Week 6’s book: A Brief History of Pacifism: From Jesus to Tolstoy

By the way, you’re posting late!! I’m in Texas. I hope you get some rest.

‘An unconditional rejection of war, so far as we know, arose first among the early Christians’
Didn’t Buddhism reject violence before then? Surely war was around during Buddha’s time.
My ideas about prison and how to deal with crime were shaken up by Tolstoy’s ‘Resurrection’. I am now reading ‘War and Peace’ and enjoying having my ideas challenged on this topic too.
There certainly is good reason to consider that the Holocaust was largely hidden by the war. War becomes a smoke screen and in the anarchy that it inevitably creates women and children suffer and evil is commited. This seems to be the pattern over and over in recent times. We don’t hear about the atrocities until after the war. Then the children who have seen the horrific violence inflicted on their families grow up in hate and repeat the cycle.
In modern times the battle could be for the hearts and minds of individuals. Terrorism is commited by mavericks and fuelled by moderate people changing allegiance when families are killed. We have the power of global communication in the 21st century. Language differences should also be less of an issue. We are only just starting to realise how powerful the media can be in resolving issues and increasing understanding between cultures. People are less likely to kill if they see their ‘foe’ as like themselves.

“An unconditional rejection of war, so far as we know, arose first among the early Christians”

As Lorna points out, the Buddhists and Jains unconditionally rejected violence whether in war or not. You can see some early Buddhist writing on non-violence at: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/nonviolence.html

“the refusal of military service”

I’m not sure if there was any compulsory military service in ancient India for Buddhists/Jains to reject.

“Is pacifism, by its nature, a movement which will always exist on the fringes of the established order, forcing that order to answer for its decisions?”

Where is Brock getting all his pacifist examples from? People who refuse to kill in the service of their government may still agree to risk their own lives to help others and be socially active in many other ways.

For example, my grandfather was a Quaker living in Britain at the outbreak of WW2. He worked in the East End of London, in the thick of the bombing, helping rescue people from the bombed buildings. Later in war, he and his wife (also a pacifist) helped to run a war nursery for children who lost their homes in the bombing.

And consider the social actions of non-violent activists of recent years: Martin Luther King; Gandhi; Nelson Mandela; Aung San Suu Kyi; Thich Nhat Hanh… you can probably add many more. None of these could be accused of being socially irresponsible because they refused to kill in support of a cause.

“And is it morally defensible to insist that something is 1) true and 2) incapable of being applied on a national, global scale?”

Well, if pacifism were applied on a global scale, then there’d be no problem, right ? 🙂

I imagine you’re asking, what if one country is entirely pacifist and a non-pacifist country attacks them. This has happened (to some extent) in the case of Tibet. It’s an open question whether armed resistance could have improved the Tibetan situation.

Hey Susan, great post. I think about stuff like this a lot, since my dissertation is about war and religion and personal motivation and the function of Christian government. I think you are spot on when you say that there can be no pacifist government, because those kinds of governments die. Tibet is an excellent example of that — it has lost its sovereignty to an aggressor nation.

I suppose in an extreme sense, pacifists are ‘moral parasites’ since the principles of nonviolent resistance can only be effectively practiced where there is a state protection of their exercise, e.g., the police officer in the comment above. Personally I have never understood pacifism, mostly because it doesn’t work. Like Communism, it is a lovely ideal that isn’t effective in practice, not in the world we inhabit where total depravity is a fact.

As to whether a principle can be true for an individual but not a state — that is a fantastic question and I would not be surprised if there were more than one right answer. It depends on the principle doesn’t it? Everyone applauds Robin Hood, but if it were a state that stole from some to give to others, there would be an outcry, I think.

Thanks for stimulating me to think more about this!

Buddha did NOT suggest that we should abstain from military service or from establishing an army. He said that kings with armies and soldiers in armies should live rightly. Leaders should meet in harmony and leave in harmony. Soldiers are supposed to always think and examine. The only prohibition against military service was for monks. A person was not allowed to be a monk and a soldier; they had to pick one or the other.

