Pacifism and the early church

[KingsGambit]

Ron Sider has an article that argues that every mention of military action preserved by the Church Fathers is negative, at least before the time of Constantine. While I think his claim is too strong (there are a couple possible exceptions), there are some pretty big names in there that clearly were pacifist... like Justin Martyr.

http://www.booksandculture.com/artic...tml?paging=off

As much as I didn't want to admit it, I have to say that it seems clear to me that the earliest Christians took Jesus's teachings about peace and applied it to the realm of military service. Perhaps military action is something that was tolerated and used under the Old Covenant but is not for the New.

(Interestingly, I've actually long been attracted to Quaker/Mennonite theology but this was the one big issue I disagreed with them on.)

Thoughts?

[One Bad Pig]

Military personnel tended to have to take part in unit-wide pagan ceremonies, which would have made military service pretty much a non-starter for Christians. There are, on the other hand, a number of pre-Constantinian martyrs who were in the military at the time of their martyrdom (e.g., the extremely popular Great-martyr George).

[KingsGambit]

Military personnel tended to have to take part in unit-wide pagan ceremonies, which would have made military service pretty much a non-starter for Christians. There are, on the other hand, a number of pre-Constantinian martyrs who were in the military at the time of their martyrdom (e.g., the extremely popular Great-martyr George).

While that surely didn't help, in many of the examples cited, the reasoning given was due to pacifist ethics themselves and not due to external concerns, so I don't think that alone can account for the widespread disapproval.

[Truthseeker]

Jesus's teachings about peace . . . applied . . . to the realm of military service.

It seems to me that you should specify the teachings. Would you include John 18:10-11? The fact that Simon Peter was said to have a sword seems hard to ignore.

[bling]

[Obsidian]

[Obsidian]

In 301 [eleven years before Constantine converted], Tiridates proclaimed Christianity as the state religion of Armenia, making the Armenian kingdom the first state to embrace Christianity officially.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiridates_III_of_Armenia

[theophilus]

Jesus once commended a centurion for having more faith than the Jews did. The first Gentile convert to Christianity was a centurion named Cornelius. When soldiers asked John the Baptist what they needed to do to show their repentance he told them not to take anything from anyone by force and to be content with their wages, but he didn't tell them they should stop being soldiers. And while Jesus refrained from the use of force while he was on earth he wasn't a pacifist. Revelation 19 tells us that when he returns he will destroy the Beast and his armies.

[KingsGambit]

Jesus once commended a centurion for having more faith than the Jews did. The first Gentile convert to Christianity was a centurion named Cornelius. When soldiers asked John the Baptist what they needed to do to show their repentance he told them not to take anything from anyone by force and to be content with their wages, but he didn't tell them they should stop being soldiers. And while Jesus refrained from the use of force while he was on earth he wasn't a pacifist. Revelation 19 tells us that when he returns he will destroy the Beast and his armies.

I used to think the part about John the Baptist was decisive on the matter, but one Anabaptist blogger I know pointed out that the military leaders would have also been heavily involved with idolatry as a part of their jobs, which I found to be a reasonable point.

I also don't think the part about buying swords is a strong argument against pacifism. It seems to me that Jesus wanted to precipitate his arrest, and two swords (not at all enough for twelve people to defend themselves) was enough to achieve just this goal (Luke 22:38). Also, the only recorded actual use of any of the swords resulted in a rebuke by Jesus. If anything, I see Luke 22:38 as slightly in favor of the pacifist.

[Adrift]

Ron Sider has an article that argues that every mention of military action preserved by the Church Fathers is negative, at least before the time of Constantine. While I think his claim is too strong (there are a couple possible exceptions), there are some pretty big names in there that clearly were pacifist... like Justin Martyr.

http://www.booksandculture.com/artic...tml?paging=off

As much as I didn't want to admit it, I have to say that it seems clear to me that the earliest Christians took Jesus's teachings about peace and applied it to the realm of military service. Perhaps military action is something that was tolerated and used under the Old Covenant but is not for the New.

(Interestingly, I've actually long been attracted to Quaker/Mennonite theology but this was the one big issue I disagreed with them on.)

Thoughts?

Yeah, a lot of scholars I've read on the early church, and even a current History of Theology podcast I'm listening to have made this point as well. Wasn't it Amazing Rando who was a pacifist for this very reason? He read the early church fathers and found that their views lead in that direction?

[Obsidian]

KingsGambit, according to the article you posted, "no text in Clement [of Alexandria] . . . says it is legitimate for Christians to kill or join the army." I think I have proven that wrong. Any author who would say something that stupid is either clueless, or dishonest.

I even had more quotes from Clement that I left out.

[One Bad Pig]

I also don't think the part about buying swords is a strong argument against pacifism. It seems to me that Jesus wanted to precipitate his arrest, and two swords (not at all enough for twelve people to defend themselves) was enough to achieve just this goal (Luke 22:38). Also, the only recorded actual use of any of the swords resulted in a rebuke by Jesus. If anything, I see Luke 22:38 as slightly in favor of the pacifist.

I think it is fairly evident that this is incorrect, as indicated by the context. The disciples interpreted His words to mean that they needed the swords right away, but Jesus seems to be taking a longer view (i.e., what the disciples should do after Jesus' departure). This is confirmed, IMO, by Jesus' rebuke of Peter in the Garden. Jesus had no need of swords to precipitate His arrest; that was going to happen regardless once Judas betrayed Him.

[Adrift]

I think it is fairly evident that this is incorrect, as indicated by the context. The disciples interpreted His words to mean that they needed the swords right away, but Jesus seems to be taking a longer view (i.e., what the disciples should do after Jesus' departure). This is confirmed, IMO, by Jesus' rebuke of Peter in the Garden. Jesus had no need of swords to precipitate His arrest; that was going to happen regardless once Judas betrayed Him.

KingsGambit view aligns with Chrysostom's



http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/200184.htm

[Obsidian]

Chrysostom doesn't say that he wanted the swords in order to get betrayed. Seemingly, he just says that Jesus wanted the swords due to his upcoming betrayal.

Of course, Chrysostom's view, that they should not arm themselves, is stupid and contrary to the plain meaning of the text.

[Adrift]

Chrysostom doesn't say that he wanted the swords in order to get betrayed. Seemingly, he just says that Jesus wanted the swords due to his upcoming betrayal.

Of course, Chrysostom's view, that they should not arm themselves, is stupid and contrary to the plain meaning of the text.

I could certainly be wrong, but I believe you're reading Chrysostom far too literally or narrowly. It seems rather obvious to me what Chrysostom means here is that they weren't to be armed for offensive or defensive reasons, but to (as KingsGambit put it), precipitate Jesus' arrest. Otherwise, you'd be spot on that this commentary would be stupid and contrary, and Chrysostom doesn't strike me as someone who was stupid.