Church History & War and Peace [Archive]

Amazing Rando

January 12th 2005, 01:38 PM

All indications are that the early church interpreted the gospel of Jesus Christ as being the way of peace. The testimony of the extant documents from this period are fairly unequivocal of their disavowal of violence for Christian believers.

For example, one such document from the church is the Apostolic Tradition of Hyppolytus, written during the mid second-century. In part II, section 16, it notes:

Inquiry shall likewise be made about the professions and trades of those who are brought to be admitted to the faith. If a man is a panderer, he must desist or be rejected. If a man is a sculptor or painter, he must be charged not to make idols; if he does not desist he must be rejected. If a man is an actor or pantomimist, he must desist or be rejected. A teacher of young children had best desist, but if he has no other occupation, he may be permitted to continue. A charioteer, likewise, who races or frequents races, must desist or be rejected. A gladiator or a trainer of gladiators, or a huntsman [in the wild beast shows], or anyone connected with these shows, or a public official in charge of gladiatorial exhibitions must desist or be rejected. A heathen priest or anyone who tends idols must desist or be rejected. A soldier of the civil authority must be taught not to kill men and to refuse to do so if he is commanded, and to refuse to take an oath; if he is unwilling to comply, he must be rejected. A military commander or civic magistrate that wears the purple must resign or be rejected. If a catechumen or a believer seeks to become a soldier they must be rejected, for they have despised God.

From here (http://www29.homepage.villanova.edu/christopher.haas/Hippolytus.html)
In Hyppolytus' church tradition (which he elsewhere claims to have recieved from the earlier church leaders), killing is specifically repudiated, as is the taking of oaths, and is considered basis for denial of entrance into the life and communion of the church.

Similar statements abound throughout the works of other second and third-century writers, such as Justin Martyr and Tertullian, but I think this one is enough to spark a little discussion for right now. As far as I'm aware, the extant witnesses of early church believed that killing others was incompatible with the gospel of Christ and was inimical to the healing work the church is called by God to do for the restoration of the world.

spiritmech

January 12th 2005, 01:56 PM

Interesting stuff. I think the church recognizes that coercive tactics (including killing) are not valid to gain converts. It will take a while for that to filter down to killing in general.

SM

One Bad Pig

January 13th 2005, 12:46 AM

:hrm: I can't put my finger on any Biblical passage that condemns killing in toto, or one that commands those in high positions to step down if they are converted. Murder is condemned, and conversion requires a free choice (so death or the threat thereof is obviously not right), but nowhere do I see killing outlawed. It also seems that this opinion was not universal. The Orthodox Church, which claims to be doctrinally equivalent to (and the direct descendant of) the early church, is certainly not pacifist in outlook today. While the Byzantines did not condone the Crusades, they did defend their land. I also don't see any mention in the Bible of any soldiers who converted and then quit.

CatholicSage

January 13th 2005, 12:56 AM

Don't you think, Rando, that such utter pacifism (to the extent that soldiers and policemen may not join the church) is rather extreme?

Amazing Rando

January 13th 2005, 04:34 PM

Don't you think, Rando, that such utter pacifism (to the extent that soldiers and policemen may not join the church) is rather extreme?

:smile: It's a rather shocking thought, isn't it? Yet this was apparently what was practiced in the early church of the 2nd century. Things were a lot different then than now, of course. For another example of just how extreme it was, did you know that the members of the early church were baptized in the nude and then clothed with a white robe upon emerging from the waters? :wink:

Anyhow, my main point in starting this thread was to demonstrate a few of the witnesses that show that the earliest Christians were pacifist. They interpreted the commandments and lifestyle example of Jesus to mean, as Hyppolytus says, that even soldiers must be taught not to kill another person and to refuse orders to do so if given.

Amazing Rando

January 13th 2005, 04:39 PM

:hrm: I can't put my finger on any Biblical passage that condemns killing in toto, or one that commands those in high positions to step down if they are converted.

:smile: You're correct- we could discuss that one if you'd like. :wink:

Murder is condemned, and conversion requires a free choice (so death or the threat thereof is obviously not right), but nowhere do I see killing outlawed. It also seems that this opinion was not universal.

Among the extant 2nd and 3rd century writings of the early church, it was. I can get quotes from Justin Martyr and Tertullian in particular if you'd like.

The Orthodox Church, which claims to be doctrinally equivalent to (and the direct descendant of) the early church, is certainly not pacifist in outlook today.

This is true, but from what I've observed from the behaviors and attitudes of the early church toward killing, it seems to me that the Orthodox Church has abandoned their heritage somewhat in this regard. I think they more follow the line of Aquinas' and Augustine's "just war" theories these days rather than the pacifism of the early church.

While the Byzantines did not condone the Crusades, they did defend their land. I also don't see any mention in the Bible of any soldiers who converted and then quit.

Ah, but notice what Hyppolytus said- he didn't order them to quit the army, he ordered them "not to kill men" and to refuse to do so if ordered.

Amazing Rando

January 13th 2005, 05:34 PM

Justin Martyr (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-48.htm#P4978_1107337), writing his Dialogue with Trypho 110.3.4, wrote:

"...[a]nd we who were filled with war, and mutual slaughter, and every wickedness, have each through the whole earth changed our warlike weapons,-our swords into ploughshares, and our spears into implements of tillage,-and we cultivate piety, righteousness, philanthropy, faith, and hope, which we have from the Father Himself through Him who was crucified;"

obviously borrowing the image of Isaiah 2 and Micah 4 and testifying to the dedication to peace as an essential part of the gospel for the early church. This was about AD 160 or so.

A few years later,Tertullian (http://www.ccel.org/fathers/ANF-03/tertullian/part1/de_corona.html) , in chapter 11 of his treatise De Corona "On the Chaplet" wrote some even more explicit formulations of the church's convictions against violence.

"To begin with the real ground of the military crown, I think we must first inquire whether warfare is proper at all for Christians...

Shall it be held lawful to make an occupation of the sword, when the Lord proclaims that he who uses the sword shall perish by the sword? (Matthew 26:52)..."

It's pretty easy to guess what Tertullian's answers to these questions are. :wink:

I was quite surprised myself when I read about the near-unanimity of the early (i.e. pre-Constantinian) church's committment to peace and justice as an essential element of the gospel and God's plan to use us as agents of his restorative and redemptive mission in this world. They who were the first inheritors of the apostolic faith believed that Christians should not be engaged in killing other people. I think that in many ways, this is one area we should really follow their example.

Rusty T

January 13th 2005, 06:03 PM

The Orthodox Church still has strict teachings about violence. From Fr. Thomas Hopko:

But still, if a man will be perfect and give his life totally to Christ, he will of necessity renounce military service as well as any political service which always and of necessity is involved with relativistic values and greater and lesser evils and goods. Such a man will also renounce his possessions and follow Christ totally and in everything.

Thus total pacifism is not only possible, it is the sign of greatest perfection, the perfection of the Kingdom of God. According to the Orthodox understanding, however, pacifism can never be a social or political philosophy for this world; although once again, a non-violent means to an end is always to be preferred in every case to a violent means.

When violence must be used as a lesser evil to prevent greater evils, it can never be blessed as such, it must always be repented of, and it must never be identified with perfect Christian morality.

rusty

Dracula Girl

January 13th 2005, 06:30 PM

One Bad Pig

January 13th 2005, 09:14 PM

Gideon Brown

January 13th 2005, 09:27 PM

But still, if a man will be perfect and give his life totally to Christ, he will of necessity renounce military service as well as any political service which always and of necessity is involved with relativistic values and greater and lesser evils and goods. Such a man will also renounce his possessions and follow Christ totally and in everything.

Hrm. :hrm: Not only military service, but also political service, is always and of necessity involved with relativistic values? A perfect man will renounce his possessions? I have a hard time buying this. Is the EO church's position then that one should not become involved in politics? Politicians are potentially in a position to do a lot of good in the world. What exactly does it mean to 'follow Christ totally and in everything' and why can't a person involved in politics do it?

This sounds to me more like running and hiding from responsibility and pretending that in doing so, one is being 'pious' (like, for example, many monks in medieval times).

Edit to add: :thumb: to what :obp: said.

Rusty T

January 14th 2005, 01:41 AM

Well, honestly, Orthodoxy doesn't exactly agree with the concept: "it's impossible to be perfect." Oh, I'm sure there are nuances I haven't delved into, but be sure, we take "Be ye perfect" very seriously.

