In part two of this study of “loving our enemies as Christ loved us,” we want to notice some important developments in early church history and further examine some of the arguments used to justify Christians participating in warfare.
In AD 313, the Edict of Milan granted recognition and toleration of Christianity and required all state confiscated property to be returned to their rightful Christian owners, thus giving Christianity a recognized and respected status in society. Then in AD 325, the Roman emperor Constantine called the church leaders together for a council at Nicaea to address the dispute with Arianism and to adopt an official doctrinal creed. He saw in the spread of Christianity the potential to unite a fracturing empire. But there was a dispute within the church over Arianism (a belief which denied that Jesus could be both human and uncreated eternal deity) which might threaten his political objectives. The Council of Nicaea was Constantine’s attempt to unify Christianity for the benefit of the empire.
Constantine asked the leaders to formulate a creed that would settle the dispute with the Arians. The historic belief of the church on the humanity and deity of Christ was upheld and carefully formulated into a creed. Constantine then asked all the leaders to sign the creed. Many of the Arian dissenters who refused to sign were removed from their offices and exiled. Christianity went from being a loosely organized faith that was persecuted, to being a more structured organization that now received state recognition and whose creed was enforced with state sanctions.
This put the church in a new position of power and privilege and caused leaders to rethink the role of the church in the world. The church that had formerly taught against military service began to reconsider the role of Christians in the military since the state was officially recognizing Christianity. The church could not endorse all forms of warfare since human life was still considered sacred, so they developed criteria for determining when warfare was justified. With the creation of just war theories, the just war proponents were essentially admitting that some wars have no moral justification. Although the just war theories did not originate with the state churches, the state churches further developed and promoted just war arguments by using what they believed was the moral framework of Christianity. The state churches thought that by establishing moral justification for certain types of warfare, it would become the duty of Christians to participate in those just wars.
We will not look at every aspect of these theories, but we will consider a few of the fundamental arguments that are promoted. We are not evaluating the right of recognized nations to engage in warfare, but rather we are evaluating whether just war theories harmonize with the teachings of Christ for His spiritual kingdom on earth.
1. Arguments For Just War Theory
One of the common arguments of just war theory proposes that a defensive war fought against an imperialist aggressor is justified as national self-defense. The “defensive war” theory assumes that national boundaries are already mutually recognized and mutually understood when they are violated. However, national boundaries are often a point of contention which can instigate a war. The location of a national boundary is often determined by the victor of the 11previous war. Through the centuries, national boundaries have shifted many times as ethnic groups, nations, and empires have tried to enlarge their borders or to reclaim their previous borders.
Another common argument proposes that an aggressive war initiated for the greater good and tranquility of the citizens of another country is morally justified. Therefore, the “just cause” war may in effect be a type of crusade for the greater good of mankind. But who decides whether this just cause crusade will better another nation or whether it is self-serving to the nation who initiates the “just cause” war? Many moral crusades in history have not generated positive benefits for the civilians.
While it is true that some wars bring better results and others bring only misery, making a moral determination is open to interpretation and differing perspectives. One country may assert its just cause in initiating a war which then puts the other nation in the position of either surrendering or defending itself. In these wars, both sides may believe their cause for fighting is morally justified because the aggressor is claiming to promote the greater good of humanity, and the defender is protecting itself against unwanted aggression. Additionally, there is no internationally recognized forum based on “biblical values” which determines whether wars are justified, so the current just war theories are largely based on international-consensus morality and are not a reliable spiritual guide for Christians.
We cannot escape the moral dilemma of who decides whether a war is just or not. If the government decides, it will typically declare that its cause is just. If Christian soldiers are limited to a just war, then they should take a just war oath. However, militaries do not use just war oaths because they do not want the soldier to make those moral decisions. Throughout the centuries, countries with state churches often went to war against each other, illustrating that the establishment of state churches still does not bring moral agreement on just warfare.
We respect the international efforts that have been made to minimize the horrors of war, but yet the Christian cannot allow the just war theories to override the teachings of the New Testament and justify warfare as acceptable for a follower of Christ.
Many have tried to find arguments from the Old Testament to support just wars. But the wars in the Old Testament often involved the complete destruction of those who challenged Israel’s right to their land, including women, children, and cattle. Outside of Palestine, Israel never engaged in wars against other heathen nations for the benefit of their civilians. God gave Israel their land and established their borders. Today, who can definitively locate where the boundaries of nations ought to be according to God? If God still conveyed directives for war like He did in the Old Testament era, there would be no need for just war theories.
