I say as often as I can that I am, as a Christian, a pacifist and that I believe all Christians should be pacifists. Along those lines, I was very pleased when I discovered that the peer reviewed theological journal Themelios put out by The Gospel Coalition recently included an article entitled, Nonviolence in the Ancient Church and Christian Obedience. I thought some of the quotes from the early church were worth posting here:
"We who once murdered each other indeed no longer wage war against our enemies; moreover, so as not to bear false witness before our interrogators, we cheerfully die confessing Christ." -- Justin Martyr (110–165), the early church’s foremost apologist.
"But now inquiry is being made concerning these issues. First, can any believer enlist in the military? Second, can any soldier, even those of the rank and file or lesser grades who neither engage in pagan sacrifices nor capital punishment, be admitted into the church? No on both counts—for there is no agreement between the divine sacrament and the human sacrament, the standard of Christ and the standard of the devil, the camp of light and the camp of darkness. One soul cannot serve two masters—God and Caesar. And yet some people toy with the subject by saying, "Moses carried a rod, Aaron wore a buckle, John the Baptist girded himself with leather just like soldiers do belts, and Joshua the son of Nun led troops into battle, such that the people waged war." But how will a Christian engage in war—indeed, how will a Christian even engage in military service during peacetime—without the sword, which the Lord has taken away? For although soldiers had approached John to receive instructions and a centurion believed, this does not change the fact that afterward, the Lord, by disarming Peter, disarmed every soldier." -- Tertullian (197–212)
"Shall it be regarded lawful to make an occupation of the sword, when the Lord proclaims that he who takes the sword shall die by the sword? Shall the child of peace join in the battle when he is not even permitted to sue at law? . . . Shall he carry a flag, despite its hostility to Christ? Shall he request a command from the Emperor who has already received one from God? . . . The very transporting of the Christian name from the camp of light over to the camp of darkness constitutes a violation of God’s law." -- Tertullian
"It needs to be emphasized that when someone becomes a believer and his faith is sealed, there must be an immediate abandonment of military service." -- Tertullian
"A soldier, being inferior in rank to God, must not kill anyone. If ordered to, he must not carry out the order, nor may he take an oath (sacramentum) to do so. If he does not accept this, let him be dismissed from the church. Anyone bearing the power of the sword, or any city magistrate, who wears purple, let him cease from wearing it at once or be dismissed from the church. Any catechumen or believer who wishes to become a soldier must be dismissed from the church because they have despised God." -- Hippolytus (199–217)
"Rulers entrusted with the authority to take life and soldiers must not kill anyone, even if they are commanded to do so. . . . Anyone holding a prominent position of leadership or a ruler’s authority who does not keep himself disarmed, as the gospel necessitates, must be dismissed from the flock. Let no Christian become a soldier. Any official obligated to carry a sword must not bring bloodguilt upon himself; if he does, he must not participate in the mysteries until he is purified through correction, tears, and groans." -- Hippolytus (199–217)
"We must delightfully come to the counsels of Jesus by cutting down our hostile and impudent swords into plowshares and transforming into pruning-hooks the spears formerly employed in war. So we no longer take up the sword against nations, nor do we learn war anymore, since we have become children of peace, for the sake of Jesus, who is our leader, instead of those whom our ancestors followed." -- Origen (240–48)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Tertullian also left the faith in favor of Montanism, which lines up nicely with his authoritative sounding but not Biblically backed statements here.
God has allowed the wicked in this world. The Military certainly has a place in protecting the defenseless.
Ah yes, Tertullian and Montanism...quite the shame that was. The quote posted here though, was from his pre-Montanist writings, not that that expiates him in any way for his misdeeds.
The important thing to notice about the article, I think, is not necessarily Tertullian in particular, but that the testimony of the entire early church, as far as we are able to tell, was that war & violence were completely incompatible with following and worshiping Jesus, a God-man who died on a cross. It wasn't until the "conversion" of Constantine and the joining of church & state that we see the development of just war theory.
The Military, under God, may indeed have a place in the world, but the question is, "Does the church have any place in the military?" I'm convinced that it doesn't. As St. Augustine said, "It is better to suffer an evil than to perform one." Or as Jesus said, "My kingdom is not from this world. If my kingdom were from this world, my servants would have been fighting... But my kingdom is not from the world.”
"Does the church have any place in the military?" I'm convinced that it doesn't."
If by "the church in the military" you mean bishops and priests advocating and participating in war as part of their religious duty, then you're certainly right. But if you mean the church as the community of believers and that any man claiming Christ should not be involved in his country's military, I'm not sure about that.
My real question is off this topic though; Is the "early church" holier/better/more correct just because of its proximity to Christ? Folks did have a more assertive way of speaking, but I prickle a bit at the matter of fact tone about something that is not cut and dry in Scripture.
Is the "early church" holier/better/more correct just because of its proximity to Christ?
Well, certainly not holier. All we need to do is look at the situation in Corinth as described by Paul to know that.
Better? Hmmm. That one seems subjective, so I'll skip it.
More Correct? Now this one could be interesting. I think I would assert that the early church, because of its cultural and chronological proximity to Christ and the Apostles, does have a sort of leg-up on us in understanding Christ and His Apostles teachings and intentions. Obviously, this is not a call to uncritically return to all early church teachings (baptizing the dead?), but it is something to consider.
What is especially interesting to me are those things upon which the early church had reached surprising agreement(and which were not all neatly defined in Scripture): Trinity, High Christology, episcopal governement, Apostles creed, and non-violence to name a few.
Obviously, I am in a minority position these days by advocating for complete Christian non-violence, but so be it. As a matter of fact, I personally know only one other Christian pacifist.
well you know 2... me and ramin.
hauerwas rocked my face strait off... i will tell you more in a few weeks...
And of course these statements were not biblically backed. There was no "bible"... just a bunch of letters that people held as authoritative. But you can fairly that these statements and sentiments were the ones that were governing many of the decisions as they and the spirt compiled the cannon. So, it could be said that we don't really know how to read the scriptures until we take on a posture of non-violence. And why it is hard for us to see the scripture as narration of a nonviolent community.
Just a thought.
Garret,
I don't follow your reasoning from
"But you can fairly that these statements and sentiments were the ones that were governing many of the decisions as they and the spirt compiled the cannon,"
to
"So, it could be said that we don't really know how to read the scriptures until we take on a posture of non-violence."
Scripture is not influenced by the Church's view of it. If the early church was of the opinion that we'd all look better in green argyle for worship, I don't think that we today need to understand green argyle before we understand Scripture.
Jason,
Don't dance around "Better." It's the goodest kind.
i just hope we (america) don't adopt the christian pacifist ideal. for our sake and the worlds.
Post a Comment