Introduction
Conscientious objection to participating in war and violence has a long history, and tracing it from a Christian perspective is important for a considerable number of reasons. First of all, the New Testament emphasizes a strong pacifist message, as in “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God” (Matthew 5:9) and many other cases. Secondly, the histories of pacifism and Christianity are closely interwoven because there is no record of “non-vocational conscientious objection to participation in war” before the Christian era. Other religions, such as Hinduism, had bans on violence, but only vocational and conditional – the Brahmins could not participate in war but were free to support it. Finally, the history of Christian pacifism is closely linked to major theological problems, such as balancing one’s allegiance to God and to earthly authorities or shifting from Judaic henotheism to Christianity’s universal message. Despite numerous arguments raised against it, Christian pacifism persisted throughout time and remains even more important today than it was in many previous ages.
War and the Old Testament
There is no denying that the Old Testament contains a great number of wars, both victorious and unfortunate for the Israelites, and that God’s chosen people are no less militant than their many neighbors. The God of the Old Testament is also militant in the sense that He recognizes the reality of war and does not shy away from guiding His chosen people through fighting when He deems necessary. There are instances when God is directly referred to through His martial qualities, as in “The Lord is a warrior; the Lord is His name” (Exodus 15:3). God also does not shy away from commanding the utter destruction of certain polities up to slaughtering all of the captured cattle. For example, God not only commands Saul to attack the Amalekites but also orders to “totally destroy all that belongs to them” (1 Samuel 15:3). The God of the Old Testament is not above ordering His chosen people to wage war or doing so with considerable prejudice. With this in mind, there are ground to interpret this representation of the Lord as militant.
Such a depiction is not something unexpected or strange because, at this point in Biblical history, the Lord is still, first and foremost, the God of Israel. While being the creator of the entire universe and all that is in it, His first concern is His chosen people. Considering how much effort it took to teach Israelites the ways of God and how often they strayed from the path, this decision to initially reserve oneself to a single ethnic group was extremely wise. With this taken into account, it is perfectly understandable that the God of the Old Testament is a henotheistic god, and, thus, His “care for just one nation is to be expected.” With God caring, first and foremost, about one ethnic group, there is nothing unnatural in Him supporting this group when it is at war with its enemies. God of the Old Testament is the God of Israelites – and, as such, instructs and empowers them to wage war, meaning that, sometimes, He deems it necessary.
Still, while it would be very easy to interpret the Lord as portrayed in the Old Testament as a militant henotheist deity who has no reservation about violence and war, this is not the case. On numerous occasions, the Bible mentions the Lord’s insistence on fighting Israelites’ wars for them. One of the more notable examples comes in the description of Jehosphaphat’s wars with Ammon and Moab, when the Lord says: “The battle is not yours, but God’s” (2 Chronicles 20:15). He then clarifies: “You will not have to fight this battle. Take up your positions; stand firm and see the deliverance the Lord will give you” (2 Chronicles 20:17). Even though God recognizes that sometimes it is necessary to wage war, He goes out of His way to ensure that the Israelites participate in it as little as possible. To put it simply, the Lord fights Israel’s wars so that the Israelites themselves would not have to.
As one can see, the Old Testament hardly sends a coherent pacifist message. Israelites often wage wars, and God openly sanctions some of these conflicts. At the same time, God does the fighting for His chosen people in their stead, meaning that, all things being equal, He prefers that they do not participate in violence. In other words, while the God of the Old Testament does not view war and violence as absolute evil, he still prefers His chosen people not to be more violent than it is necessary.
War and the New Testament
The emergence of Christianity made considerable additions to the preceding Judaic tradition. It introduced the worldview heavily centered on loving one’s neighbor, which reaches its logical conclusion in loving and forgiving one’s enemy. It also shifted from the henotheist stance of the Old Testament to the universal message embracing all nations of Earth. All these changes left a decisive impact on the simultaneously emerging tradition of Christian pacifism.
When it comes to discussing the New Testament’s approach to war and violence, the first and foremost consideration that comes to mind is the centrality of love to Jesus’s message. The passages about love and non-violence are among the most famous and oft-quoted parts of the New Testament and the Scripture as a whole. By building on the older principle of loving one’s neighbors, Jesus teaches to “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 5:44). Similarly, the New Testament builds on the Old Testament’s tradition of God fighting wars so that the people would not have to deliver a stricter and clearer pacifist message. The Bible says: “Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay” (Romans 12:19). Based on the previous Judaic tradition and the unconditional command to love one another, the New Testament develops a more stringent approach to war and violence. The centrality of the neighborly love to Jesus’s message leaves much less room for the justification of war than the sometimes militant verses of the Old Testament.