I think that if confronted with a situation where it is impossible to avoid choosing between evils, that you do the lesser. But repent. Repentance is a recognition that what you did was still evil - in the sense that it is contrary to the Law of God. Repentance is acknowledgment that at least there is a better way that we should be seeking.

rusty

Amazing Rando

January 17th 2005, 02:26 PM

Amazing Rando

January 17th 2005, 02:32 PM

Well, honestly, Orthodoxy doesn't exactly agree with the concept: "it's impossible to be perfect." Oh, I'm sure there are nuances I haven't delved into, but be sure, we take "Be ye perfect" very seriously.

I agree implicitly- perfection is what we're called for, even though we can't attain it of our own efforts.

:smile:

So when did the church lose sight of its gospel roots in this regard? I think that it's striking the way prior to Constantine, the church responded to the persecutions they faced with grace, and almost never with violent retribution. The concept of a "just war" doesn't even begin to show up in the writings of the church until Augustine in the 4th century.

spiritmech

January 17th 2005, 02:54 PM

The church gained power. And for 99% of the world (including Christians) morality isn't what one ought to do, but what one *can* do, what one is able to do. The church had the same number of sinners in the church before Augustine, but they didn't have the money, resources, or political clout to do anything really nasty.

Also I think a certain kind of amillenialism came to the forefront in which the church viewed itself as an agent of Christ's heavenly kingdom, and didn't see much of a problem with battling for God in a material/earthly sense.

SM

Tercel

January 17th 2005, 04:11 PM

I have heard that about half of the Fathers advocated complete pacificism and the other half advocated just-war theories, but with regard to who exactly advocated what and when I'm afraid I can't really help.

Interestingly I have heard that out of those advocating just-war positions many of them thought that once you had decided on the correct course of action you should carry it through and not feel overly remorseful about it, whereas Augustine seems to have been unusual in his line of thinking akin to that of Rusty's quote - that when you perform a relative good you should feel bad about it.

Amazing Rando

January 17th 2005, 06:26 PM

I have heard that about half of the Fathers advocated complete pacificism and the other half advocated just-war theories, but with regard to who exactly advocated what and when I'm afraid I can't really help.

That would be interesting to see- I have yet to come across any pre-Constantinian quotes from early church literature that affirm the participation of Christians in violent endeavors. I think it's remarkable the way the church today has lost sight of that distinctive vision of peace as an integral part of the gospel message.

Interestingly I have heard that out of those advocating just-war positions many of them thought that once you had decided on the correct course of action you should carry it through and not feel overly remorseful about it, whereas Augustine seems to have been unusual in his line of thinking akin to that of Rusty's quote - that when you perform a relative good you should feel bad about it.

I've heard that too- Augustine had a very "introspective conscience," to quote the title of a famous article by Krister Stendahl. If his Confessions are any indication, he seems to have felt bad about almost everything he did!

scholasticus

January 18th 2005, 06:17 AM

For me the interesting thing is, assuming everyone agrees that ideally soldiers wouldn't be killing people, what *would* we have them do the whole time?

Peace

Keir

Amazing Rando

January 18th 2005, 09:26 AM

For me the interesting thing is, assuming everyone agrees that ideally soldiers wouldn't be killing people, what *would* we have them do the whole time?

Peace

Keir

Well, considering that fighting is pretty much in a soldier's job description, that's a question I've been wondering myself. If they were to avoid killing, what duties would be acceptable? Perhaps being builders instead of destroyers? Healers instead of... yeah.

Good question. Perhaps the idea going through their minds was the biblical injunction to submit to authority unless it conflicts with the commandments of God? That perspective would seem to shed some light on the comments from the Apostolic Tradition I put in my OP. Yet other ECF's made the case against military service at all for the Christian. I'm still exploring this issue.

Here's another really cool pre-Constantinian church leader- Ambrose, bishop of Milan in the 3rd century, I believe. This is from On the Duties of Clergy 3.4.27, and can be found here (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-10/Npnf2-10-10.htm#P1766_397198) .

27. Some ask whether a wise man ought in case of a shipwreck to take away a plank from an ignorant sailor? Although it seems better for the common good that a wise man rather than a fool should escape from shipwreck, yet I do not think that a Christian, a just and a wise man, ought to save his own life by the death of another; just as when he meets with an armed robber he cannot return his blows, lest in defending his life he should stain his love toward his neighbour. The verdict on this is plain and clear in the books of the Gospel. "Put up thy sword, for every one that taketh the sword shall perish with the sword. "What robber is more hateful than the persecutor who came to kill Christ? But Christ would not be defended from the wounds of the persecutor, for He willed to heal all by His wounds.

It's pretty interesting how different modern Christians are from the attitudes of the early church- not just in war and peace, but in a variety of things as well.

Gideon Brown

January 18th 2005, 12:02 PM

Well, considering that fighting is pretty much in a soldier's job description, that's a question I've been wondering myself. If they were to avoid killing, what duties would be acceptable? Perhaps being builders instead of destroyers? Healers instead of... yeah.

I had to comment on this. In fact, soldiers (in the modern world, anyway - this may have been different in ancient times) do a lot more than just 'fight'. Rando says 'builders' and 'healers' - these two things have been done and are currently being done around the globe by modern soldiers. Here (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1845&ncid=1845&e=1&u=/cpress/20050117/ca_pr_on_na/tsunami_martin_cda_dart), for example, is a story about the Canadian army's medical work right now in Sri Lanka. Military units are often called to respond to things like natural disasters, and this has occurred in Canada several times over the last couple of years.

Also, though, I agreed with the posts above that talked about repenting of having done wrong, even if that wrong had been somewho necessary.

Amazing Rando

January 18th 2005, 02:28 PM

I had to comment on this. In fact, soldiers (in the modern world, anyway - this may have been different in ancient times) do a lot more than just 'fight'. Rando says 'builders' and 'healers' - these two things have been done and are currently being done around the globe by modern soldiers. Here (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1845&ncid=1845&e=1&u=/cpress/20050117/ca_pr_on_na/tsunami_martin_cda_dart), for example, is a story about the Canadian army's medical work right now in Sri Lanka. Military units are often called to respond to things like natural disasters, and this has occurred in Canada several times over the last couple of years.

Also, though, I agreed with the posts above that talked about repenting of having done wrong, even if that wrong had been somewho necessary.

Sure- Bush did a very good thing by diverting some of our nation's great wealth and resources away from the fighting in Iraq and putting American soldiers on the ground in Asia to bring healing and relief to the suffering. :yes: I've even read about how several American aircraft carriers in the region are using the nuclear reactors that power them to produce hundreds of thousands of gallons of fresh water per day for drinking water in the regions where the water supply has been contaminated. That's awesome! That's what we need to be seeing more of!

Using the implements of death, war, and destruction to bring healing and hope to the world? That's a very biblical vision there, Tuck!

Isaiah looked forward to a day when, just such a thing would occur:

3 Many peoples will come and say,

"Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD ,

to the house of the God of Jacob.

He will teach us his ways,

so that we may walk in his paths."

The law will go out from Zion,

the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.

4 He will judge between the nations

and will settle disputes for many peoples.

They will beat their swords into plowshares

and their spears into pruning hooks.

Nation will not take up sword against nation,

nor will they train for war anymore.

5 Come, O house of Jacob,

let us walk in the light of the LORD.

The nations will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. They'll take their implements of war and turn them into implements of peace, healing, and restoration. I'd like to see more of that, and judging by the statements on war and peace from the early church that I've read so far, I think that they would too.

Dcn_Athanasius

March 29th 2005, 03:50 AM

I have heard that about half of the Fathers advocated complete pacificism and the other half advocated just-war theories, but with regard to who exactly advocated what and when I'm afraid I can't really help.

Peace and grace be with your spirit.

This topic is very deep and some good information has already been quoted (Fr Thomas Hopko for example). I recall that St Basil put active soldiers out of Communion for three years I think requiring from them confession and repentence.

My understanding is that the pacifist position has always been allowed and encouraged within Holy Orthodoxy. However, that position was for individual Christians and not the State. The State was seen to wield the sword as God's minister. Especially after St Constantine. Thus the State could raise armies, Police forces, defend itself against attack and go on the offensive (in so called 'just war' scenarios).

Rdr. Arsenios

May 13th 2005, 11:37 PM

Peace and grace be with your spirit.