I’ve always taken that to mean there is such a thing as a pacifist army, and with the right strategy, it could be just as successful as any other. Most Buddhists, I believe, interpret it to mean that sometimes we have to defend ourselves because we haven’t all attained enlightenment yet, but we should be working towards alternatives very actively at every moment.

I find this subject quite interesting, too. My research shows that early Christians refused to participate in the wars or politics of their day.

In The Early Church and the World, one historian tells us that “up to the reign of Marcus Aurelius at least [161-180 C.E.], no Christian would become a soldier after his baptism.”

In The New World’s Foundations in the Old, another says: “The first Christians thought it was wrong to fight, and would not serve in the army even when the Empire needed soldiers.”

Our World Through the Ages, by N. Platt and M. J. Drummond, says: “The behavior of the Christians was very different from that of the Romans. . . . Since Christ had preached peace, they refused to become soldiers.”

And The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, by Edward Gibbon, states: “[Early Christians] refused to take any active part in the civil administration or the military defence of the empire. . . . It was impossible that the Christians, without renouncing a more sacred duty, could assume the character of soldiers.”

At as late a date as 295 C.E., Maximilianus of Theveste, son of a Roman army veteran, was conscripted for military service. When the proconsul asked him his name, he answered: “Now, why do you want to know my name? I have a conscientious objection to military service: I am a Christian. . . . I can’t serve; I can’t sin against my conscience.” The proconsul warned him that he would lose his life if he did not obey. “I won’t serve. You may behead me, but I won’t serve the powers of This World; I will serve my God.”—An Historian’s Approach to Religion, by Arnold Toynbee.

The Catholic Herald of London stated: “The first Christians . . . took Jesus at His word and refused to be conscripted into the Roman army even if the penalty was death. Would the whole of history have been different if the Church had stuck to its original stand? . . . If the churches of today could come out with a joint condemnation of war . . . , which would mean that every member would be bound in conscience to be, like the Christians, a conscientious objector, peace might indeed be assured. But we know that this will never happen.”

“Origen [who lived in the second and third centuries of the Common Era] . . . remarks that ‘the Christian Church cannot engage in war against any nation. They have learned from their Leader that they are children of peace.’ In that period many Christians were martyred for refusing military service.”—Treasury of the Christian World.

The prominent church historian C. J. Cadoux noted: “The early Christians took Jesus at his word . . . They closely identified their religion with peace; they strongly condemned war for the bloodshed which it involved; they appropriated to themselves the Old Testament prophecy which foretold the transformation of the weapons of war into the implements of agriculture.”—Isaiah 2:4.

“Early Christianity was little understood and was regarded with little favor by those who ruled the pagan world. . . . Christians refused to share certain duties of Roman citizens. . . . They would not hold political office.”—On the Road to Civilization, A World History (Philadelphia, 1937), A. Heckel and J. Sigman, pp. 237, 238.

Notes historian E. G. Hardy in his book Christianity and the Roman Government: “The Christians were strangers and pilgrims in the world around them; their citizenship was in heaven; the kingdom to which they looked was not of this world. The consequent want of interest in public affairs came thus from the outset to be a noticeable feature in Christianity.”

“The Christians stood aloof and distinct from the state, as a priestly and spiritual race, and Christianity seemed able to influence civil life only in that manner which, it must be confessed, is the purest, by practically endeavouring to instil more and more of holy feeling into the citizens of the state.”—The History of the Christian Religion and Church, During the Three First Centuries (New York, 1848), Augustus Neander, translated from German by H. J. Rose, p. 168.

I do not believe that Jesus or the early Christians were pacifists in the true sense of the word: “Opposition to war or to the use of military force for any purpose; especially, an attitude of mind opposing all war, emphasizing the defects of military training and cost of war, and advocating settlement of international disputes entirely by arbitration.”

Rather, I believe the word conscientious objectors describes them more appropriately: “A person who refuses on moral or religious grounds to bear arms in a military conflict or serve in the armed forces.” Jesus and the early Christians made vows of dedication to God and preached God’s Kingdom as the solution to all man’s problems. This vow was superior to Ceasar’s requirements and, therefore, they would not fight in his wars.

