Q: Is strict Pacifism a stance
that Christians are required to take by the Bible? If not, when is it acceptable for a Christian
to use force—even lethal force—against another person?
The question of pacifism—if and when
Christians may use violent resistance in defense of themselves or another has
been debated throughout the history of Christianity. On very rare occasions, small groups of
Christians have claimed a case for strict pacifism: that Christians ought not resort to force
under any circumstances. The majority of
Christians throughout history, however, have maintained the propriety of the
use of force by Christians in certain circumstances.
There are very clear verses in
Scripture which prohibit violent revenge, vigilantism, and rebellion against
lawful government. Beyond this, further
clarity on the issue revolves around the meaning of certain passages such as
Jesus’ admonitions to “Love your neighbor,” “turn the other cheek,” and that
“those who live by the sword will die by the sword.”
On the surface, these verses might
appear to advocate that Christians passively suffer any violence and injustice
brought against them, but there are others where Jesus Himself uses a whip to
cleanse the temple of greedy merchants, and allows and instructs His disciples
to carry swords (although on one occasion correcting Peter for his overzealous
use of it). Both Peter and John the
Baptizer preside over the conversion of soldiers and centurions without
instructing them to leave their vocations, which Jesus did instruct in the case
of dishonest or immoral professions like prostitution and tax-collecting.
So, if those words of Jesus demand
strict pacifism, then the Bible contradicts itself. On the other hand, when these passages are
viewed within their context and when the reader takes the time to ensure he is
not reading his personal biases into the text, we find that the Bible prohibits
the use of force as a response to non-dangerous offenses (such as a slap on the
cheek), as acts of revenge after danger has passed, or when the matter could be
handled by the proper authorities. On
the other hand, it has nothing to say prohibiting the use of force in defense
of oneself or others from immediate danger.
In fact, even the strict Old
Testament law excuses from punishment those who kill in defending against
murder, rape, and robbery. When ancient church
fathers prohibited military service, it was because it required idolatry by worshipping
and sacrificing to Caesar, not because it involved the use of force. Later on, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and an
assortment of popes all wrote affirming that Christians may be soldiers in good
conscience and that not only may they use force in self-defense, but even that
they have the duty to use force in the defense of their wives and children if
it becomes necessary.
The question then, is not whether one
is to love one’s neighbor, but which neighbor they are to love. Does a man who is confronted by another who
seeks to harm his daughter “love” the attacker while allowing his daughter to
be kidnapped, killed, or raped, or does he love his daughter precisely by the
act of slaying the attacker? Likewise,
does a man love the thief who seeks to steal from him while his children starve
and suffer, or does he love his children by dispatching the robber? Does he allow himself to be beaten into
disability so that his family loses their support, or does he love them by
preserving through self-defense his ability to provide for them? The same principle would apply similarly to
Christian soldiers or police officers, whose authority flows from the Biblical
command to obey father and mother.
God desires that all people would
live peaceably with one another. He
institutes government to punish those who would interfere with this intention,
and warns Christians about the dangers of rebellion, revenge, and the offensive
use of force. But on occasions when
these all break down, he authorizes the use of force in defense of self, wife,
children, neighbors, or property, precisely as an act of love for those under
our care and in keeping with the justice of His own character.
Good article. I spent 7 years part of a Mennonite church. It never seem right to me that other peoples sons and daughters had to spill their blood so they could enjoy their religious freedom.
ReplyDeleteSo the Mennonites, Amish and Quakers don't do their fair share? Perhaps they would simply accept death in the context of religious persecution like the early Christians - without resistance from what I understand. Rather than fighting for religious freedom in this vale of tears, is it possible they might prefer to go straight to Jesus? After all, isn''t it just a matter of sooner or later?
ReplyDeleteThe question isn't so much about fair shares or other similar evaluations, but simply that strict pacifism has no precedent in Christian history prior to its introduction by the radical wing of the Reformation in the 16th century and has no Biblical support when the passages are taken in context and in the light of Scripture. If a Christian adopts pacifism as a personal choice, that is their decision - although a selfish one, as they promote their own escape from this world ahead of preserving the opportunity for their neighbors to hear the Gospel - but they simply have no authority or Biblical mandate to impose such a requirement on others.
ReplyDelete