Tag Archives: pacifism

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]

The Sword-Bearing Prince of Peace

4 Replies

Since I’ve discussed Romans 13 at length in the past, I don’t really see the need to go back over that passage. So let’s turn our attention to the Book of Revelation. When seeking to refute pacifistic ideas, many look to Revelation 19. There we see Jesus in a robe dipped in blood, killing His enemies with a sword.

The word “dipped” can throw us off here, for, in Revelation, the martyrs have previously washed their robes in blood, but it wasn’t the blood of their enemies. It was the blood of the Lamb, the blood that won the victory over Satan. However, in Chapter 19, Jesus is “trampling the grapes of wrath.” In Chapter 14, when these grapes were harvested, it was said that the blood flowed as deep as the horses’ bridles. Whose blood? Probably a reference to God’s enemies, though that’s never made clear.

But no matter where the blood on His robe came from, Jesus’ intentions are clear. He is there to “strike down the nations.” This is a time for vengeance.

So there we have it. Christians are called to exact vengeance on God’s enemies. Or are they?

Let’s back up. Revelation is written to a group of Christians who are about to undergo persecution. The message to them is that they are to patiently endure, overcoming by being faithful witnesses. There’s a reason why the Greek word for “witness” became the English word “martyr,” for Jesus is held up as the example of what a faithful witness is. The mighty Lion of Judah turns out to be a lamb that was slain. He conquered on the cross, by dying for His faith. Now He calls His followers to be unafraid to risk the same.

The promise is that God will exact vengeance on their tormenters. Just as Second Thessalonians promises that those who persecute the Christians will be punished by God, so Revelation emphasizes that Christians are not to seek to bring about “justice” by their own hand, but they are to leave vengeance to God.

(By the way, did you notice what sword Jesus is using to strike down the nations? The sword which proceeds from His mouth. It doesn’t take much knowledge of apocalyptic symbolism to see that the judgment against the nations will be exacted by the Word of God. The scene is that of ultimate judgment, the final defeat of evil. The weapons are spiritual ones, just as the armies are heavenly armies and not earthly ones.)

So how did early Christians read Revelation? Did they see in it a call to arms, a summons to exact justice on the Romans via the sword? No. They saw it as a reminder that they were to submit to the authorities, honor the king, and leave vengeance to God. To get Revelation to say something else, you have to strip it from its original context.

(Do I really have to address the numbers question? Probably, because it always seems to come up. “Christians didn’t fight back because there weren’t enough of them. Had they had a chance of winning, God would have told them to fight.” Should you be clinging to that idea, might I suggest a quick perusal of the Old Testament? Stories like Gideon, Samson, David vs. Goliath, Jonathan and his armor bearer vs. the whole Philistine army… God doesn’t need numbers to win a battle. If violent resistance had been the answer, God was more than capable of enabling His people to triumph.)

I’d like to hear your thoughts, comments, questions and suggestions.

Onward Christian soldiers?

11 Replies

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.