If you ask noted pacifist John Howard Yoder, the answer is unequivocally “yes.” Writes Yoder:
The answer of the pre-Constantinian church was negative; the Christian as an agent of God for reconciliation has other things to do than to be in police service. . . . Christians saw their task as one of patient suffering, not taking over themselves the work of the police. . . . The post-Constantinian church obviously accepted government service by Christians, but for reasons which cannot be deemed adequate.
That judgment has been repeated often, even by those who are sympathetic to just-war theory as a legitimate development of Christian doctrine.
But the pre-Constantinian church’s understanding of the relationship between Christians and the police functions of the state may be more complex than Yoder and others indicate.
So argues J. Daryl Charles in the latest issue of Logos. Contra Yoder and others, Charles contends that the early church fathers are not as unified on the issue of pacifism as is often thought. Consider his judicious conclusion on Tertullian:
In the end, how is Tertullian to be interpreted? We have noted the willingness in his earlier writing to refute the accusation that Christians were indifferent to—or enemies of—the state. His response is that “we fight alongside you and serve in your army.” In his later response he waxes increasingly resistant to the idea of Christians serving in the Roman army: there exists a fundamental incompatibility between the two masters of Christ and military service. We might reasonably conclude that his later argument against soldiering and warfare is set forth precisely because not all Christians agreed with him. And indeed this response is understandable since by this time baptized Christians were joining the army. Tertullian’s increasingly rigorist stance, however, is neither a necessary outcome of the position of the apostolic Church nor a reflection of the New Testament’s ethical teaching. And because of his wholesale condemnation of civil service (including serving as a ruler), literature, art, forms of dress, and signing of contracts, his opposition to military service is properly understood as part of the logic of apostasy.
Or Origen:
What is noteworthy in Origen’s argument is that Christians do participate responsibly in civil affairs, and they do support the governing authorities, since Scripture requires as much. Thus, unlike contemporary pacifist interpretations of early Christian history, Origen not only does not deny that Christians are serving in the military (a matter which Tertullian also concedes, even when both are opposed), but more importantly, he sees the need for Christians to support the authorities and contribute to a just and civil society even when he believes that Christians should not be soldiers. Thus, it should be noted that even when Tertullian and Origen, as the two chief pacifist Fathers, prohibit Christians from bearing the sword, neither denied to government the moral duty of self-defense nor denied that Christians actually served in the military.
Tertullian and Origen are two of the loudest proponents of pacifism in the early church, so Charles’ reading here must be kept in that context. He also surveys a number of other church fathers, finding disagreement among the ranks, and raises bothersome questions like:
- If serving the in the military and war are clearly proscribed in the early church, why do they pay such scant attention to the subject?
- Why, if pacifism was universal, were Christian soldiers not commanded to leave the army or denied the sacraments?
- What about the relationship between the Old and New Testaments with respect to the ethics of nonviolence? Is the sermon on the mount a repudiation of Exodus 21:12ff, or is it a re-appropriation by way of re-situating it into its proper moral context?
- If war (and by extension, serving in it!) is always and everywhere wrong, why in Luke 3:14 does John the Baptist not tell soldiers who ask him how they should repent to leave the army, but instead admonishes them to tell the truth and be content with their earnings?
As Dr. Craig Carter pointed out some time ago in a different context, there’s probably a misinterpretation of Yoder’s thought that is lurking throughout Charles’ counterargument. According to him, “Constantinianism” isn’t a historical argument per se, but rather a theological critique.
But among his heirs, the historical argument is often put forward unequivocally. The evidence Charles brings forward is enough to call it into serious question.
April 28th, 2010 | 10:04 am
One can find evidence, pro and con, in the Bible, so it’s really impossible to make the case for or against pacifism. You can justify almost any opinion by cherry-picking Biblical passages.
Pacifism sounds very noble, but is it? It assumes that peace, in and of itself, is a virtue. No, it isn’t. North Korea is at peace. It is also, arguably, the largest concentration camp in the world. The antebellum South was at peace, but can it be said that the slaves working the soil were at peace?
Peace without personal freedom is phony peace. It is not the peace of God; it is slavery. Anyone who is prepared to give up their freedom can be peaceful. Is that really a virtue? God gave us that freedom. Is there nothing precious enough for which to fight?
We should take our cue from Christ, who restored the ear of the innocent soldier when he was arrested, yet physically chased the merchants out of his Father’s house–that is, we should temper our activities to unique sets of circumstances.
April 28th, 2010 | 11:06 am
ahem`,
Have you ever heard of Martin Luther King, Jr. or Gandhi and their practice of non-violent resistance? I’m not saying that you have to accept their views, but when you’re talking about precisely the kind of “false peace” that they addressed (see King’s “Letter From a Birmingham Jail” for a well-known iteration of this), it would seem useful to acknowledge that the most prominent examples of pacifism are not passive. Or you can keep beating a non-resistant straw man.