The New Testament promotes the believer’s unconditional loyalty to Christ and His kingdom teachings. As the Scriptures are carefully studied, it becomes evident that there are important distinctions between the kingdom of God and the nations of this world. The secular nations of this world do not operate by the same code of spiritual conduct that Christ has instituted for His followers in His spiritual kingdom. Citizenship in secular nations is determined by the geographical location of natural birth, while citizenship in the kingdom of God has no geographical boundaries and begins with a spiritual new birth (Luke 16:16; John 3:3, 18:36).
God sovereignly rules over the nations of this world and brings some to power and others to their end (Daniel 2:21, 4:17). God has established secular government for the nations of this world and asks them to reverence His sovereignty (Daniel 4:32). Even though God rules over the nations of this world, yet His Word also declares that they are under the influence of the evil one (Ephesians 2:2; 1 John 5:19). Eventually all the nations of this world will come under the power and rule of the Antichrist before Christ returns (Zechariah 14:2-3; Revelation 13:7-8, 18:3).
2. The Witness of the Early Church
The early church record up to the year AD 250 is quite clear and consistent with the same perspective that we are presenting. As a rule, the early Christians refused to take human life. This is admitted by the Protestant historian Philip Schaff when he writes, “But in general the Christians of those days, with their sense of foreignness to this world, and their longing for the heavenly home, or the millennial reign of Christ, were averse to a high office in a heathen state” (Schaff’s History of the Christian Church, vol. 2, p. 345). Again, Schaff writes, “Some, on authority of such passages as Matthew 5:39 and 26:52, condemned all war as unchristian and immoral; anticipating the view of the Mennonites and Friends” (ibid., p. 344).
There is evidence of some Christian soldiers in the Roman army around AD 170-180, but still the teaching record of the early church consistently supports non-participation in warfare. To say that the early church must have supported military service because there were professing Christians in the military is like saying that because there is evidence of some professing Christians supporting abortion, the church has not historically spoken against abortion.
We would note that over time people were converted from all classes and needed to make decisions. Not all soldiers left the military when they came to faith, but the teaching of the early church remained consistent in maintaining a nonviolent position, even for soldiers. The leaders of the early church encouraged the converted soldiers to consider leaving their profession and instructed their members not to enter the military.
Some have argued that not many soldiers had been converted in the first centuries and therefore their military presence was relatively unknown. But this thinking does not agree with the argument that the centurions and soldiers in the New Testament era remained in the military. If those New Testament-era centurions and soldiers remained, there should be more early evidence for Christians remaining in the military after being converted. The fact that there is virtually no evidence of Christians serving in the military before AD 170 would indicate that the centurions and soldiers who were converted saw a conflict in allegiance and likely left the military. How could these early Christian soldiers serve under a military oath (cited in part 1 of this article series) which they took before false deities, and which required unconditional loyalty to the emperor?
This moral dilemma causes some to argue that Christians could not join the military in good faith until there was a Christian emperor. But this would mean there should have been no Christians in the military before Constantine (the first professing Christian emperor). This argument would imply that Cornelius would have needed to leave the military. However, as we look at early Christian teaching, the main arguments against military service were grounded in love and nonviolence which prohibit military service even under a professing Christian emperor. The evidence argues strongly that when the emperor Constantine wanted to make Christianity the official religion of Rome, and the church cooperated with making Christianity a state religion, then the official position of the church on military service would need to change, and it did over time!
The following quotations are a few samples from a larger body of evidence that illustrate why the early Christians in general refused military service.
