 16 (you can read it here: http://www.bombaxo.com/hippolytus.html).

    There’s quite a list of jobs that have restrictions put upon them or are forbidden directly. Some are obvious, like pimps and prostitutes. Others less so, like actors and teachers.

    Grace and peace,
    Tim Archer

  5. Phil Wood

    I don’t agree with you but this is an excellent post. In some ways similar issues are raised by Christian chaplaincy in today’s armed forces. I blogged about that a while back: http://radref.blogspot.com/2009/03/two-cheers-for-chaplaincy.html

    Whether or not Jesus commended soldiers doesn’t really have a bearing on legimacy or otherwise of soldiering. A parallel would be prostitution. A chaplain working amongst sex workers, I would suggest, is likely to distinguish an iniquitous trade from the to get alongside people in a supportive role. The grain of the story from Old to New Testaments runs through the limitation of violence in the Old Covenant through Prophetic promises of a messianic age of peace, through the teaching and nonviolent example of Jesus. Much of the later argument centres around the Patristic evidence. To cite examples of Christian soldiers as a wedge against pacifism flies in the face of the overwhelming weight of Pre-Constantinian patristic record. Clearly there were dissenters but when Origen asserts that those who heeded Christ “will not war at all” he is defending a consensus against the exception.

    It was different by the time of Constantine. The so-called ‘Constantinian shift’ owed as much to deteriorating Christian discipleship as it did to an ambitious emperor.

    The police force issue is interesting. John Howard Yoder raises the same issue in several places. In my view questions of military service are less tricky than indirect complicity in the military-industrial complex.

  6. Tim Archer Post author

    Hi Phil,

    Are you familiar with the case of Garland Robertson back in 1993? Happened right here in Abilene, Texas, where I live. He was an air force chaplain who got in trouble for writing a letter to the editor expressing doubts about the legitimacy of the first Gulf War. During his disciplinary proceedings, a higher ranking chaplain told him: “If Jesus had been an Air Force chaplain he would have been court-martialed.”

    Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Hope you’ll continue to help us through this discussion.

    Grace and peace,
    Tim Archer

  7. Jay GUin

    Tim wrote,

    “Like it or not, in each instance we see men who are serving in a role that today would be a police force. ”

    I’m not sure that I buy that statement. Cornelius was a Roman centurion. He was not required to leave the military.

    The Romans didn’t have police distinct from soldiers. Some cities has police forces, but Roman soldiers were soldiers who, much like US soldiers, might sometimes be called upon to perform police-like duties.

    Judea was occupied by the Romans. The soldiers were there to, among other things, keep the populace in submission to the authority of Rome. Had the Jews rebelled, the soldiers would have imposed Roman authority — even besieging Jerusalem if need be.

    Readers of Roman history will recall countless internal wars fought by Roman soldiers. We Americans tend to assume that external fights are wars and internal fights are police matters, because that’s the way it is here (since the Civil War). But in Rome, it was not uncommon for claimants to the throne to go to war to fight for power. Internal warfare repeated itself over the centuries.

    Therefore, although Cornelius’ duties were certainly internal, they were not merely police duties. He could have been called upon to suppress Jewish insurrection against Rome. He could have been called upon to take up arms against a pretender to the Roman throne.

    And his tactics in either case would have included all the methods of warfare, including siege ramps and battering rams.

    So I have trouble accepting the idea that Cornelius was merely a policeman.

  8. Tim Archer Post author

    Hi Jay,

    Interestingly enough, I was just reading over some of your series on pacifism, researching a bit based on what Phil had commented. You had some interesting material on the Patristics and pacifism.

    Not to be too picky, but we really don’t know what happened with Cornelius. He wasn’t required to leave the military before becoming a Christian. That’s all we can say with certainty. Let’s not make too much of that one way or the other. Some would say, “He would obviously have resigned,” but we don’t know that. Others would say, “He would obviously continue to serve,” but that’s also conjecture.

    My comment about Cornelius’ status has to do with the fact that he has a home and is living with his family. This is not a soldier on campaign. Could he have been called to combat duty? Quite possibly. But he wasn’t doing combat duty when converted. As you point out, the military WAS the police force. His current status was most comparable to that of policing. To be blunt, the chances of him being called upon to take someone’s life in his current position were pretty unlikely.

    Let’s not underestimate the role of pagan sacrifice in Roman society. It would have been very difficult to be a part of the military, let alone be an officer, without being pressured to participate in pagan rituals. It’s argued that the removal of sacrifice from the heart of Roman society was Constantine’s biggest contribution to history. It’s hard to see how a Cornelius could have endured long in such a setting.

    Grace and peace,
    Tim

  9. Phil Wood

    Thanks for the thoughts on chaplaincy, Tim. As we live in an individualistic culture our default is to think of chaplaincy in terms of personal moral choice (i.e. do we participate or don’t we). Your air force chaplaincy illustration challenges the individualism because clearly here there also a question of what corporate space is available for honesty in an insitutution. My concerns about Christian chaplaincy in a military context (or an arms manufacturer) is that the needs of the instution (i.e. for legitimacy) clash with what I presme to be the good intentions of the chaplain. If the chaplain were to ‘speak the truth in love’, in the full sense of the term I suspect dismissal or court marshall would quickly follow.

  10. Pingback: THE CHRISTIAN AND PACIFISM « Committed To Truth

  11. Bob.Trent

    Sinners were not required to first clean themselves up. They were converted and then the Holy Spirit cleaned them up, a process rather than an instant act, that might go on for considerable time.
    A prostitute who was converted might not instantly leave her profession. It might take time for the light of Christ to illuminate her understanding to the point of quitting.
    A slave woman who was used for prostitution might not have an understanding master. She might be forced to continue to submit to her master’s customers. As Christians were taught not to use force, especially in less than outright defense of the lives of innocents, she might continue as a prostitute for a long time until she was too old to attract customers.
    This, though, is not parallel to a soldier or other man of violence. A female prostitute may simply submit to the use of her body without active participation, but a soldier, when called upon to fight, must be active.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.