Another important change that comes with the emergence of Christianity and the New Testament is the shift from ethnic-based henotheism of the preceding Judaic tradition to the universal message embracing all nations. It was a particularly important transition in terms of the approach to war and violence since wars, as a rule, are waged by and between nations. Admittedly, Jesus’s original intent was to deliver His teachings to Israelites first, as evidenced by “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel” (Matthew 15:24). However, he soon commands his apostles to “make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19). This task signifies the end of henotheist partiality, as Jesus openly proclaims Himself as a God whose control “is widened to include all nations.” It has necessary implications for the religious attitude toward war: while a deity partial to one nation can naturally support it in wartime, a universal God can rarely, if ever, afford such bias. Thus, the universality of Christianity also made pacifism a logical necessity for believers.
Apart from the overall message of love and the inclusive nature of Christianity as a whole, the stout resolution to avoid violence manifests time and again in Christ’s specific actions in the New Testament. Nowhere is it more evident than in Jesus’s decision to come peacefully to those who have come to arrest him. In a now-proverbial statement, Christ commands Peter to put his weapon back to sheath, as those “who draw the sword will die by the sword” (Matthew 26:52). He then inquires: “Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?” (Matthew 26:53). Being one of the triune persons of God, Jesus can easily outmatch any violence that His human persecutors can throw at him, but He makes a deliberate choice not to. When confronted with the perspective of suffering and execution, His choice is not violence but death and resurrection. This example demonstrates with sufficient clarity and on Jesus’s own example that, as far as the New Testament is concerned, violence is never a good first option.
At the same time, the teachings of the New Testament also contain some provisions that, albeit indirectly, can be used as a justification of war or, at the very least, military service. When the Pharisees try to trick Jesus in the discussion of Roman taxes, he famously answers: “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s” (Matthew 22:21). While He makes this statement in the context of taxation specifically, it is possible to interpret it in a broader sense as applying to different obligations that Christians have toward their earthly governments. The core of Jesus’s argument is clear: Christians have earthly and heavenly citizenship alike, and “both place responsibilities” on them. Whether these responsibilities extend to compulsory military service, if such is enacted by the state, is a complex question that will be discussed in more detail later.
To summarize, the New Testament delivers a coherent and insistent pacifist message, especially when compared to the Old Testament. The overall emphasis on love requires Christians to forgive their enemies, and the universal appeal of Christianity makes partiality to a certain nation or nations in war a logical impossibility. Moreover, Jesus offers an example of a stout pacifist who, while able to easily outmatch His enemies in violence, foregoes this option in favor of death and resurrection. At the same time, the concept of Christians’ dual citizenship allows for different interpretations when it comes to military service, providing biblical grounds for the critique of Christian pacifism in the patristic period.
Patristic Period and Beyond
Just as the emergence of Christianity, with its global and universal appeal, necessitated a transition in the approach to war, the adoption of the new faith as a state religion brought changes as well. As far as the evidence suggests, early followers of Christ were universally pacifists, and “the first Christians who are known to have been soldiers are not found until 177 C.E.”. Yet after Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire and then its multiple successor states, the issue of balancing earthly and heavenly citizenship became much more acute. The practical necessity of the armed forces required religious arguments in favor of military service, and scholars generally agree that the ascension of Constantine ends the pacifist period in Christianity’s history. Since the adoption of Christianity as a state religion roughly coincided with the patristic period, most arguments against Christian pacifism first emerged at this time. One may say that, by outlining the basic tenets of the Just War theory, the patristic period defined the argument about war and violence in Christianity for centuries to come.
One of the central arguments of the Just War theory that early Christian theologians used to criticize pacifism was the afore-mentioned concept of dual citizenship. With the New Testament explicitly mentioning that believers have responsibilities before God and earthly government alike, it was only a matter of time until the opponents of pacifism would extend it to military service. St Augustine was among the first to argue for the conditional acceptability of war for pious Christians as long as it is carried “in obedience to God or some lawful authority.” St. Thomas Aquinas developed this point by insisting that earthly authorities had to “to watch over the commonweal of the city, kingdom or province subject to them,” with the force of arms, if necessary. By associating military service with the community’s well-being, just as taxation exists to protect civil order, this argument derived the necessity of the military from the principle of giving to Caesar what is Caesar’s. Thus, the dual citizenship argument was among the first objections toward Christian pacifism raised by the proponents of the Just War theory during the patristic period.