This topic is very deep and some good information has already been quoted (Fr Thomas Hopko for example). I recall that St Basil put active soldiers out of Communion for three years I think requiring from them confession and repentence.

My understanding is that the pacifist position has always been allowed and encouraged within Holy Orthodoxy. However, that position was for individual Christians and not the State. The State was seen to wield the sword as God's minister. Especially after St Constantine. Thus the State could raise armies, Police forces, defend itself against attack and go on the offensive (in so called 'just war' scenarios).

Dcn Athanasius -

Christ is Risen!

Even now, if an Orthodox soldier goes to war and is involved in killing human beings, he is regularly kept out of communion for three years of repentance and confession - And that is understood not as a punishment, but as recovery from the soul-damage that such actions incur, regardless of the justness of the 'cause'... I would expect that if an Orthodox were to, say, kill an intruder in his home who was trying to kill his family [as an example], then he would as well be pulled from communion for some time, until his priest had worked with him and he had gotten over the trauma... Taking a life is VERY soul wounding, however "just" it might appear from the worldly perspective.

You are sure right that this is a very deep well we are sipping from here - The very term "peace", as it is used in the Bible, is, I think, one of the words that denotes the condition of a soul in oneness with God [theosis], is it not? And not always does it mean this, but often, in the NT, yes?

And this is a state of being of a soul that is very much 'perfected' in Christ, and this means utterly turned from the world, and unto God alone...

Arsenios

Amazing Rando

May 19th 2005, 01:04 PM

You are sure right that this is a very deep well we are sipping from here - The very term "peace", as it is used in the Bible, is, I think, one of the words that denotes the condition of a soul in oneness with God [theosis], is it not? And not always does it mean this, but often, in the NT, yes?

:yes: It's a state of mind and spirit that ties in very well with shalom from the OT.

The thing that strikes me as remarkable is how so many current Western churches have been caught up in this "just war" nonsense that was completely absent from Christian teaching in the days prior to Constantine's conversion.

spiritmech

May 19th 2005, 03:08 PM

:yes: It's a state of mind and spirit that ties in very well with shalom from the OT.

The thing that strikes me as remarkable is how so many current Western churches have been caught up in this "just war" nonsense that was completely absent from Christian teaching in the days prior to Constantine's conversion.

I think there's room for a possibility for Just War Theory.

But I don't believe in Just Torture Theory (from the right). Or Just Bribe Theory (from the left).

It is interesting to note that those who are attempting to use Constantine's argument of Just War Theory are those who are the furthest away from him, denominationally.

sm

Amazing Rando

May 19th 2005, 03:16 PM

I think there's room for a possibility for Just War Theory.

Have you read the quotes from the ECFs I've posted in this thread? :eh:

But I don't believe in Just Torture Theory (from the right). Or Just Bribe Theory (from the left).

It is interesting to note that those who are attempting to use Constantine's argument of Just War Theory are those who are the furthest away from him, denominationally.

sm

Well in Constantine's day, there were no denominations. :wink: But Constantine was baptized by an Arian bishop (Eusebius of Nicomedia) and demonstrated a proclivity toward Arianism after the events of Nicea, so I'm not even sure he could be counted among the orthodox faithful. :nsm:

Mujibur

May 19th 2005, 03:46 PM

Rando, do you think that the position of the ECFs on pacificism and soldiers agreeing not to kill people in order to be permitted into the church had anything to do with the types of activities that the army was involved in at the time? What I mean is, were these soldiers likely in a position where they were being asked to conquer other groups and expand their empire's power, or were they primarily responsible for keeping the peace?

If it were the former (like soldiers in the Roman army would have been), then I can see no way to reconcile that with Christ's teachings on loving your enemies and being peaceful. From the writings you studied, do you have an idea of what type of fighting the typical soldier at this time woudl have been involved in? That seems like it might be an important contextual point to examine the writings through.

Kind of like distinguishing between a conquering force and a peacekeeping force. The former I see as very much counter to Christ's teaching and therefore no Christian should willfully participate, while the latter I see as a very important force in the world. By peacekeeping force, I am thinking of UN peacekeeping teams stepping in between two fighting sides - like we should have done in Rwanda. That position seems more compatible with Christian beliefs.

What about the passage of Cornelius in Acts 10 where he is converted but there is no condition mentioned that he renounce his career or vow to never kill anybody?

Another thing, why does the passage in your OP speak against those who teach small children?

Amazing Rando

May 19th 2005, 04:10 PM

Rando, do you think that the position of the ECFs on pacificism and soldiers agreeing not to kill people in order to be permitted into the church had anything to do with the types of activities that the army was involved in at the time?

Absolutely! That would be the only reason to forbid Christians from engaging in certain professions.

What I mean is, were these soldiers likely in a position where they were being asked to conquer other groups and expand their empire's power, or were they primarily responsible for keeping the peace?

Likely both, I'd believe. Though there were different classes of soldiers whose duties included different things. Like the Praetorian guard was solely responsible for defending the Emperor and his household. There was also a special class of soldiers who, I believe, only performed police duties. Then of course, there were the famed legions, whose duties included conquering and subduing the "barbarians." :wink:

If it were the former (like soldiers in the Roman army would have been), then I can see no way to reconcile that with Christ's teachings on loving your enemies and being peaceful. From the writings you studied, do you have an idea of what type of fighting the typical soldier at this time woudl have been involved in? That seems like it might be an important contextual point to examine the writings through.

There were different classifications of soldiers with different duties, certainly. However it's pretty clear that it wasn't just the mandatory idolatry the soldiers were forced to participate in that the early church leaders objected to, but it was the killing and destroying of human life as well. I've got a remarkable book on this subject with literally thousands of citations from the first 400 years of church history- It is Not Lawful for Me to Fight (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0836119118/qid=1116532886/sr=1-6/ref=sr_1_6/002-3142799-1867219?v=glance&s=books) by Jean-Michel Hornus that deals with this topic in the most systematic way I've ever seen.

Kind of like distinguishing between a conquering force and a peacekeeping force. The former I see as very much counter to Christ's teaching and therefore no Christian should willfully participate, while the latter I see as a very important force in the world. By peacekeeping force, I am thinking of UN peacekeeping teams stepping in between two fighting sides - like we should have done in Rwanda. That position seems more compatible with Christian beliefs.

That's certainly a reasonable position. :yes: I'd disagree, but I know where you're coming from. That's the position Hornus takes in the book I just linked to. I just don't think that violence can bring about true, lasting peace. But speaking of peacekeepers, I believe that Christian Peacemaker Teams (http://www.cpt.org/) present a much more biblically sound way of working for peace than relying on military might. Actively working for reconciliation and healing in the world is as important a part of being a Christian peacemaker as is abstention from violence.

What about the passage of Cornelius in Acts 10 where he is converted but there is no condition mentioned that he renounce his career or vow to never kill anybody?

No, nothing explicitly to that effect... but I believe that that's probably something that Cornelius did later anyway because of the very nature and implicit character of the gospel (including love for enemies)- especially considering he heard his message from Peter, who had only recently heard Jesus say to him, "Put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword" (Matt 26:52). I'd be willing to bet that his life was never the same after that awesome day when God opened his salvation to the Gentiles. There's no telling what life changes that his conversion brought about. :smile:

Besides there were a lot of important things about the gospel that Peter's speech seems to have left out- or that just weren't recorded by Luke. I doubt Cornelius got an entire Christian catechism on that single, fateful day he received the Holy Spirit. :wink:

Another thing, why does the passage in your OP speak against those who teach small children?

It says, "A teacher of young children had best desist, but if he has no other occupation, he may be permitted to continue."

My guess is because of the types of things they would have been required to teach. A professional tutor in the 2nd century in Rome (when this document was written) would most likely have been required to teach the children about Jupiter and Mars, and all the rest of the Roman pantheon- not to mention about the divinity of the emperor. That's my guess anyhow. Do the other prohibitions make sense to you? Like the wearing of purple? :hehe:

spiritmech

May 19th 2005, 04:36 PM

But Constantine was baptized by an Arian bishop (Eusebius of Nicomedia) and demonstrated a proclivity toward Arianism after the events of Nicea, so I'm not even sure he could be counted among the orthodox faithful. :nsm:

Hmmm. I didn't know that. You might want to warn the Lutherans, since Martin was an Augustinian monk. Do you have a link on this?
sm

Darth Executor

May 19th 2005, 04:47 PM

I was under the impression that Christians weren't even allowed to join the army before Constantine. And to the church fathers quote scripture? It seems to me that it's just their opinion and while their opinion would carry considerable weight, it's not law.

Mujibur

May 19th 2005, 05:06 PM

That's certainly a reasonable position. :yes: I'd disagree, but I know where you're coming from. That's the position Hornus takes in the book I just linked to. I just don't think that violence can bring about true, lasting peace. But speaking of peacekeepers, I believe that Christian Peacemaker Teams (http://www.cpt.org/) present a much more biblically sound way of working for peace than relying on military might. Actively working for reconciliation and healing in the world is as important a part of being a Christian peacemaker as is abstention from violence.

I definitely agree with you about CPT being the more biblically sound way of working for peace. As I mentioned in your other thread, I know the directors personally. In my opinion, violence should always be the last resort and no, violence cannot bring about true lasting peace. As Jesus said, "those who live by the sword, die by the sword."

We should always do everything we can to avoid the use of violence. That is why I am in the field of international development - to combat global poverty and injustice through peaceful means since they are often key contributing factors to the start of violence. However, I
am also seeing many situations in the world where groups are killing each other and there is a need for an outside group to step in between them with force to stop the killings and force the two sides to come to a peaceful solution. Rwanda and Darfur would be reasonable examples, but I would not consider Iraq to be. That would fall into the category of not pursuing peaceful resolutions enough before resorting to war, IMO.

It says, "A teacher of young children had best desist, but if he has no other occupation, he may be permitted to continue."

My guess is because of the types of things they would have been required to teach. A professional tutor in the 2nd century in Rome (when this document was written) would most likely have been required to teach the children about Jupiter and Mars, and all the rest of the Roman pantheon- not to mention about the divinity of the emperor. That's my guess anyhow. Do the other prohibitions make sense to you? Like the wearing of purple? :hehe:

Your guess sounds reasonable - like Christian teachers today having to teach that other religions are true as well, or teaching that the homosexual lifestyle is perfectly fine, while that goes counter to the beliefs they are adopting when they become Christian. It just seems strange since children need to be taught. Why not just instruct them more on what they should or shouldn't teach them.

Blue is a far better colour to wear, anyway. Few people can pull off wearing purple well, so yes that makes sense.

Sparrow

May 20th 2005, 02:52 AM

As far as I'm aware, the extant witnesses of early church believed that killing others was incompatible with the gospel of Christ and was inimical to the healing work the church is called by God to do for the restoration of the world.
I have heard this before, but it's an interesting topic. It is a bit surprising that, considering the position of the early church, so few Christians today condemn all killing. I believe there are only a few Protestant denominations that teach pacifism: Mennonites, Quakers, and Brethren. Also, none of these denominations is very large--the Mennonites, for example, have about 1 million members worldwide.

I can't put my finger on any Biblical passage that condemns killing in toto, or one that commands those in high positions to step down if they are converted. Murder is condemned, and conversion requires a free choice (so death or the threat thereof is obviously not right), but nowhere do I see killing outlawed.
From what I have read, Christians who espouse total pacifism derive the principle from the life and teachings of Jesus in general, not from any specific proof text, although they might point to passages like the Sermon on the Mount (love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you) or Jesus' command to Peter to put away his sword. Essentially, loving your enemy and killing him are seen as being incompatible.

Is anyone familiar with the reasoning behind the Just War theory? I have heard that the arguments were based on the assumption that the church (which, at the time, was closely involved with the state) would be guiding the decision, and thus the theory would not apply in a society where the church and state are independent.

spiritmech

May 20th 2005, 08:33 AM

Amazing Rando

May 20th 2005, 12:08 PM

Hmmm. I didn't know that. You might want to warn the Lutherans, since Martin was an Augustinian monk. Do you have a link on this?
sm

:smug:

Glad we've gotten that little misunderstanding out of the way. :wink:

Amazing Rando

May 20th 2005, 12:32 PM

I was under the impression that Christians weren't even allowed to join the army before Constantine.

That would be correct. I believe the injunction warning soldiers not to kill was directed toward those soldiers who had converted to Christianity while currently serving in the army- like Cornelius in Acts 10.

And to the church fathers quote scripture? It seems to me that it's just their opinion and while their opinion would carry considerable weight, it's not law.

That's an understandable objection Darth, and a question many protestants have about the church fathers. :yes: But we've got to keep in mind who these guys were- they were the pastors and bishops of the early church, only 200 years (or less!) removed from Jesus and his apostles. Even though the Bible as we know it had not been officially compiled yet, the writings of these church fathers are absolutely saturated with scripture. They knew the gospels and the epistles in an amazingly intimate way many of us today can only dream of, and their views and teachings were thoroughly informed by the writings of the apostles and the words of Christ.

Many times, they did frequently quote or allude to the scriptures explicitly to buttress their views. Take, for example, this quote from Tertullian, writing near the end of the AD 2nd century. Tertullian was the guy who actually first coined the word "Trinity" to describe the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as well as being the first to describe the dual natures of Christ in the same way we understand them today. He had this to say regarding violence and particularly, military service (Note especially the reference toward the end about Christ "taking away the sword" from the Christian and how in disarming Peter, he "unbelted every soldier."):

CHAP. XIX.--CONCERNING MILITARY SERVICE

In that last section, decision may seem to have been given likewise concerning military service, which is between dignity and power. But now inquiry is made about this point, whether a believer may turn himself unto military service, and whether the military may be admitted unto the faith, even the rank and file, or each inferior grade, to whom there is no necessity for taking part in sacrifices or capital punishments. There is no agreement between the divine and the human sacrament, the standard of Christ and the standard of the devil, the camp of light and the camp of darkness. One soul cannot be due to two masters--God and Caesar. And yet Moses carried a rod, and Aaron wore a buckle, and John (Baptist) is girt with leather and Joshua the son of Nun leads a line of march; and the People warred: if it pleases you to sport with the subject. But how will a Christian man war, nay, how will he serve even in peace, without a sword, which the Lord has taken away? For albeit soldiers had come unto John, and had received the formula of their rule; albeit, likewise, a centurion had believed; still the Lord afterward, in disarming Peter, unbelted every soldier. No dress is lawful among us, if assigned to any unlawful action.

From "On Idolatry," Chapter 19.

That last bit, in case you couldn't tell, is an explicit reference to Jesus' words and example in the Garden of Gethsemane (see especially Matt 26:52).

If you're interested in reading more from Tertullian and the other church fathers, you can see their stuff at Early Christian Writings (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com) or CCEL (http://www.ccel.org). Take care and God bless! :smile:

spiritmech

May 20th 2005, 12:36 PM

:smug:

Glad we've gotten that little misunderstanding out of the way. :wink:

No duh. I have to ask for forgiveness ... my heart was darker than dark this morning, for no reason whatsoever.
sm

Amazing Rando

May 20th 2005, 12:47 PM

I definitely agree with you about CPT being the more biblically sound way of working for peace. As I mentioned in your other thread, I know the directors personally. In my opinion, violence should always be the last resort and no, violence cannot bring about true lasting peace. As Jesus said, "those who live by the sword, die by the sword."

We should always do everything we can to avoid the use of violence. That is why I am in the field of international development - to combat global poverty and injustice through peaceful means since they are often key contributing factors to the start of violence.

Way cool! That's got to be one of the most exciting fields imaginable! You're in the position to do a lot of good, my friend. :yes:

However, I
am also seeing many situations in the world where groups are killing each other and there is a need for an outside group to step in between them with force to stop the killings and force the two sides to come to a peaceful solution. Rwanda and Darfur would be reasonable examples, but I would not consider Iraq to be. That would fall into the category of not pursuing peaceful resolutions enough before resorting to war, IMO.

I can totally respect that position, Muj. :yes: That's where you and I would likely part company, but you've got my utmost respect there. :smile:

Your guess sounds reasonable - like Christian teachers today having to teach that other religions are true as well, or teaching that the homosexual lifestyle is perfectly fine, while that goes counter to the beliefs they are adopting when they become Christian. It just seems strange since children need to be taught. Why not just instruct them more on what they should or shouldn't teach them.

I wish I knew the answer to that one! Hippolytus was quite explicit about saying what Christian soldiers could not do (i.e. kill people), but he didn't really say what it was about the teaching that made it so objectionable. It would make an interesting research project! Perhaps there's a scholarly commentary out there somewhere on the church fathers that helped explain some of the things that seem obscure to us like that.

Blue is a far better colour to wear, anyway. Few people can pull off wearing purple well, so yes that makes sense.

:rofl: Don't tell that to my wife! She loves purple! She was reading the Purpose Driven Life a few months back and I joked that she ought to write "The Purple Driven Life."

Amazing Rando

May 20th 2005, 12:56 PM

I have heard this before, but it's an interesting topic. It is a bit surprising that, considering the position of the early church, so few Christians today condemn all killing. I believe there are only a few Protestant denominations that teach pacifism: Mennonites, Quakers, and Brethren. Also, none of these denominations is very large--the Mennonites, for example, have about 1 million members worldwide.

That's right- I'm actually studying to be a pastor at a Mennonite seminary right now, hence my passion for peace and justice issues. :wink: I've only been a Mennonite for about 3 months now- before that, I was United Methodist.

There are, however, a significant number of pacifists that come from traditions other than the historical peace churches. Stanley Hauerwas (Methodist), Ron Sider, and Tony Campolo (Baptist) to name a few contemporary ones. There is also a significant Roman Catholic contingent of pacifists.

From what I have read, Christians who espouse total pacifism derive the principle from the life and teachings of Jesus in general, not from any specific proof text, although they might point to passages like the Sermon on the Mount (love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you) or Jesus' command to Peter to put away his sword. Essentially, loving your enemy and killing him are seen as being incompatible.

That's a good, succinct summation of my views! But I'd add Romans 12-13 and 1 Peter 2-3 to the mix to demonstrate it's not just Jesus. :b_woot:

Is anyone familiar with the reasoning behind the Just War theory? I have heard that the arguments were based on the assumption that the church (which, at the time, was closely involved with the state) would be guiding the decision, and thus the theory would not apply in a society where the church and state are independent.

That's quite possible- and something I had never really considered before. In formulating his theory, Augustine very well may have been operating under the assumption of such close ties between church and state (a structure we Anabaptists derisively refer to as the "Constantinian synthesis" or "Christendom").

Darth Executor

May 20th 2005, 01:06 PM

That would be correct. I believe the injunction warning soldiers not to kill was directed toward those soldiers who had converted to Christianity while currently serving in the army- like Cornelius in Acts 10.

That makes sense. Although I'm not familiar with the setting of the time enough to judge whether the killing the Romans did was justified or not.

That's an understandable objection Darth, and a question many protestants have about the church fathers. :yes: But we've got to keep in mind who these guys were- they were the pastors and bishops of the early church, only 200 years (or less!) removed from Jesus and his apostles. Even though the Bible as we know it had not been officially compiled yet, the writings of these church fathers are absolutely saturated with scripture. They knew the gospels and the epistles in an amazingly intimate way many of us today can only dream of, and their views and teachings were thoroughly informed by the writings of the apostles and the words of Christ.

Many times, they did frequently quote or allude to the scriptures explicitly to buttress their views. Take, for example, this quote from Tertullian, writing near the end of the AD 2nd century. Tertullian was the guy who actually first coined the word "Trinity" to describe the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as well as being the first to describe the dual natures of Christ in the same way we understand them today. He had this to say regarding violence and particularly, military service (Note especially the reference toward the end about Christ "taking away the sword" from the Christian and how in disarming Peter, he "unbelted every soldier."):

CHAP. XIX.--CONCERNING MILITARY SERVICE

In that last section, decision may seem to have been given likewise concerning military service, which is between dignity and power. But now inquiry is made about this point, whether a believer may turn himself unto military service, and whether the military may be admitted unto the faith, even the rank and file, or each inferior grade, to whom there is no necessity for taking part in sacrifices or capital punishments. There is no agreement between the divine and the human sacrament, the standard of Christ and the standard of the devil, the camp of light and the camp of darkness. One soul cannot be due to two masters--God and Caesar. And yet Moses carried a rod, and Aaron wore a buckle, and John (Baptist) is girt with leather and Joshua the son of Nun leads a line of march; and the People warred: if it pleases you to sport with the subject. But how will a Christian man war, nay, how will he serve even in peace, without a sword, which the Lord has taken away? For albeit soldiers had come unto John, and had received the formula of their rule; albeit, likewise, a centurion had believed; still the Lord afterward, in disarming Peter, unbelted every soldier. No dress is lawful among us, if assigned to any unlawful action.

From "On Idolatry," Chapter 19.

That last bit, in case you couldn't tell, is an explicit reference to Jesus' words and example in the Garden of Gethsemane (see especially Matt 26:52).

So much for rendering unto the Caesar. :teeth:
I disagree with them but I have too much of a headache to make an argument that makes sense. I'll continue this later. I will say this however: Jesus had been in a position to denounce war and Roman imperialism but never did. This has left a huge mark on my impression that He really didn't care much about war and politics.

If you're interested in reading more from Tertullian and the other church fathers, you can see their stuff at Early Christian Writings (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com) or CCEL (http://www.ccel.org). Take care and God bless! :smile:

I will some other time. I'm sick right now and everything I read will likely be forgotten within seconds.

Amazing Rando

May 20th 2005, 01:19 PM

So much for rendering unto the Caesar. :teeth:
I disagree with them but I have too much of a headache to make an argument that makes sense. I'll continue this later.

I look foward to it, though I likely won't be back until Monday. :smile:

I will say this however: Jesus had been in a position to denounce war and Roman imperialism but never did. This has left a huge mark on my impression that He really didn't care much about war and politics.

I've got a remarkable book to recomend to you that will likely dispell any notions you might have that Jesus was apolitical. Check out the 2nd edition of The Politics of Jesus (http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=0734&netp_id=147889&event=ESRCN&item_code=WW), by John Howard Yoder. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised! He shows that rather than being apolitical, Jesus' most scathing critique of his contemporaries (Romans, Pharisees, et al) was profoundly political. His "kingdom of God" proclamation is an extremely political statement that was what made the Romans fearful and see the need to execute him with a political death on the cross. What was Jesus' profound political statement? Simply this: 'God is King, Ceasar is not.'

Even calling Jesus "Lord" as we do is a deeply political statement that declares our allegiance to him and to none other.

I will some other time. I'm sick right now and everything I read will likely be forgotten within seconds.

You've got my prayers, Darth. May He heal your body and spirit with his awsome loving care!

Sparrow

May 21st 2005, 03:22 AM

That's right- I'm actually studying to be a pastor at a Mennonite seminary right now, hence my passion for peace and justice issues. :wink: I've only been a Mennonite for about 3 months now- before that, I was United Methodist.
That's awesome. If you don't mind saying, what seminary are you attending? (If you don't wish to post that sort of information publicly, don't mind me; I'm just curious.)

I had been attending a Mennonite church this past school year while at college, but I would not consider myself a Mennonite.

But I'd add Romans 12-13 and 1 Peter 2-3 to the mix to demonstrate it's not just Jesus.
Those are also good passages; thank you for pointing them out.

I will say this however: Jesus had been in a position to denounce war and Roman imperialism but never did. This has left a huge mark on my impression that He really didn't care much about war and politics.
Jesus was not exactly the type of political Messiah that some of the Jews expected, but that doesn't mean that he did not care about politics at all. I suspect that the political aspect of Jesus' teachings is easy for modern readers to overlook simply because we are not familiar with the culture of the time. Also, the gospel message in general is highly subversive, although that applies to more than just politics.

Darth Executor

May 22nd 2005, 10:51 AM

Rando, I'm gonna make a quick post regarding Peter and Jesus ordering him to put down his sword in the Garden as I disagree with the fathers' position that it somehow implied Jesus disarmed every Christian. When we look at it in context, although one could derive an order of non-violence from it, I don't think it's the only viable interpretation and I believe it would require additional support. This basically means that the verse is useless to both sides (and yes, my twisted mind can probably come up with a way to have it say it's ok to kill so here's a quick example: "Swords get you killed use a gun instead!").
Anyway, back on topic.

When analyzing the situation it is important to note two things:

1. Jesus came to die. He knew it and did not want anybody to interfere.
2. One Peter vs angry mob = one dead Peter, and a wasted life at that as Jesus was going to die anyway.

In light of this situation I think Jesus was simply giving Peter some sensible advice: he's not being a martyr by fighting for the innocent because the innocent is there of His own free will ready to die (if anything, Peter is trying to postpone our salvation). He's not going to change anything anyway so why get himself killed because of an emotional response?

Additional points to consider is that Jesus does not even say that it applies to everybody or that it even means not to fight. Jesus said "all who live by the sword die by the sword"(paraphrased by me as I don't feel like looking up the exact verse). We know that not EVERYBODY who lives by the sword dies by it so this is simply hyperbole used to make a point since in this case Peter WAS going to die if he kept it up. Another point is that this deals strictly with life/death issues and since we know Peter was going to die an useless death it would be common sense to assume Jesus would stop him. But is all risk of death bad?
"Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one's life for his friends."

Apparently not. :wink:

I think it is quite a stretch to assume the encounter means nobody should ever fight and/or kill given its context.

Amazing Rando

May 24th 2005, 09:43 AM

That's awesome. If you don't mind saying, what seminary are you attending? (If you don't wish to post that sort of information publicly, don't mind me; I'm just curious.)

Don't mind at all! Eastern Mennonite Seminary (http://www.emu.edu/seminary/).

Jesus was not exactly the type of political Messiah that some of the Jews expected, but that doesn't mean that he did not care about politics at all. I suspect that the political aspect of Jesus' teachings is easy for modern readers to overlook simply because we are not familiar with the culture of the time. Also, the gospel message in general is highly subversive, although that applies to more than just politics.

My sentiments exactly! When Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest from the Jews" in John's gospel, many people seem to have taken that statement and ran with it. Just because Jesus didn't intend to set up a physical political kingdom of the type they had in the OT doesn't mean his kingdom isn't a social realty for believers today! :teeth:

Amazing Rando

May 24th 2005, 10:25 AM

Rando, I'm gonna make a quick post regarding Peter and Jesus ordering him to put down his sword in the Garden as I disagree with the fathers' position that it somehow implied Jesus disarmed every Christian.

Tertullian was saying it as a matter of course, referencing that single event as representative of the entire body of Jesus' work and teaching. He wasn't trying to use it as a proof-text in our modern sense. Tertullian was simply reflecting upon the fact that Jesus consistantly and unequivocably taught a non-violent ethic and that throughout the gospels (not to mention the apostolic epistles), there is an absolute and utter lack of any statement that can positively make the case for a Christian's participation in violence and coersion. The reference to Jesus disarming Peter in the garden is used in that quote as simply representative of everything else that Jesus said and did.

Anyway, back on topic.

When analyzing the situation it is important to note two things:

1. Jesus came to die. He knew it and did not want anybody to interfere.

Noted. But I would also call to your attention that Jesus calls us to come and die with him- to follow his example as the "suffering servant" who does no violence to his persecutors. What else do you think, "Take up your cross and follow me" would have meant to his original audience, for whom the cross was an instrument of torture, shame, and death? Peter also cites Jesus' example in suffering as normative for us:

18Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. 19For it is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because he is conscious of God. 20But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. 21To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.
22"He committed no sin,
and no deceit was found in his mouth." 23When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly.

Jesus knew he came to die, all right. But his disciples later realized that he intended them to suffer die as well, to the point where Jesus' suffering is called an example, so that we might "follow in his steps."

2. One Peter vs angry mob = one dead Peter, and a wasted life at that as Jesus was going to die anyway.

That's precisely the point- getting killed while killing your enemies as Peter wanted to do is a wasted life because doing so is a betrayal of everything Jesus did for us. Getting killed while loving your enemies however, is an incredible victory, because it vindicates Jesus' sacrifice and example for us. That's what Jesus is saying to Peter here- don't waste your life by throwing away everything I've taught you.

In light of this situation I think Jesus was simply giving Peter some sensible advice: he's not being a martyr by fighting for the innocent because the innocent is there of His own free will ready to die (if anything, Peter is trying to postpone our salvation). He's not going to change anything anyway so why get himself killed because of an emotional response?

Your appeal to pragmatism is not very convincing Darth, especially because the Christian ethic is the complete opposite of the Machiavellian idea of "the end justifies the means."

Imagine had Peter and the other disciples led an army to storm the Roman barracks and liberate Jesus or prevent his arrest in the Garden, what would Jesus' words have been if Peter had 12,000 men on his side? Would he have said "Please Peter, come rescue me! Kill all these infidels!"? I don't think so. I bet that even had Peter had the entire population of Jerusalem on his side, Jesus' words still would have been the same: "Put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword."

It's important to note that in 1st century Jerusalem, there was a party known as the Zealots who were actively fighting and rebelling against the Roman authorities. Jesus explicitly rejects this option of armed rebellion, which is all the more bitterly ironic considering the crowds demanded the release of Barabbas, a Zealot and an insurrectionist (not a "robber") in place of Jesus and the true kingdom of God.

Additional points to consider is that Jesus does not even say that it applies to everybody or that it even means not to fight.

:lol: You must have an alternate definition of "all."

Jesus said "all who live by the sword die by the sword"(paraphrased by me as I don't feel like looking up the exact verse). We know that not EVERYBODY who lives by the sword dies by it so this is simply hyperbole used to make a point since in this case Peter WAS going to die if he kept it up.

Perhaps not by human "swords," but whose judgment are we to fear? Human judgment, or God's? Nobody escapes God's judgment except those who've embraced his grace and forgiveness.

Another point is that this deals strictly with life/death issues and since we know Peter was going to die an useless death it would be common sense to assume Jesus would stop him. But is all risk of death bad?

Did I say that? No. Death is meaningless in light of the Resurrection, so Christians are to lay their lives on the line for the sake of the kingdom at every opportunity.

"Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one's life for his friends."

Apparently not. :wink:

Now its your turn to think contextually: tell me- How did Jesus lay down his life for his friends? Did he join with the Zealots and kill the Roman overlords? Or did he defeat not only the Romans, but every "power and principality" in the universe, including death, through a willing death on the cross?

I think it is quite a stretch to assume the encounter means nobody should ever fight and/or kill given its context.

Know what's even more of a stretch? Building a positive case for employing violence against your enemies using the New Testament. :wink:

It's amazing to me how people who otherwise cling defiantly to the Bible's authority over their lives suddenly turn tail and run to non-biblical sources when it comes to the question of war, violence, and coersion. I'm not saying you've done this Darth, but I suspect that's precisely what you'll do when I ask you to make a scriptural case for employing violence against other people created in God's image in light of what Jesus has done for us.

Darth Executor

May 24th 2005, 04:10 PM

Tertullian was saying it as a matter of course, referencing that single event as representative of the entire body of Jesus' work and teaching. He wasn't trying to use it as a proof-text in our modern sense. Tertullian was simply reflecting upon the fact that Jesus consistantly and unequivocably taught a non-violent ethic and that throughout the gospels (not to mention the apostolic epistles), there is an absolute and utter lack of any statement that can positively make the case for a Christian's participation in violence and coersion. The reference to Jesus disarming Peter in the garden is used in that quote as simply representative of everything else that Jesus said and did.

Maybe non-killing ethic but Jesus did go wild in the temple with that whip.

Noted. But I would also call to your attention that Jesus calls us to come and die with him- to follow his example as the "suffering servant" who does no violence to his persecutors. What else do you think, "Take up your cross and follow me" would have meant to his original audience, for whom the cross was an instrument of torture, shame, and death? Peter also cites Jesus' example in suffering as normative for us:

18Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. 19For it is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because he is conscious of God. 20But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. 21To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.
22"He committed no sin,
and no deceit was found in his mouth." 23When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly.

Jesus knew he came to die, all right. But his disciples later realized that he intended them to suffer die as well, to the point where Jesus' suffering is called an example, so that we might "follow in his steps."

Yes however when I'm thinking of commiting violence for justice it's not to save myself. Is self sacrifice encouraged if others are on the line? If somebody would have walked up to Jesus and told him that if he allowed the romans to catch him he'd start slitting the throat of every little girl he could find, would Jesus have done it?

That's precisely the point- getting killed while killing your enemies as Peter wanted to do is a wasted life because doing so is a betrayal of everything Jesus did for us. Getting killed while loving your enemies however, is an incredible victory, because it vindicates Jesus' sacrifice and example for us. That's what Jesus is saying to Peter here- don't waste your life by throwing away everything I've taught you.

We sort of agree however I don't think we agree on exactly what teaching Jesus was referrig to. You seem to think it's non violence. I don't believe Jesus taught non-violence so the actual teaching Peter would violate isn't even remotely related to that. In my case, Peter would put Himself between man and salvation and it was only right that Jesus would rebuke him.

Your appeal to pragmatism is not very convincing Darth, especially because the Christian ethic is the complete opposite of the Machiavellian idea of "the end justifies the means."

Imagine had Peter and the other disciples led an army to storm the Roman barracks and liberate Jesus or prevent his arrest in the Garden, what would Jesus' words have been if Peter had 12,000 men on his side? Would he have said "Please Peter, come rescue me! Kill all these infidels!"? I don't think so. I bet that even had Peter had the entire population of Jerusalem on his side, Jesus' words still would have been the same: "Put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword."

You're arguing half a point. When I said Peter would be sacrificing himself needlessly, I didn't mean he would sacrifice himself because he didn't have enough manpower only. Peter would also literally sacrifice himself for a bad cause: stopping Christ's sacrifice.

It's important to note that in 1st century Jerusalem, there was a party known as the Zealots who were actively fighting and rebelling against the Roman authorities. Jesus explicitly rejects this option of armed rebellion, which is all the more bitterly ironic considering the crowds demanded the release of Barabbas, a Zealot and an insurrectionist (not a "robber") in place of Jesus and the true kingdom of God.

Given some of Jesus's other comments, I'm guessing He was siding with the Romans. I wouldn't expect Jesus to support armed rebellion (or rebellion of any kind) either way.

:lol: You must have an alternate definition of "all."

I was talking about the advice. It was given to Peter unless you're suggesting that Jesus teleported to everybody on the planet to tell them that. :ahem:

Perhaps not by human "swords," but whose judgment are we to fear? Human judgment, or God's? Nobody escapes God's judgment except those who've embraced his grace and forgiveness.

It takes quite a stretch to say that comment implied divine judgement.

Did I say that?

It was a rhetorical question...

Now its your turn to think contextually: tell me- How did Jesus lay down his life for his friends? Did he join with the Zealots and kill the Roman overlords? Or did he defeat not only the Romans, but every "power and principality" in the universe, including death, through a willing death on the cross?

How would killing the Roman overlords bring about salvation? It's a ridiculous question to ask however if you want an example of God being violent maybe I should locate my copy of the OT...

Know what's even more of a stretch? Building a positive case for employing violence against your enemies using the New Testament. :wink:

Agreed. However, I also think that building a positive case for pacifism out of it is an equally suspicious stretch.

It's amazing to me how people who otherwise cling defiantly to the Bible's authority over their lives suddenly turn tail and run to non-biblical sources when it comes to the question of war, violence, and coersion. I'm not saying you've done this Darth, but I suspect that's precisely what you'll do when I ask you to make a scriptural case for employing violence against other people created in God's image in light of what Jesus has done for us.

Me run for outside sources? What outside sources? The church fathers? :lol:

If Jesus saw a bunch of soldiers torturing a little girl, what would he do? Would he start preaching to them or would he knock them to the ground for their insolence like in John.18:6? When Jesus saw merchants defiling the temple did he ask them politely to leave or did he kick them out? When Jesus returns does He return with a dove on His shoulder or with a sword in His mouth? In fact, the entire book of Revelation is full of instances where Jesus wages war and punishes sinners.

Amazing Rando

May 25th 2005, 12:28 PM

Maybe non-killing ethic but Jesus did go wild in the temple with that whip.

Yes, on the animals. :ahem: An analysis of the Greek of John 2:15 reveals that the passage is best translated (as most newer versions render) "... drove all the animals out of the temple, both the sheep and the cattle." I can go into specifics if you'd like. The language is pretty clear that Jesus only employed the whip as a means for driving out the cattle and the sheep. :wink:

You'll need a better proof text than that! :smile:

Yes however when I'm thinking of commiting violence for justice it's not to save myself. Is self sacrifice encouraged if others are on the line?

Dude- self sacrifice is all that Jesus was about! But self sacrifice does not entail killing other people. That's not sacrificing yourself, that's sacrificing your enemy who Jesus very explicitly told us we are to love.

If somebody would have walked up to Jesus and told him that if he allowed the romans to catch him he'd start slitting the throat of every little girl he could find, would Jesus have done it?

What? Your question is unclear to me.

We sort of agree however I don't think we agree on exactly what teaching Jesus was referrig to. You seem to think it's non violence. I don't believe Jesus taught non-violence so the actual teaching Peter would violate isn't even remotely related to that. In my case, Peter would put Himself between man and salvation and it was only right that Jesus would rebuke him.

Oh really? In what way? Where do you see Jesus teaching violence and encouraging his followers to kill others in the name of "justice?" Are you familiar with the Sermon on the Mount?

Given some of Jesus's other comments, I'm guessing He was siding with the Romans. I wouldn't expect Jesus to support armed rebellion (or rebellion of any kind) either way.

What do you think Jesus was doing? His very life and death on the cross was an act of rebellion to the evil powers of the world, including Caesar, the Romans, the Jewish authorities, and even death itself. But- you're quite right about him not formenting armed rebellion. So, if he wouldn't support armed rebellion of the zealot option, why should we?

I was talking about the advice. It was given to Peter unless you're suggesting that Jesus teleported to everybody on the planet to tell them that. :ahem:

In Matthew's recording it in the gospel, that's precisely what happened. :wink: His circumstantial command to Peter became a universal dictum for all his followers to obey.

How would killing the Roman overlords bring about salvation? It's a ridiculous question to ask however if you want an example of God being violent maybe I should locate my copy of the OT...

Yes, lets. I'd be delighted to share my resources on the ancient concept of "holy war" and the specifically biblical concept of "the ban." :grin:

Know what's even more of a stretch? Building a positive case for employing violence against your enemies using the New Testament.

Agreed. However, I also think that building a positive case for pacifism out of it is an equally suspicious stretch.

Then why don't you help me out? You see, I'm confused. You're telling me that Jesus wants his followers to kill people... yet I've got trouble locating that particular passage. In fact, I see an overwhelming preponderance of passages from Jesus and the apostles that renounce killing or doing evil to others. Perhaps you can straighten me out? :wink:

Me run for outside sources? What outside sources? The church fathers? :lol:

Outside sources like your disbelief that Jesus could have actually meant what he said about loving your enemies.

If Jesus saw a bunch of soldiers torturing a little girl, what would he do? Would he start preaching to them or would he knock them to the ground for their insolence like in John.18:6?

Funny, I don't see a mention of Jesus knocking anyone to the ground in John 18:6. Perhaps your linguistic analysis is more nuanced than mine? :wink:

When Jesus saw merchants defiling the temple did he ask them politely to leave or did he kick them out? When Jesus returns does He return with a dove on His shoulder or with a sword in His mouth? In fact, the entire book of Revelation is full of instances where Jesus wages war and punishes sinners.

That is so. And the scriptures are clear that in addition to being the Lamb who was slain, is the divine judge who will mete out justice according to what each person has done. But there's a remarkable disconnect here. God is the judge, we are not. He will take vengeance on his enemies and the unrighteous. We are not to do that. Paul echoes the words of Jesus strikingly in Romans 12:17-21 when he tells us specifically not to take revenge, not to repay evil with evil, and to let God do the avenging for us. You've got a long way to go in your understanding of biblical justice, Darth. Vengeance does not belong to you or to me (thank goodness!) it belongs to the perfect Judge.

Darth Executor

May 25th 2005, 02:39 PM

Yes, on the animals. :ahem: An analysis of the Greek of John 2:15 reveals that the passage is best translated (as most newer versions render) "... drove all the animals out of the temple, both the sheep and the cattle." I can go into specifics if you'd like. The language is pretty clear that Jesus only employed the whip as a means for driving out the cattle and the sheep. :wink:

You'll need a better proof text than that! :smile:

I don't rely on that instance very much, actually. And it was still a display of violence, no matter how small.

Dude- self sacrifice is all that Jesus was about! But self sacrifice does not entail killing other people. That's not sacrificing yourself, that's sacrificing your enemy who Jesus very explicitly told us we are to love.

You are making too many assumptions here for my taste. For example, one can kill his "enemy" in combat without hating them. I remember back in my high school class they had pictures of the Germans and British soldiers playing soccer on Christmas eve, only to go back to shooting each other the next day. Nobody hated the enemy by their own admission. In addition, you keep assuming that all killing is done to save one's own skin. I find that amusing, especially for our culture where all soldiers voluntarily put their skin on the line for what (some) believes to be a worthy cause: preserving our freedom. I'd call that self sacrifice.

What? Your question is unclear to me.

Ok, I won't use an example. Instead, I'll ask a simple question: would Jesus allow Himself to die if He knew that His death would get innocent people killed as well? I'm not talking about historical aftermaths, I'm talking about a direct consequence of His action. Or even better, did Paul allow himself to indulge in the selfish desire to die and be with God like he wanted?

Oh really? In what way? Where do you see Jesus teaching violence and encouraging his followers to kill others in the name of "justice?" Are you familiar with the Sermon on the Mount?

What a complex strawman you just built. Shame to burn it down too...
Where did I suggest that we should fight "in the name of Justice"? I'm suggesting we should fight to protect the innocent if we absolutely have to. And I can't wait to see what "obvious" conclusions you're going to draw from the Sermon on the Mount. :wink:

What do you think Jesus was doing? His very life and death on the cross was an act of rebellion to the evil powers of the world, including Caesar, the Romans, the Jewish authorities, and even death itself.

Sorry but I don't believe that. Jesus died because He loves us and left us with an event that proves it beyond the shadow of a doubt.

But- you're quite right about him not formenting armed rebellion. So, if he wouldn't support armed rebellion of the zealot option, why should we?

Because you don't understand. I don't believe Jesus supported the zealots because the zealots were wrong and the Romans were right(well, relatively right). If the romans were really a bunch of evil fiends Jesus would have said a lot more than "Render unto the Caesar what is the Caesar's..."

I have no idea if Jesus would become an activist for a rebellion. Being God He can do as He pleases with His enemies. I'm not God and I can't. Had Jesus been in a period in which the rebellion was justified by more than idiotic nationalistic pride I might have a more firm opinion.

In Matthew's recording it in the gospel, that's precisely what happened. :wink: His circumstantial command to Peter became a universal dictum for all his followers to obey.

I'm afraid that doesn't qualify as "all" since the majority of humanity has not read the gospel at that time (making anybody from a different generation less qualified to fit) and even today Christ has 2 billion supposed followers of which I would be surprised if more than 1% actually read the Gospel.

Yes, lets. I'd be delighted to share my resources on the ancient concept of "holy war" and the specifically biblical concept of "the ban." :grin:

I hope they're all Biblical sources. You wouldn't want outside sources in light of your earlier comment now would you? :lol:

Then why don't you help me out? You see, I'm confused. You're telling me that Jesus wants his followers to kill people...

Not any more than God wanted to flood the world. Please refrain from modifying my position for shock value from now on since it only hinders the progress of this discussion.

]Outside sources like your disbelief that Jesus could have actually meant what he said about loving your enemies.

I don't have to hate somebody to kill them.

Funny, I don't see a mention of Jesus knocking anyone to the ground in John 18:6. Perhaps your linguistic analysis is more nuanced than mine? :wink:

5: They answered him, "Jesus of Nazareth." Jesus said to them, "I am he." Judas, who betrayed him, was standing with them.
6: When he said to them, "I am he," they drew back and fell to the ground.

Sounds to me like Jesus used a level 10 Telekinetic Blast. :tongue:

That is so. And the scriptures are clear that in addition to being the Lamb who was slain, is the divine judge who will mete out justice according to what each person has done. But there's a remarkable disconnect here. God is the judge, we are not. He will take vengeance on his enemies and the unrighteous. We are not to do that. Paul echoes the words of Jesus strikingly in Romans 12:17-21 when he tells us specifically not to take revenge, not to repay evil with evil, and to let God do the avenging for us. You've got a long way to go in your understanding of biblical justice, Darth. Vengeance does not belong to you or to me (thank goodness!) it belongs to the perfect Judge.

I agree with youn on vengeance and it's a good thing my beliefs don't include revenge otherwise this paragraph wouldn't be another attack on a straw man. As it stands... :lol:

I brought up Revelations so that we may move on to my biggest annoyance: the "What would Jesus do?" question. According to Revelations He would dip His cloak in blood and runs around with a sword in His mouth (maybe He's a pirate?) slashing infidels left and right with the armies of Heaven following Him in a scene that puts Ragnarok to shame. :wink:

Amazing Rando

June 14th 2005, 01:06 PM

Just thought I'd use this thread to put in a plug for a paper I wrote,

"Nor Shall They Train for War Anymore: Isaiah 2:1-5 in the Writings of the Early Church," located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=55399). Comments welcome!

Amazing Rando

August 31st 2005, 01:23 PM

In the interest of full disclosure, I should bring up an objection I've encountered to my theory that the Pre-Constantinian Church was completely pacifist.

In his article, "Justifiable War as a 'lesser good' in Eastern Orthodox moral tradition," in issue 1 from 2003 of St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly, Orthodox priest and theologian Fr. Alexander F.C. Webster writes,

Only two Church Fathers before Emperor Constantine the Great's Edict of Milan in AD 313 regarded Christian participation in the Roman military as a morally acceptable occupation

The two examples he cites are St. Clement of Rome, and Clement of Alexandria. I'd like to examine the citations he provides to ascertain whether or not the two Clements can reasonably be determined to support Christian participation in the military.

Clement, bishop of Rome, wrote a famous epistle to the church in Corinth around AD 95-96 that is often known as 1 Clement (2 Clement is now widely regarded as a pseudonymous sermon from the second century). Here's Webster's citation and discussion of 1 Clement:

This is the context of his explicit admiration for "the discipline, readiness, and obedience" of "those who serve under generals" as a literal reference to the Roman army and not a mere metaphor for Christians and their bishops. The next sentence in the passage makes this still clearer. Quoting a phrase from 1 Cor 15:23 in the New Testament, St. Clement compares the diversification of function in both Church and military: "But 'each in his own rank' carries out the orders of the emperor and of the generals." Such overt language is more than a rhetorical device and suggests that St. Clement, notwithstanding the recent persecution of the Church under Emperor Domitian, must have been quite enamored of the efficiency, unity, and perhaps personal virtue of the very military that had been turned loose on the faithful.

The relevant passage Webster cites is from 1 Clement 37.3, according to the footnotes.

Let's quote that passage in full- from http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-roberts.html :

CHAPTER 37 -- CHRIST IS OUR LEADER, AND WE HIS SOLDIERS.

Let us then, men and brethren, with all energy act the part of soldiers, in accordance with His holy commandments. Let us consider those who serve under our generals, with what order, obedience, and submissiveness they perform the things which are commanded them. All are not prefects, nor commanders of a thousand, nor of a hundred, nor of fifty, nor the like, but each one in his own rank performs the things commanded by the king and the generals. The great cannot subsist without the small, nor the small without the great. There is a kind of mixture in all things, and thence arises mutual advantage. Let us take our body for an example. The head is nothing without the feet, and the feet are nothing without the head; yea, the very smallest members of our body are necessary and useful to the whole body. But all work harmoniously together, and are under one common rule for the preservation of the whole body.

Does this statement reflect St. Clement's view that serving in the Roman army is a "morally acceptable occupation" as Webster claims? I certainly don't believe so. In the first part of this section, Clement urges the Church to "act the part of soldiers." But this is no more affirming professional military service than is Paul's famous discussion of the "armor of God" in Ephesians 6.

What Clement admires about the Roman army is its order, precision, and efficiency. And indeed, the Roman military machine was second to none in the ancient world. Roman soldiers were tough, disciplined, and fearsome. It is the "order, obedience, and submissiveness" of the Roman soldiers Clement admires- that's all. After all, the Roman army was also thoroughly idolatrous and pagan and this is clearly not what such a bishop as St. Clement would admire.

Clement wishes that the Church exhibited the same order, discipline, and obedience as the Roman legions. There is no endorsement, either explicit or implicit, of the Roman military's violence and death-dealing in this passage. Webster's thin analysis and selective quoting of Clement's remarks demonstrate that he is all too eager to bring this, perhaps the earliest extant non-canonical Christian work, onto his side of the fence.

Webster is a gifted author however. If anyone is interested in reading the work of a first-rate Orthodox priest on the ethics of warfare, please read his book, The Pacifist Option: The Moral Argument Against War in Eastern Orthodox Theology (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1573092436/qid=1125508777/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/102-1686166-1616920?v=glance&s=books&n=507846). Webster himself is not a pacifist, but he does an outstanding job of tracing the pacifist trajectory throughout Orthodox thought and tradition.