“We who were filled with war and mutual slaughter and every wickedness have each of us in all the world changed our weapons of war . . . swords into plows and spears into agricultural implements.” (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, chap. 110)
“For when God forbids us to kill, He not only prohibits us from open violence, which is not even allowed by the public laws, but He warns us against the commission of those things which are esteemed lawful among men. Thus it will be neither lawful for a just man to engage in warfare, since his warfare is justice itself.” (Lanctantius, Divine Institutes, book 6, chap. 20)
“You will at once begin to feel compassion for the world, and with self-recollection and increasing gratitude to God, you will rejoice with all the greater joy that you have escaped it. Consider the roads blocked up by robbers, the seas beset with pirates, wars scattered all over the earth with the bloody horror of camps. The whole world is wet with mutual blood; and murder, which in the case of an individual is admitted to be a crime, is called a virtue when it is committed wholesale. Impunity is claimed for the wicked deeds, not on the plea that they are guiltless, but because the cruelty is perpetrated on a grand scale.” (Cyprian, The Epistles of Cyprian, 1.6)
“A military man in authority must not execute men. If he is ordered, he must not carry it out. Nor must he take military oath. If he refuses, he shall be rejected . . . The catechumen or faithful who wants to become a soldier is to be rejected, for he has despised God.” (Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus of Rome, Canon 16)
“But if the law of liberty, that is, the Word of God, preached by the apostles (who went forth from Jerusalem) throughout all the earth, caused such a change in the state of things, that these (nations) did form the swords and war-lances into ploughshares, and changed them into pruning-hooks for reaping the corn, that is, into instruments used for peaceful purposes, and that they are now unaccustomed to fighting, but when smitten offer also the other cheek, then the prophets have not spoken these things of any other person, but of Him who effected them. This person is our Lord . . . ” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, book 4, chap. 34.4)
“We have learned, not only not to return blow for blow, nor to go to law with those who plunder us, but to those who smite us on the side of the face to offer the other side also, and to those who take away our coat, to give likewise our cloak.” (Athenagoras, A Plea Regarding Christians, chap. 1)
“For we no longer take up sword against nation, nor do we learn war any more, having become children of peace, for the sake of Jesus, who is our leader, instead of those whom our fathers followed, among whom we were strangers to the covenant.” (Origen, Against Celsus, book 5, chap. 33)
In these quotations we note that war, self-defense, violence, change of conduct, military oaths, and true discipleship are all being addressed. Some have argued that Tertullian and Origen who spoke strongly against taking human life were not representative of the mainstream of the church. However, we have provided other testimony to show that the witness of Tertullian and Origen on this topic was supported by other early church writers. We have also shown that the noted Protestant historian Schaff recognized the consensus of early church teaching against using violent self-defense and participation in war.
Some have pointed out that there is some testimonial and archeological evidence for Christians being in the military in the ante-Nicene age. We recognize that as soldiers were being converted not all immediately left the military. Some remained there until they were required to take an oath. Some remained as civic peacekeepers and left when they were required to take human life. We see that the early church recognized the situation of soldiers who were converted while in the military and instructed them to remain faithful to Christ by either leaving their profession or being willing to leave it when they were called upon to take an oath or to take human life.
When Christianity became the state religion of Rome under Emperor Constantine, the position of the church on nonviolence eroded to the point where eventually the church blessed military crusades and supported religious persecution against all dissenters, including other Christian groups which departed from the main body of the apostatizing church.
If, after reading this article, the primary question in the reader’s mind still is, “How will our nation defend itself and its liberties if Christians refuse military service?” then the primitive biblical path will always be unacceptable. If the primary question in the reader’s mind is, “How can I faithfully and unconditionally obey and serve my Lord in His kingdom?” then they will choose to follow the teachings of Christ. We must ask ourselves, “Where does our ultimate loyalty lie?”
We have looked at the main objections against the nonviolent peace position and have critiqued some of the main arguments used to support Christians in military service. However, we have not examined all the positive evidence in the New Testament Scriptures that instruct the believer to return good for evil and to love and forgive our enemies, since it would require too large a treatment. The foundation of our position is the new commandment given by Christ that we would love one another as He has loved us (John 13:34). The teachings of the kingdom of God ultimately require us to avoid any binding allegiances to the kingdoms of this world.
We should be reminded of these pertinent Scriptures:
“Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence” (John 18:36).
We are part of a kingdom that is not of this world, and therefore we do not fight for this world.
“No one engaged in warfare entangles himself with the affairs of this life, that he may please him who enlisted him as a soldier” (2 Timothy 2:4 NKJV).
We are already enlisted as soldiers in the kingdom of God, and therefore cannot enlist as soldiers to fight in the conflicts of this world.
“For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds” (2 Corinthians 10:4).
The weapons of our warfare in the kingdom of God are different from those used by the earthly militaries.
“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places” (Ephesians 6:12).
Our warfare is not against mankind but against spiritual powers and wickedness.
In summary, our heavenly kingdom, our enlistment as a soldier, our weapons, and our warfare are different from the militaries of earthly kingdoms. Therefore, we do not participate in conflicts and bloodshed between nations. Yet we are commanded to show respect and obedience to the government of each nation for they are God-ordained authorities for the earthly kingdoms of this world. We see the New Testament Scriptures calling us to respect and obey the government where there is no conflict in our allegiance. We see the soldiers and centurions being respected in the New Testament narratives.
However, when considering military service and its oath, we must ask ourselves, “To whom do we give our greatest love and loyalty?” If our love for our country is greater than our love for Christ, then we might take an unconditional oath to an earthly power; but in doing so, we will have compromised our unconditional faithfulness to Christ. If our greatest loyalty is to Christ, and if He is our example, then, like Christ, we will lay down our lives for both our friends and our enemies.
Loading...