Yet this argument alone was hardly sustainable grounds to justify military service for Christians because its conditional acceptance of a given war still hinged on the premise of God supporting it. The Bible clarifies that warfare depends on the will of the Lord rather than purely earthly factors, such as legitimacy. There is no arguing that Egyptians perceived the Pharaoh’s rule as legitimate, since “six hundred of the best chariots, along with all the other chariots of Egypt, with officers over all of them” followed him without question (Exodus 14:7). If a conscientious objector in the Egyptian army was to voice his concerns, he would be punished as a rebel against the legitimate government. Still, it did not prevent this mighty army from suffering a catastrophic defeat at the hands of the Lord. Similarly, Saul, while technically remaining legitimate in the people’s eyes, was already deprived of divine support after his transgressions (1 Samuel 15:23). Thus, Christian pacifists could rebuke the dual citizenship argument by noting that legitimate governments, including those that genuinely think they obey God, do not necessarily follow God’s intent, making fighting for them a sin.
Apart from this counterargument, some Christian pacifists denied the necessity of balancing one’s responsibility before God and earthly authorities altogether. A suitable example of this tradition would be Anabaptists, famous for their practice of re-baptizing people “as an act of resistance to the Constantinian alliance between Church and State.” By doing so, this branch of Christian pacifism seeks to place political authority directly into the hands of the community of believers rather than the state as Caesar’s tax collector. While, historically, this approach did not become the most popular, it was one way of circumventing the dual citizenship argument against pacifism.
Another argument raised against Christian pacifism in the patristic period stressed that war was justifiable when it represented a lesser evil among the possible options. Once again, St. Augustine can take much of the credit for developing this line of argument. In his “Reply to Faustus the Manichaean,” he points out that the true evils of war are “love of violence, revengeful cruelty, fierce and implacable enmity,” and the like. Hence, punishing these evils – with an armed force, if necessary – is right for a Christian, and those refusing to do so out of strict pacifist conviction are wrong.
The simplest and, arguably, most effective response to this line of argument from Christian pacifists is the verses advising not to take judgment in one’s own hands. It is hard to argue that there is much evil in this world, including the specific evils of war mentioned by Augustine. Yet the Scripture also says: “Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: ‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay,’ says the Lord” (Romans 12:19). Based on this, Christian pacifism could confront the “war as a lesser evil” argument as an attempt to take over God’s vengeance.
Yet another approach developed in the patristic period to challenge the validity of Christian pacifism is the reflection on to which degree the Kingdom of God is currently present. There is no denying that the perfect world with people willingly organized according to God’s will would be peaceful. However, the Just War theory often rests on the premise that, since the kingdom “is not yet fully present, Christian behavior cannot be expected to conform fully to it.” To put it simply, the imperfection of the world as it currently is provides for some allowances in following Christianity’s central message of peace, which could include military service and even participation in wars.
Once again, the development of this argument prompted a corresponding reaction on Christian pacifist’s part, and the opponents of violence offered a counterargument to this perspective. The necessity to follow the principles of the virtuous life in its totality is proclaimed directly in the Bible. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says: “Anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:19). Moreover, the earthly life of Jesus Himself serves as an example and practical confirmation that His teachings “cannot remain an impossible abstract ideal.” Following the New Testament closely leaves no room for allowances, allowing Christian pacifism to use it as a counterargument against the Just War theory.
Finally, one more – albeit indirect – argument against pacifism brought up in the patristic period was that Jesus did not deny military service per se. A case in point is Christ’s encounter with a Roman centurion when Jesus commends the centurion’s faith and heals his servant (Matthew 8:5-13). The proponents of the Just War theory stressed that, through the entirety of this scene, Jesus does not “actually condemn the centurion for being a soldier.” In this context, one may interpret the scene as allowing at least military service, if not necessarily direct participation in battle.
Christian pacifism crafted a response to this argument as well, noting that, at a later point in the New Testament, Jesus provides perfectly clear instructions on the matter. When arrested, Jesus stops Peter’s attempt to use his sword (Matthew 26:53). Following Tertullian’s interpretation of this scene, Christian pacifist tradition insists that, by disarming Peter, Christ “unbelted every soldier.” In this interpretation, Christ not only makes a definite stand on the military service but also outright cancels the practice of divine sanction for war often present in the Old Testament.
The patristic period largely framed the debate between Christian pacifism and the Just War theory for the centuries to come, with both sides crafting their arguments and counterarguments. With Christianity becoming a state religion in more states, the practical necessity of military service made Just War theory more prevalent and pacifism – an exception rather than a rule. It took major changes in the nature of war for Christian pacifism to reemerge with renewed strength.
