Christian Pacifism?

(a reposting of a piece I contributed to the Antipelagian blog in 2009)

The question of whether or not it is appropriate to use physical force as a means to restrain evil on this earth has long been a point of disagreement in the Church. In practicality, the answer to that question determines how we respond to a broad range of scenarios. Is it appropriate to defend oneself from an attacker? Are we permitted to use force for the protection of others? Can a Christian in good conscience serve in the armed forces? Should Christians in positions of political power advocate the use of capital punishment or is it even appropriate to erect prisons to hold criminals? The implications of this issue continue to mount.

In every era of Church history there have been those who would fall under the category of Christian Pacifists. They have, for the most part, remained a minority of the overall body of Christ, but their claims must be dealt with in every generation because of the broad consequences acceptance of their doctrine necessarily brings.

The ideology of Christian Pacifism seems to be mostly derived from a rigid interpretation of a handful of statements made by Jesus during his Sermon on the Mount. It clearly has no basis in the Old Testament, in the epistles of the New Testament, or even in many of the statements of Jesus. First, if you take the position that Christ encouraged pacifism in every respect, you will have great difficulty reconciling this with the portrayal of God in the Old Testament. Christ never distanced himself from the Hebrew Scriptures or their portrayal of God. In fact, He claimed to be the fulfillment of them and validated them in multiple ways. Christ is one with the Father, so for our faith to make sense we can’t resign ourselves to the view that Christ is in disagreement with the Father or that Christ is like a new version of God (new and upgraded version 2.0). It’s also untenable to suggest that somehow the Old Testament just got it all wrong on this issue and Jesus was simply too polite to mention it. I’m convinced that a careful and prayerful reading of the Bible makes it easier to reconcile any and all seeming contradictions.

Jesus said that we should love our enemies and pray for those who despitefully use us. We should not resist an evil person seeking to do us harm and should instead turn the other cheek. If someone comes to steal my cloak, I am not to prevent them from taking my tunic as well. Certainly all Christians are called to follow the Lord’s instruction. However, it is a mistake to take these teachings as promoting a Pacifist ideology. The commonality in all of these scenarios described by Christ, in which an individual is told not to resist, is that the individual himself is the intended victim and the threat is non-fatal. In other words, if a Christian is being insulted, robbed, injured or persecuted in some way, he should not retaliate. What often happens is that a Pacifist will take these few statements from Christ in his Sermon on the Mount to mean that we should not use violence in any case, even in the protection of others when they are the intended victims of an attacker or in the just punishment of such attacks. However, we find in Luke 17:2 our Lord states that if someone offends a “little one” (or “leads a little one to sin” as it is stated in other gospels) it would be better for that person to have a millstone tied around their neck and to be cast into the sea. Despite these words of our Lord, some of the more extreme anarcho-pacifist Christians are even opposed to simply imprisoning criminals, let alone executing them.

C.S. Lewis pointed out that we must consider how those first century hearers of the Lord’s Sermon on the Mount would have understood his words:

Does anyone suppose that Our Lord's hearers understood Him to mean that if a homicidal maniac, attempting to murder a third party, tried to knock me out of the way, I must stand aside and let him get his victim? I at any rate think it impossible they could have so understood Him. I think it equally impossible that they supposed Him to mean that the best way of bringing up a child was to let it hit its parents whenever it was in a temper, or, when it had grabbed at the jam, to give it the honey also. I think the meaning of the words was perfectly clear— “Insofar as you are simply an angry man who has been hurt, mortify your anger and do not hit back”—even, one would have assumed that insofar as you are a magistrate struck by a private Person, a parent struck by a child, a teacher by a scholar, a sane man by a lunatic, or a soldier by the public enemy, your duties may be very different, different because [there] may be then other motives than egoistic retaliation for hitting back.
—from “Why I Am Not a Pacifist” (The weight of Glory)

As is well known, Pacifists are also vehemently opposed to military service, claiming it to be contrary to Christian teaching. If serving in the military as one who occasionally must wield deadly force on behalf of the state were truly immoral, we must ask ourselves why John the Baptist didn’t say as much when he was asked by the Roman soldiers what they should do. Instead he tells them they should be content with their wages and deal honestly with others. If the Pacifist is correct, why did Christ speak so highly of the Centurion, saying, “Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.”? If the very act of military service was a sin, would not Jesus have addressed that sin directly instead of presenting this soldier as an example of great faith?

The Pacifist's image of the meek and mild Christ is nothing more than a caricature based on elevating certain of His statements while ignoring many others. At the close of the Final Supper, Jesus has this exchange with his disciples:

And He said to them, “When I sent you without money bag, knapsack, and sandals, did you lack anything?”
So they said, “Nothing.”
Then He said to them, “But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: ‘And He was numbered with the transgressors.’ For the things concerning Me have an end.”
So they said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.”
And He said to them, “It is enough.” -Luke 22:35-38

Clearly there is a time to bear the sword and a time to put it away. There are other statements that I could mention that counter the view that Christ is purely a Pacifist, but I won’t belabor the point.

To be sure; Christ is the Prince of Peace. His ultimate mission is to bring about a Kingdom of Righteousness and Peace which will know no war and will be free of all conflict. However, this purpose is yet future, and was certainly not His intention for His First Coming. He even said as much:

“Do you suppose that I came to give peace on earth? I tell you, not at all, but rather division.” -Luke 12:51

For now, Christ makes it clear that we live in a fallen world in which war and violence is a part. Anytime Christians have to deal with such issues it must be done with sober consideration and prayer. Violent action should only be taken by a Christian insofar as Justice demands it and there is no better course available.