McKnight argues in Sermon on the Mount (The Story of God Bible Commentary)
On the other hand, neither do I believe that the Congress and the President are the final word on what God’s will regarding war — and sometimes they get it wrong. When that happens, it better to obey God rather than man. The government of the United States is not our god and does not save us. Not really.
So the choices aren’t between pacifism and American jingoism. I can reject pacifism and also oppose some of the wars the US fights.
In fact, one of the great blind spots of the American Churches of Christ, as well as most other evangelical and fundamentalist denominations, is confusing patriotism — jingoism, really — with Christianity, so that we feel obliged as good Christians to support every war launched by our leaders. Rather, we should hold the government to God’s standards. But few Christians ever pause to ask whether a given war is consistent with biblical teaching.
We are very guilty of Luther’s “Two Kingdoms” approach to Christianity, radically separating our Christianity (ruled by Jesus) from our nationalism (ruled by our favorite political party, or Thomas Jefferson, or whomever else we like to quote for our positions). We don’t think that Christianity has much to do with national policy — and in the Churches of Christ, our preachers rarely address the question.
Clearly the early church had a strong pacifistic element. It’s not surprising. The early church was heavily Jewish, and why would the Jews — an occupied people — want to fight in Rome’s wars? In fact, the Jews were exempted from military service. (My guess is that the Romans didn’t trust them with catapults and ballistas.)
But we know that Peter converted Cornelius, a Roman centurion, and there’s no record of Cornelius resigning his commission as a military officer due to his conversion. The scriptures treat him as a God fearer and moral man despite being a Roman soldier. There are records of Christians in the Roman military going back to the Second Century.
As the church became less Jewish and more Gentile, it’s easy to imagine military service seeming less objectionable. By the late Third Century, we read of an entire legion being made up of Christians, even though Christianity had not yet been legalized. And yet during these same times, we have writings from church leaders condemning participation in the military and stories of conscientious objectors who were persecuted because their faith led them to refuse military service. The record is mixed.
I have to mention that Clement of Alexandria, writing in the very late Second or early Third Century, objected to the use of instrumental music in banquets because the military used instruments. And this is the earliest record we have of Christians objecting to instrumental music — for reasons most Church of Christ members would find very unconvincing.
For man is truly a pacific instrument; while other instruments, if you investigate, you will find to be warlike, inflaming to lusts, or kindling up amours, or rousing wrath.
In their wars, therefore, the Etruscans use the trumpet, the Arcadians the pipe, the Sicilians the pectides, the Cretans the lyre, the Lacedæmonians the flute, the Thracians the horn, the Egyptians the drum, and the Arabians the cymbal. The one instrument of peace, the Word alone by which we honour God, is what we employ. We no longer employ the ancient psaltery, and trumpet, and timbrel, and flute, which those expert in war and contemners of the fear of God were wont to make use of also in the choruses at their festive assemblies; that by such strains they might raise their dejected minds.
The Instructor, Book II, Chapter 4.
Many of our 19th Century and early 20th Century leaders were avowed pacifists. Barton W. Stone, Alexander Campbell, and David Lipscomb certainly were, and most Churches of Christ were pacifistic until World War I. After all, the Civil War had killed countless members of the Restoration Movement churches and had impoverished the South. The Spanish-American War was transparently about seizing foreign colonies from Spain. World War I was one of the ugliest of all wars, there was no direct threat to the U.S, and so it was very unpopular in many circles.
Many Church of Christ members refused military service when drafted during World War I, and some went to prison for their beliefs — long before conscientious objector status existed and at a time when a refusal to go to war branded one a coward. It was a tough time to be a member of the Churches of Christ.
The Gospel Advocate was so opposed to the war that the federal government threatened to shut them down. Yes, the First Amendment was ignored in times of war. The story is well told by Brent Moody (registration may be required). The Gospel Advocate ultimately capitulated to federal demands. Richard Thomas Hughes, Reviving the Ancient Faith: The Story of Churches of Christ in America, pp. 147-148.
Nationalistic fervor and the federal propaganda machine pushed many to give up their pacifistic views during World War I, and by World War II, pacifism had been largely forgotten in the Churches of Christ. In fact, it became standard fare for the Churches to be hawkish on American warfare in general, and the preacher who dared question our involvement in this or that war could expect to lose his job. Hence, silence.
By the 1960s, despite its unpopularity, most articles published in Church of Christ periodicals supported the war in Viet Nam, and those who claimed conscientious objector status were largely condemned by their Church of Christ brothers.
This one of many of the lasting legacies of Foy E. Wallace, Jr. as well as the Moral Majority and Christian Coalition efforts in the 1980’s and 1990’s, which turned many white Protestant churches into special interest groups within the Republican Party. For a while, we really couldn’t tell the difference between being a good Republican and a good citizen of heaven.
But more recently, the influence of neo-Anabaptist theology in the Churches of Christ, thanks to such writers as Stanley Hauerwas and John Howard Yoder, has reinvigorated the pacifist sentiment in the Churches of Christ.
Oddly enough, though, it seems that our thinking is that one must either be a pacifist or a nationalist — either reject all war for scriptural reasons or else consider the scriptures to say nothing on the subject. “Just war” theory is never taught or discussed within the Churches of Christ — or most other American, Protestant churches. Rather, we let our views be defined by the government and the political parties — either for or against.
There are differing versions of the Just War doctrine, but going back to Augustine, the church has sought to define which wars are or are not sufficiently just so that Christians could participate in them in good conscience. Many draw the line at defensive wars or at wars in the nature of a police action — but these questions are devilishly difficult.
I don’t take Jesus to be addressing pacifism pro or con in the Sermon on the Mount. In Mat 5:38-42, I think he is discussing primarily interpersonal relationships. This is about life in the Kingdom, not the function of government.
In fact, his First Century audience would have heard him to be speaking as much about inter-family relationships, as their honor culture typically was as much about defending the honor of their family as themselves individually. (Think Hatfields and McCoys or Romeo and Juliet.) Family honor was a major part of how the First Century Jewish thought. In fact, we Americans are unusual in historical terms for how little we care about family honor. We are far too individualistic to even begin to think in those terms.
“Do not resist the one who is evil” (Mat 5:38) is not about how the government should do its job. In fact, the police are charged with exactly that task.
(Rom 13:3-4 ESV) 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.
(1Pe 2:13-14 ESV) Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, 14 or to governors as sent by him [the Lord] to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good.
[The phrase by him seems in the RSV text to refer to the emperor who sent the governors. But a more likely translation is ‘through him’ (NASB mg.), implying that governors are in the position of ‘having been sent (by God) through the emperor to punish wrongdoers and praise those who do right.
[Wayne A. Grudem, 1 Peter: An Introduction and Commentary (Tyndale NTC 6; IVP/Accordance electronic ed. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 127.]
And when the military is acting in a defensive role, it is God’s servant for the good of the people. In fact, in the First Century, the Roman army was often also the Roman police force. Many nations have a combined police/military.
For that matter, when the U.S. Navy works to shut down piracy (“the shores of Tripoli”) or when the British navy closes down slave shipping, they are acting to shut down criminal activity, although its an international effort using the military.
And so I have trouble drawing a line between police work and the military. I mean, I would not want the oceans dominated by pirates, and I’m glad the British navy ended the slave trade between Africa and the Americas.
Nor can I agree with a philosophy that collapses when the Christians become a majority. I mean, if our form of pacifism is that Christians can’t be policemen or join the military, but we’re thankful for the non-Christians who take these roles on, what happens when we convert so many people that the policy force and military can no longer be staffed?
Until Jesus returns, it’s clear there will be criminals who can only be restrained by force. Do we really want to insist that the non-Christians will have exclusive control of the police and military until then? Or does the necessity for a system of government until the return of Jesus by itself justify Christian involvement in the government (or those elements of the government that don’t over-reach the government’s God-given role)?
Aren’t Joseph, Daniel, and Esther examples of God’s children who, by the will of God, served in the government, even over the military? In Acts 13:7-12, Paul converts a proconsul (governor of state), Sergius Paulus, and there is no indication that the proconsul had to give up his office because of his conversion. And yet he would have had many soldiers under his authority.
Moreover, in a democracy, Christians have some considerable say so in what wars are fought and even the tactics that we use. We cannot abdicate our place as God’s people and take no position on these questions. We need to be able to articulate, based on the scriptures, when war is justified and when it’s not.
(One good test as to how much you’ve bought into the American nationalist culture is whether you argue the Geneva Conventions or the Declaration of Independence in discussions about God’s will. The same Protestants who heap scorn on the Catholic Church’s use of conventions to determine God’s will turn around and cite the work of the Continental Congress as though inspired by the Holy Spirit. Speak where the Bible speaks …)
For further study, I posted a lengthy (29 posts!) series on pacifism back in 2009. Tomorrow we’ll consider Just War theory just a bit, and then it’ll be time to move on.
My father and two uncles were declared conscientious objectors by courts during WW2. All three spend some time at CO camps in Oregon near the end of the war. My father was the first of the three to go thru that. As a result, the correspondence in his file included letters from numerous well-known C of C leaders attempting to postulate the C of C position on pacifism.
Michael Casey, formerly of Pepperdine, wrote a fairly extensive history on C of C CO’s during WW2. His archives, along with my father’s file, have been donated to the ACU Center on Restoration History.
I felt a need to separate this comment from the previous one.
I find the current global political condition creates a dilemma for Christian believers. We have on one side a group of people (however, representative or not representative they are of their fellow Muslims) stating clearly, their intent to kill anyone who is not Muslim.
So, how does one apply Jesus command in John 13 and John 15 to this situation: Love one another as Jesus loved us and gave his life for us.
Jesus chastised (at the very least) Peter in the Garden, when he drew his sword and slashed the ear of one of the Chief Priest’s henchmen. Is that an applicable model?
How do you stop the massive slaughter of people by military force, if not by more powerful or more effective military force? Should a believer’s pacifism result in the death of all non-Muslim’s in the world? That is the stated goal of the leadership of the Islamic State of Iraq & Syria (ISIS). I have difficulty advocating the US should do nothing in the face of this very real threat.
Personally, I have difficulty, as a disciple of Jesus, knowingly putting myself in a situation where I would be called on to kill someone. But, simultaneously, I don’t think I would hesitate to act, if I felt one person was threatening the lives of others in my presence. I almost always carry two knives on me and am licensed to carry a concealed handgun (although, I have rarely carried).
I have more questions than answers
It is interesting when a few verses before the ear incident Jesus told the disciples to put on their swords, even to sell their coat to buy one if necessary. Was the rebuke because they defended Him instead of themselves?
Sergeant York of WW i fame had a Church of Christ background. See this from Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_C._York
Alvin Cullum York was born in a two room log cabin near Pall Mall, Tennessee, on December 13, 1887,[2] the third of eleven children born to Mary Elizabeth Brooks (8 August 1866 – 21 May 1943)[3] and William Uriah York (15 May 1863 – 17 November 1911).[4] William Uriah York was born in Jamestown, Tennessee, to Uriah York and Eliza Jane Livingston, both travelers from Buncombe County, North Carolina.[5] Mary Elizabeth York was born in Pall Mall to William Brooks and Nancy Pile, and was the great-granddaughter of Conrad “Coonrod” Pile, an (English or German) settler who settled Pall Mall. William York and Mary Brooks married on December 25, 1881, and had eleven children. The York children were, in order: Henry Singleton, Joseph Marion, Alvin Cullum, Samuel John, Albert, Hattie, George Alexander, James Preston, Lillian Mae, Robert Daniel, and Lucy Erma.[5] The York family is of English and Scots-Irish ancestry.[6] The York family resided in the Indian Creek area of Fentress County.[5] The family was impoverished, with William York working as a blacksmith to supplement the family income. The men of the York family harvested their own food, while the mother knitted all family clothing.[5] The York sons attended school for only nine months[2] and withdrew from education because William York wanted his sons to help him work the family farm and hunt small game to feed the family.[5]
Claim of Appeal for conscientious objector status by Alvin York.
When William York died in November 1911, his son Alvin helped his mother in raising his younger siblings.[5] Alvin was the oldest sibling still residing in the county, since his two older brothers had married and relocated. To supplement the family income, York first worked in Harriman, Tennessee,[2] first in railroad construction and then as a logger. By all accounts, he was a very skilled worker who was devoted to the welfare of his family. York was also a violent alcoholic prone to fighting in saloons and accumulated several arrests within the area.[2] His mother, a member of a pacifist Protestant denomination, tried to persuade York to change his ways.[citation needed]
Despite his history of drinking and fighting, York attended church regularly and often led the hymn singing. A revival meeting at the end of 1914 led him to a conversion experience on January 1, 1915. His congregation was the Church of Christ in Christian Union, a Protestant denomination that shunned secular politics and disputes between Christian denominations.[7] This church had no specific doctrine of pacificism but had been formed in reaction to the Methodists’ support for the Civil War and now opposed all forms of violence.[8] In a lecture later in life, he reported his reaction to the outbreak of World War I: “I was worried clean through. I didn’t want to go and kill. I believed in my Bible.”[9] On June 5, 1917, at the age of 29, Alvin York registered for the draft as all men between 21 and 31 years of age were required to do on that day. When he registered for the draft, he answered the question “Do you claim exemption from draft (specify grounds)?” by writing “Yes. Don’t Want To Fight.”[10] When his initial claim for conscientious objector status was denied, he appealed.[11]
In World War I, conscientious objector status did not exempt one from military duty. Such individuals could still be drafted and were given assignments that did not conflict with their anti-war principles. In November 1917, while York’s application was considered, he was drafted and began his army service at Camp Gordon in Georgia.[12]
From the day he registered for the draft until he returned from the war on May 29, 1919, York kept a diary of his activities. In his diary, York wrote that he refused to sign documents provided by his pastor seeking a discharge from the Army on religious grounds and refused to sign similar documents provided by his mother asserting a claim of exemption as the sole support of his mother and siblings. He also disclaimed ever having been a conscientious objector.[13]
I don’t have a lot to add to this discussion but it is something I mull over more and more in my life. I have, in the past, embraced Augustine’s “Just War” idea but more recently have grown to reconsider Hauerwas’ Active Pacifism. Right now I feel like I sit on the fence between the two ideas. I grow more toward active pacifism as time goes on. I think a lot about the life of David who chooses to slay many enemies but refuses to kill Saul. I don’t know that I have the spiritual discernment that David has in recognizing the enemies or chosen ones of God. What pulls me toward pacifism more and more however is that David, despite the favor he found in God’s eyes, is not allowed to build the temple because of his life by the sword. This seems to me a substantial loss for David even though its not meant to be a punishment.