April 28th, 2010 | 11:47 am
Other Steve: It’s not a straw man argument. Yes, I’ve heard of King and Ghandi, and I admire them both. These gentlemen certainly have their place in settling human rights issues, but I doubt a protest march by Dr. King or Mr Ghandi would be of much help preventing Hitler from invading Poland or freeing the North Koreans from their current abject state. The sad fact is that more energetic measures are sometimes required. It is a fact of life, whether you wish to acknowledge it or not.
April 28th, 2010 | 12:09 pm
Ahem,
Well, a bunch of war-supporting German Christians didn’t do much to stop Hitler either. Bad argument. If Christians in Germany had actually embraced cruciform discipleship—loving their enemies instead of persecuting them—there would not have been a second world war.
You would do better to read some of what John Howard Yoder has written before you write, so naively, that “pacifism assumes . . .” You might not agree with Yoder when you’re done with him, but you would no longer argue against such straw men.
April 28th, 2010 | 1:28 pm
It is note worthy that there are quite of number of Saints of the Church which were soldiers, most prominent would St. Greorge, the Forty Holy Martyrs of Sebaste, St. Demetrios, and St. Theodore the General. It would also be note worthy to say that all of those men were martyrs of the Church because they held Christ higher than their political ties to the state. It would seem that these great Saints had no problem with serving in the army and should even be our examples of how to do so.
Also, at least in the Orthodox Church, which is my experience, during different litanies we pray for “the president, civil authorities, and our armed forces.”
As I understand Church history, it has never been a problem to serve in the military, however if a Christian soldier did kill someone, the Church placed a heavy penance on that person, acknowledging the sacredness of all human life. This will always be a sticky issue, but, honestly, I’m glad the Christians didn’t lay down and let the Muslims roll over them throughout history. Though, we did lose much of our land…
April 28th, 2010 | 2:06 pm
“a bunch of war-supporting German Christians didn’t do much to stop Hitler either. Bad argument. If Christians in Germany had actually embraced cruciform discipleship—loving their enemies instead of persecuting them—there would not have been a second world war.”
Dear Charles: 1) Do you mean that because the German Christians lost means they should not necessarily have fought in the first place? [logical fallacy]; and 2) I suggest you read up on your history of WWII. A lack of love had nothing whatever to do with it.
April 28th, 2010 | 2:42 pm
Ahem,
The point is that Hitler could never have gotten his war machine off the ground without the support of German Christians, who, in a way that I hope makes you feel at least a little uncomfortable, found it effortless and obvious and “necessary” to justify war on behalf of their nation.
Had those same Christians taken the witness of Christ more seriously—the witness of the one who died for us “while we were enemies” (Romans 5:10)—millions of lives might have been spared.
I mention this because you invoked results—defeating Hitler by force of arms—to justify the Christian embrace of armed conflict. However, justifying actions simply by way of results/consequences is precisely the problem. Christians judge their acts not by simple utilitarian calculus, but by whether those acts are in conformity or nonconformity with the shape of God’s work in Christ. That work included weakness and defeat—the foolishness of the cross—which was transformed into victory only in the resurrection. Easter is not a rejection of Good Friday, but it’s vindication. Jesus defeated the evil powers of the world in and through subjection to them. This is the way of God’s victory over the violent powers that threaten to subjugate all of creation.
Thus did John Howard Yoder write:
“The relationship between the obedience of God’s people and the triumph of God’s cause is not a relationship between cause and effect but one of cross and resurrection.”
And:
“The point is not that one can attain all of one’s legitimate ends without using violent means. It is rather that our readiness to renounce our legitimate ends whenever they cannot be attained by legitimate means itself constitutes our participation in the triumphant suffering of the Lamb.”
April 30th, 2010 | 12:24 am
Ahem,
As the Church has affirmed many times, peace is not just the absence of conflict, but is rather the harmony of a just order. No one using a Catholic/Christian definition of peace would claim that North Korea is at peace. So, yes, you are arguing against strawmen.
The problem with employing violence in the name of justice is that it destroys the very thing it seeks to achieve. Show me a conflict in history where violence has resolved an injustice without also laying the seeds for future injustice and violence.
As hard as the teaching is, I think Jesus meant what he said about taking up our crosses and following him. We should sooner die than kill. As others have pointed out above, that doesn’t mean we are passive in the face of injustice. But it does mean that some means are so evil that they should not be used even to achieve a good end. In using violence we become the thing we seek to destroy, and thus we lose even when we “win”.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact