Note: This article is page II of a series on the Christian just war tradition. If you haven’t already, might I suggest that you first read page I (the introduction): What I Bet You Didn’t Know About the Christian Just War Tradition (I)
The First Three Centuries (0-313 A.D.)
It is often argued that Jesus Christ (7–2 BC to 30–36 AD) preached pacifism and that this was the stance of the early Church. According to this standard narrative, the Church “fell from Grace” with the conversion of Constantine and it was only then that pacifism was abandoned. Such conventional wisdom, however, is not very accurate.
As for Jesus of the Bible, a closer analysis shows that he was not opposed to violence (see: Jesus Loves His Enemies…And Then Kills Them All). He was (basically) non-violent during his lifetime, all the way up until he was nailed to the cross. At that time, Jesus was not in a position of authority, power, or capacity to do otherwise. He was at the mercy of his enemies.
However, in the Bible itself Jesus promises to kill all his enemies when he returns. At that point in time, he would no longer be a persecuted preacher but a “Warrior King” commanding large armies of both heavenly and earthly beings. How can it then be said that Jesus of the Bible believed in pacifism? His use of non-violent means was temporal and tactical, not principled and value-based.
It hardly matters what people do when they are not in a position to do otherwise. It is once they are in a position of power and authority that what they do really matters. Imagine, for instance, if the Dalai Lama practiced non-violence while his people were still under Chinese authority but at the same time he issued proclamations that he would wage war against the Chinese and kill all their leaders once his country is liberated. Would anyone think of him as pacifist if this were the case?
As for the early Church, the characterization of it as pacifist is also problematic. Modern scholarship has moved away from this outdated conception. For example, Prof. James Turner Johnson, considered “one of the most influential contemporary interpreters of the [just war] tradition today,” notes that the “evidence presents a picture not of a single doctrine [within the early Church], but of plurality; not of universal rejection of war and military service, but of a mixture of acceptance and rejection of these phenomena in different sectors of the Christian world” (p.17 of Johnson’s The Quest for Peace).
There was no one view among early Church fathers with regard to war and military service. Instead, the evidence suggests that there existed a multitude of views on this issue, a fact that “challenges the conventional view of the early church [as uniformly pacifist]” (Prof. J. Daryl Charles on p.108 of War, Peace, and Christianity). Prof. James Turner Johnson, Prof. J. Daryl Charles, and many others have argued the point that even those Church fathers who were opposed to military service were so not because of a principled belief in pacifism but (1) because they believed the return of Jesus to be imminent and (2) because being a part of the pagan Roman military would involve idolatry.
Prof. J. Daryl Charles notes that the early Church’s abstention from military service was due to “the predominance of a conspicuously otherworldly expectation–the expectation of the coming of Christ’s kingdom” and the “rejection of idolatrous practices within the Roman army” (Ibid., pp.109-110). Neither reason could be used to support a principled belief in pacifism. As for the first reason, this implies that the early Church was not opposed to the use of violence, only that they were waiting to use it upon Christ’s return (an event they believed would occur imminently, even in their own lifetimes). If, for example, the Tamil Tigers abstained from violence until their leader was released from jail, would anyone believe this to be support for pacifism?
Furthermore, this “otherworldly” attitude applied not just to military service but to all “worldly matters.” They were in a state of “praying continually, watching and fasting, preaching to all they could reach, paying no heed to worldly matters, as things with which they had nothing to do, only accepting from those whom they taught as much as was absolutely necessary for life” (p.86 of Henry Donald Maurice Spence-Jones’ The Church of England, Vol. 1). They did not involve themselves in matters of state at all, including but not limited to military service. One cannot equate this to a belief in pacifism any more than it would mean a rejection of governance.
In other words, just because early Christians did not believe that they themselves should not participate in such functions did not mean they thought it was wrong for others to do so. For example, many Ultra-Orthodox Jews in Israel enroll in religious schools and are thus exempted from military service. As religious students and rabbis, they believe that their lives should be dedicated to Jewish studies and many expect the rest of society to support them. But even though they themselves refuse to serve in the military, many of them strongly support the Israeli military and indiscriminate violence against Palestinians. When other Israelis criticize them as chickenhawks for refusing to serve in the military (even as they push Israel to perpetual war), the standard response by these Ultra-Orthodox Jews is that they serve the IDF in a religious capacity: they pray for the military’s success. No rational person would have the temerity to say that these Ultra-Orthodox Jews are pacifist. They might not want to go to war themselves, but they are certainly not opposed to it.
Likewise, the early Church was not opposed to war or the Roman military itself; they just didn’t want any “worldly” function in it themselves. The Church fathers actually prayed for the success of the Roman military in its imperial wars against “barbarians.” Here, we see the emergence of a theme that emerged with the early Church and sustained itself throughout Christian history: the support for European imperialism. Prof. Gabriel Palmer-Fernandez writes on p.78 of The Encyclopedia of Religion and War:
In fact, numerous Christian writers in the first three centuries already affirmed that God ordained the existing imperial powers, including their coercive functions, for maintaining order, restraining sin, and advancing the gospel. The injunction of Paul to “be subject to the governing authorities” whose authority has been “instituted by God” (Romans 13:1-7 NRSV; cf. 1 Peter 2:13-17) was echoed in the writings of Justin, Tertullian, and Origen (185?-254?). Each author acknowledged the benefits of Roman order as part of God’s plan and assured the authorities of Christian support and prayers.
Prof. Palmer-Fernandez goes on to say that “these early writers were also expressing appreciation for the value of a Pax Romana maintained by force.”
The Church fathers saw themselves very much in the same way that Ultra-Orthodox Jews in Israel see themselves, and as pagan Roman priests in that time also did. Prof. Darrell Cole writes in a section entitled “Fighting Through Prayer” in his book When God Says War is Right:
The Christian pacifism movement claims Origen (A.D. 185-254) as a hero, but it’s hard to decide whether the term “pacifist” can truly and fairly be applied to him, at least in the way we think of it today. To modern ears, pacifism means the complete rejection of warfare as an inherently immoral practice. This was not Origen’s view, though he was certainly opposed to Christians becoming soldiers.
The only work where Origen was concerned with Christian participation in warfare is the polemical Contra Celsum written in response to a Roman philosopher named Celsus…[He argued] that all Christians should be give the same considerations as those in the pagan priesthood who were not required to give physical service in the military, but instead served the cause by praying for the emperor and the soldiers to triumph in battle.
[Origen wrote:] And, of course, in war time you do not enlist your priests. If this is a resonable procedure, how much more so is it for Christians to fight as priests and worshipers of God while others fight as soldiers. Though they keep their right hands clean, the Christians fight through their prayers to God on behalf of those doing battle in a just cause and on behalf of an emperor who is ruling justly in order that all opposition and hostility toward those who are acting rightly may be eliminated. (VIII.73)
Moreover, Origen added, Christians supplied an irreplaceable aid to the emperor. By overcoming in prayer the very demons that cause wars, Christians actually help more than soldiers. So even though Christians did not go on campaign with the emperor, they did go to battle for him “by raising a special army of piety through our petitions to God” (VIII.73).
This support and prayer for Rome’s military was at a time when the imperial armies were ever expanding the Empire’s borders. During this time, the Roman Empire was involved in many wars: in the first three centuries A.D., Roman legions conquered lands in modern day Germany, Britain, Wales, Scotland, Romania, etc. Also included in these conquests (and prayed for by the Church) was the conquest of parts of the Middle East.
The early Christians remained passive participants in the military effort not for long. In fact, the “evidence…is fairly strong that from A.D. 170 onward there were significant members of Christians in the [Roman] army, and ‘the numbers of these Chrisitans began to grow, despite occassional efforts to purge Christians from the army [by the Romans], through the second and third centuries into the age of Constantine. We may estimate the number of Christian soldiers at the beginning of the fourth century in the tens of thousands’” (p.112 of Prof. J. Daryl Charles’ War, Peace, and Christianity; he is quoting Johnson’s The Quest for Peace).
Once Constantine converted to Christianity, the early Christians no longer faced the barrier to military service they once had: they no longer needed to fear indulging in the pagan practices of the military. Furthermore, by this time, the Church had realized that Jesus Christ may not be coming back as soon as they thought. As such, it is no surprise that soon afterward Christian theologians would formally tackle the issue of war. Is this not a strong indication that it was the issue of paganism, not a principled adherence to pacifism, that compelled the early Church to be so uneasy with military participation?
* * * * *
According to the “fall from Grace” theory, the Church suddenly changed its views about pacifism with the conversion of Constantine. If this were really the case, then the question arises: of what relevance is early Christianity’s supposed pacifism during a time when it was not in a position of power? What does it say about such a belief if, the moment Christianity assumed power, this “pacifism” was suddenly abandoned for a policy of imperialism?
The truth is that there wasn’t a sudden reversal of opinion, but rather a gradual development of an idea that had already taken root with the early Church. With the Christianization of the Roman Empire, the West’s imperial power and Christianity would formally fuse together. It would be, as we shall see, a bond that would endure the test of time.
* * * * *
As I mentioned in the introduction, my intention is not to demonize the entire faith of Christianity. There exists no shortage of Christians today who endorse pacifism and oppose America’s unjust wars in the Muslim world. Such people have my utmost respect. If some of them base their pacifism in their belief that the early Church was pacifist, I don’t see any reason to expend energy trying to set the record straight. I only chose to address this issue since some anti-Muslim Christians forced my hand by continually arguing this point (the early Church was pacifist, look how peaceful our religion is compared to Islam, etc.).
Having said that, I don’t think pacifist Christians should think any of this should stand in the way of their pacifist beliefs. As I mentioned earlier, the early Church fathers seemed to differ among themselves. Anti-military views certainly existed, and even if one cannot find clearly principled pacifism, this is still a starting point that the modern-day Christian can draw on.
Furthermore, I think people of all religions–Jews, Christians, and Muslims–would be a whole lot better off if they didn’t feel the need to validate their beliefs by looking at how their religion was practiced in a mythical “golden age” of the past. This very much limits freedom of thought and religious interpretation. What is needed are new, more merciful and compassionate readings of the text.
By knowing the reality of one’s tradition, reformist believers will be better equipped to deal with the arguments raised by right-wing followers who will bring up a lot of the same points I brought up to justify their beliefs. See, for instance, this article by none other than “Dr.” Robert Morey. Reformist, liberal adherents of religion will be in a stronger theological position if they base their views in fact instead of myth. Instead of always needing to validate your beliefs by citing some guy who lived hundreds of years ago, why not just use a much simpler line of argumentation like the following:
The early Church had a mixed view with regard to war, with a portion of them rejecting military service. After reflecting on the issue myself, I tend to be on the pacifist side. My own reasons might not be the exact same as those held by earlier Christians, but there is much overlap. Furthermore, I don’t need to be 100% beholden to their views.
To be continued…