Randall,
The church of christ(Restoration Movement) and the church of christ in christian union(Holiness) are two different denominations.
“For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer”.
“Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, 14 or to governors as sent by him [the Lord] to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good”.
I’ve heard of many police officers who’ve used these passages to justify being authoritarian.
For all those celebrating Peter’s sword, please remember that the reason he had it was so that Jesus would be readily “considered among the transgressors”, in fulfillment of prophecy. Nothing to be proud of there.
Tim,
Regarding the police/military distinction, it’s one that John Howard Yoder wrestled with and never fully reconciled. If it’s wrong for a soldier to use violence to stop an evil deed, then why isn’t it wrong for a policeman to do the same thing? And yet without police, all is chaos.
Yoder tried to distinguish the two on the basis that soldiers are generally out to kill whereas the police only kill as a last resort. I’m not sure that distinction remains valid, if it ever was.
Wilberforce is the ultimate example of a Christian doing what’s good in politics, but what Wilberforce did is get the British Navy to ban international slave trade. In short, the British Navy used canon to stop slave traders — with the cannons being a last resort. It was a police action by the military. Was it wrong?
Just so, the US Marines and Navy ended piracy in the Mediterranean in the vicinity of modern Libya. Using cannons. And they killed plenty of pirates. In so doing, they established the international law of free shipping — creating a huge increase in ocean-going commerce as well as tourism — all quite impossible if pirates aren’t subject to being shot with cannon fire.
It was a police action — military force used to enforce international law necessary to free trade and resulting prosperity. But it was the military that did it.
So it’s not entirely fair to the military as always wanting to kill first. That certainly can happen in times of war, but in modern warfare, the American forces often seek to minimize even military casualties, preferring to narrowly target command and control and equipment — tanks, artillery, etc.
Then again, sometimes the war plan calls for carpet bombs — a lots of dead enemy soldiers. And sometimes the police use military tactics.
In short, to me, it’s a distinction without a difference. The police sometimes act like the military – esp in some countries other than the US. Sometimes the military acts more like the police.
It’s a point that may not interest most people, because most people haven’t read enough of Yoder to see the significance of the police to his argument. But this is where I see his argument collapsing. He wants no military but defends the police. And yet both use the threat of severe even deadly violence to enforce the law — sometimes local law and sometimes international. And both can be used by the powers to illicit ends or to entirely licit ends.
Tim wrote,
Your thinking is far too Euro-centric. Chairman Mao was under no such illusions. Nor were Lenin and Stalin. Nor Genghis Khan, Sun Tzu, or Kubla Khan. The Japan of WWII was far from Christian. I doubt that the Nazi armies felt they were serving God. By the time WWII was in full swing, Hitler was busy de-Christianizing Germany. Rise and Fall of the Third Reich tells the story in all its horror.
There is no understanding of Just War Theory that would have justified the attacks launched by Germany and Japan in WWII. It’s just not true that every war has been initiated by Christians deluded into thinking they were serving God. It’s certainly happened, but it’s far, far from universal.
I didn’t phrase that well. How about “Almost every army in the history of the world has marched into battle convinced that THEIR GOD was on their side”? It would definitely be too Eurocentric to think that all were motivated by Christian beliefs.
Jay, being a Christian automatically though of his god. But Tim, was right to say what he said, not everyone refers to the Jewish god as God. but most people have a mighty being as their god , therefore when Tim said “Almost every army in the history of the world has marched into battle convinced that God was on their side.” he was correct. I don’t see where he mentioned any specific being as their god.
I had no problem understanding what Tim said. Jay and I often go to “war” and we believe in the same god, And if I didn’t believe I was on God’s side and He on mine I would not fight so hard.
In other words “The God we fight for is our own god” and we each have one.
However, Laymond, often, when we think we’re fighting for our “god”, we’re really fighting for ourselves … to prove we’re in the right!
“I had no problem understanding what Tim said. Jay and I often go to “war” and we believe in the same god,”
Slight correction, maybe not the exact same god, I believe in the God seen by Barton Stone, and myself, Jay believes in the “Trinity” described in the fourth century creeds. but they both speak of how they see the God of the Jewish bible.
Right you are David.
@ RJ,
My bad. You’re correct. The two denominations have different roots.
Hesed,
Randall