Jesus would not hold political office; he refused to be king since his kingdom was no part of this world. His early disciples likewise remained neutral as far as politics and wars of this world.

Pacifists are generally involved in politics, demonstrations that lead to civil disobedience, and are against all war and violence of any kind, yet, the Bible speaks of God’s future war of Armageddon against all nations who oppose the Kingdom of his Son. Psalm 110:4-6 (AS) says: “The Lord at thy right hand will strike through kings in the day of his wrath. He will judge among the nations, he will fill the places with dead bodies; he will strike through the head in many countries.” Read the graphic description of this royal warrior of God, at Revelation 19:11-16. As King of Kings and Lord of Lords Jesus is certainly no pacifist and neither are the heavenly armies that accompany him.

Righteous, theocratic warfare (war at God’s command) of the Hebrew Scriptures and that which will come at Armageddon in the future should be acceptable to Christians. In the meantime, though, Jesus Christ disarmed his disciples in the Garden of Gethsemane when he told Peter to return his sword to its place and has not told his disciples to take up arms since so Christians today should still be busy preaching about God’s Kingdom instead of getting involved in the politics and wars of our day.

Manmade warfare has often involved Catholics killing Catholics and Protestants killing Protestants. Since these individuals claim to have made a dedication to God this should be superior to their duty to their country. Ceasar or governments stand in a relative position to God. God commands that Christians love their brothers so if Catholics kill Catholics and Protestants kill Protestants how are they loving their brothers?

Because conscientious objectors refuse to fight manmade wars does not, in my opinion, make them parasites (persons who receive support, advantage, or the like from another or others without giving any useful or proper return) since they pay taxes and are generally model citizens in all other areas of life just as the early Christians were.

Writing to Roman emperor Antoninus Pius (138-161 C.E.), Justin Martyr claimed that Christians, “more readily than all men,” paid their taxes. (First Apology, chapter 17) In 197 C.E., Tertullian told the Roman rulers that their tax collectors had “a debt of gratitude to Christians” for the conscientious way in which they paid their taxes. (Apology, chapter 42)

In his book The Rise of Christianity, E. W. Barnes relates: “In its early authoritative documents the Christian movement is represented as essentially moral and law-abiding. Its members desired to be good citizens and loyal subjects. They shunned the failings and vices of paganism. In private life they sought to be peaceful neighbours and trustworthy friends. They were taught to be sober, industrious and clean-living. Amid prevailing corruption and licentiousness they were, if loyal to their principles, honest and truthful. Their sexual standards were high: the marriage tie was respected and family life was pure. With such virtues they could not, one would have thought, have been troublesome citizens. Yet they were for long despised, maligned and hated.”

It might be interesting for everyone to know that from the fourth century, Christians were obliged BY THE CHURCH to serve in the army as part of obedience to Romans 13. After the Edict of Milan in 313 decriminalised the Christian faith, the pendulum swung to the other extreme with the Church proposing at the Council of Arles in 314 to excommunicate Christians who refused to perform military service.

That was a neck-snapper for me the first time I found out, because I had only ever heard that ‘the early Christians’ were against military service. Yep, true, but fourth century is pretty early, I think. It’s not like it changed only in the eleventh century with the Crusades or something.

The Christian doctrine of the depravity of man is the reason pacifism will never be effective on a wide scale. A group of people who are pledged to nonviolence present an ideal target to those who have malicious intentions. In the real (fallen) world, evil must be resisted by force. Only when evil is completely done away with will it be practical (or for that matter moral) to beat our swords into plowshares. Even so come quickly Lord Jesus.

Regarding you question “Or is pacifism, by its nature, a movement which will always exist on the fringes of the established order . . . ” John Stackhouse, Jr., whose work I believe you appreciate, has recently argued for just this position in “Making the Best of it: Following Christ in the Real World,.” The gist of his position is that he’s glad that there are people like Yoder and Hauerwas, but he also thinks it’s necessary that there be realists like himself. He lays his position out in some detail in the final chapters of the book. I thought you might be interested.