Pacifism in the Age of Total War
By the early 20th century, most Christian denominations have accepted one or another version of the Just War theory to combine the earthly obligation of military service and heavenly citizenship without theological conflict. However, the nature of war itself changed significantly by that time. Instead of relatively small professional armies, great powers now had massive conscript forces and engaged each other in total wars, using increasingly destructive weapons and mobilizing entire populations. These total wars highlighted the shortcomings of the Just War theory, giving new credibility to Christian pacifism.
One major reason for the re-emergence of Christian pacifism in the age of total war is the rise of new, indiscriminate weapons. The atomic bomb is the most obvious example, but mass bombing with “conventional” munitions can be just as costly in innocent lives. Simply put, modern warfare “depends on weapons that either kill or threaten to kill innocent persons.” One of the more notable Christian pacifists of the late 20th century, Stanley Hauerwas, notes that, even on the Just War grounds, “the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were clearly murder.” Unless the Just War theory accepts collateral damage as permissible, such wars are undoubtedly evil from a Christian perspective.
Apart from that, the total wars of the 20th century demonstrated the henotheist perils of the Just War tenets. None of the Christian countries involved in both World Wars denied their allegiance to Christ – on the contrary, they all presented their struggle as righteous. Marion Benedict offers many examples of how easily “Christian nations’ at war slip into this stage of… henotheism.” When the entire society has to be morally mobilized for war, it is all too easy for the warring parties to shift back to the nation-exclusive approach of the Old Testament. This approach throws Christian teachings millennia back and, as such, cannot be supported in good faith.
Perhaps the most famous critique of Christian pacifism during this period belongs to Reinhold Niebuhr, but it does not offer that much new theological insight. Relying largely on Augustine’s language of the lesser evil, Niebuhr emphasizes the “responsibility to others in a social order,” namely, the responsibility to protect the innocent. Hauerwas is right to note that this argument is less than suited to modern warfare. With irregular warfare and “the bombing of civilian populations” becoming a rule of thumb, a just warrior cannot speak of protecting the innocent at the same time when he or she kills them. Niebuhr also speaks of Jesus’s ethics of love as normative but not immediately applicable, which is also merely a reusing the “Kingdom of God” argument going all the way back to the patristic period. Hence, while the conflict between Christian pacifism and the Just War theories continues well into the 21st century with no signs of abating, new arguments for the Just War are hard to come by. Considering the increasingly inhumane nature of warfare, it opens new possibilities for Christian pacifism in the foreseeable future.
Conclusion
As one can see, Christian pacifism went through many changes from a dominant approach to a statistically small exception but still remains a well-grounded theological position. Although the Old Testament contains justification and even glorification of war, God still fights so that His chosen people would not have to, signaling that violence is better avoided when possible. The New Testament delivers a clear and powerful message of love and peace, ensuring the strict pacifism of the early Christians. After Christianity became a state religion, the political necessity of military service led to the rise of the Just War theory, which soon came to dominate most denominations. Reduced to an exception, Christian pacifism reemerged with new strength in the 20th and 21st century after total wars and indiscriminate weapons made the position of the Just War less tenable theologically.
References
Augustine, St. “Reply to Faustus the Manichaean.” Documenta Catholica Omnia. n.d. Web.
Benedict, Marion J. The God of the Old Testament in Relation to War. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2010.
Cahill, Lisa S. Love Your Enemies: Discipleship, Pacifism, and Just War Theory. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994.
Cartwright, Michael G. “Conflicting Interpretations of Christian Pacifism.” In Christian Political Ethics, edited by John A. Coleman, 261-277. Princeton: Princeton UP, 2008.
Charles, J. Daryl. Between Pacifism and Jihad: Just War and Christian Tradition. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005.
Childress, G. F. “Reinhold Niebuhr’s Critique of Pacifism.” The Review of Politics 36, no. 4 (1974): 467-491.
Dombrowski, Daniel A. “Christian Pacifism.” In The Routledge Handbook of Pacifism and Non-Violence, edited by Andrew Fiatla, 43-53. New York, NY: Routledge, 2018.
Gill, Robert. A Textbook of Christian Ethics. London: T&T Clark, 2006.
Hauerwas, Stanley. “2001: A Pacifist Response.”Duke University. Web.
Ramsey, Paul. War and the Christian Conscience: How Shall Modern War Be Conducted Justly? Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1961.
Ott, Daniel J. “Toward a Realistic, Public, Christian Pacifism.” American Journal of Theology & Philosophy 33, no. 3 (2012): 245-257.
Thomas Aquinas, St. “Whether It Is Always Sinful to Wage War?” The Latin Library. n.d.