New Blog

Hello, all! Well, I'm back after a long absence. Likely here to stay for a while.
My new site is www.josiahmeyer.com
Check it out if you would like!
God bless!

Posted on "What About Barth"

Hey guys! Long time no post. Isn't that just the way of it? I say "I'm going to stop blogging" a zillion times, but keep blogging. Then when I finally quit, I just "quit" without an explanation!

I have certainly been enjoying and utilizing the free-time: not sure when or whether I will really get into blogging again. However, if anyone is interested in some rather academic posts on Barth, I am posting a few of my rough-drafts on my "Barth blog," as I prepare to write a big paper for my class on Barth.

God bless!

Here is the link to by Barth blog

DOCTRINAL PACIFISM IN THE PRE-CONSTANTINIAN CHURCH

INTRODUCTION

            As the bloodiest century in human history, it is perhaps not surprising that the 20th century has produced a robust discussion on the topic of just war and pacifism within Christianity.  A significant portion of this debate has centered on the alleged pacifism of the pre-Constantinian church.  In his seminal work, Militia Christi, Harnack argued that the pre-Constantinian church was pacifist until the time of Constantine, when the church “turned over to the monks it’s earlier notions about war and military service. [and] threw itself into the arms of the emperor.”[1] Harnack's thesis has been championed by German Liberals,[2] Quakers[3] and Fransiscans[4] and attacked by just war theorists within the Protestant and especially Catholic[5] fold.

After surveying three centuries of original-source documents, and sampling one century of debate,[6] I am confident to assert that the pre-Constantinian Fathers (abbreviation: “Fathers”) taught pacifism. All of the secondary sources I read agreed on this point.[7] Although fierce, the debates on this topic are really over how strong and how binding the pacifism of the early church was.[8] Thus, this debate is rightly divided into “pacifist” and “non-pacifist” scholars – the former seeing a strong and binding pacifism, the latter a weak and non-binding pacifism in the Fathers. I am not aware of any serious scholarship which finds a pro-war doctrine taught in the Fathers.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a survey of the relevant passages. In so doing, I will provide a case for a “strong” pacifistic teaching within the Fathers. Some scholarly debates will necessarily be summarized or assumed, to keep this paper within the bounds assigned to it.

Introductory Notes

Several qualifications and clarifications must be turned to before a full defense of this thesis may be taken up.

First, we must be perfectly clear about what sort of pacifism we are searching for, within the Fathers. I will crystallize the shades and variations within pacifism into two categories: 1) “moderate pacifism,” (or, elsewhere, simply “pacifism”)[9] which calls for disarmament only of Christians, necessitating a firm break between church and state, 2) “radical pacifism,” which calls for disarmament of all peoples, on the basis of Christian teaching.[10] It is a fairly straight-forward task to prove that neither the New Testament (NT) [11] nor the Fathers[12] support radical pacifism:[13] the “moderate pacifist” position is more nuanced and less brittle. Such a pacifist may 1) feel a sense of ownership over their national army, 2) differentiate between just and unjust wars, or 3) pray for the success of just wars, 4) pray for the wellbeing of the state, upheld by just wars, even while 4) refusing to enlist. Thus, when the Fathers are seen to be doing these actions, their words will be seen as a refutation only of “radical” pacifism and not “moderate” pacifism.[14]

Second, it must be understood that there are three categories of ethical conduct within Christianity: 1) occupations absolutely forbidden to Christians (e.g. prostitution), 2) occupations which converted Christians are encouraged to leave, but may continue in under strict limitations, and which baptized Christians are not to joint (e.g. polygamy[15]), 3) occupations which are blessed callings for all Christians (e.g. heterosexual marriage, or singleness/celibacy). Because a practice is not forbidden, one should not assume that it is universally condoned.[16] Because it is not universally condoned, one should not assume that it is absolutely forbidden. After careful examination, we will find that the Fathers – with one possible exception – placed military in the second category, as an activity which converted Christians could participate in, so long as they did not sin against their consciences, but which baptized Christians were always forbidden to join.

Third, there is some difficulty in identifying which Fathers are to be accurately considered “Fathers,” and which are not. Some scholars have been quick to castigate and “excommunicate” the Fathers which caused difficulty to their thesis.[17] Because the topic of the “orthodoxy” of certain Fathers is beyond my expertise I will defer to the generally-accepted canon of Fathers, especially as represented in the volume of The Ante-Nicene Fathers, by Philip Schaff.[18] Because Marcion and The Gospel of Thomas have always been considered heretical, I will briefly treat them, as external to the canon of the Fathers.

Secondly, we must keep in mind that this is a survey, and not a critique of the Fathers. We are examining what they said, and not what they should have said. Those who vacillate between an examination, and a polemic have forfeited objectivity.[19]

Finally, and most importantly, one must not begin with a so-called “survey of the Bible,” as the first installment of an examination of this topic. As a coherent work presenting propositional truth from God Himself,[20] I do believe that a careful examination of Scriptures would produce an authoritative answer to the question at hand. However, such an examination would delve into the thorny exegetical issues surrounding several passages, and carefully weigh doctrinal arguments on both sides of the debate. Such a work is beyond the scope of the present paper. Usually, those who have begun their study of this topic with a brief “survey of the Biblical witness” have done nothing more than to state their own beliefs at the outset, couched in Biblical citations.[21] They are then able to dismiss or validate individual Fathers, based upon whether they agree with “Biblical orthodoxy” (that is, with their own opinions on the subject).[22] For the purposes of this study, what I believe the Bible says is not nearly as interesting as what the Fathers believed the Bible said. We will find, in fact, that the Father’s use of Scriptures will be the most illustrative factor, in determining whether they held to a pacifistic stance or not.

           

Decisions on Three Major Arguments

            Because of the limitations of this paper, my position on three disputed points must be stated at the outset. Space will be economized by settling these questions at the outset, rather discussing them throughout this work

First, non-pacifists argue that many metaphors were gleaned from the military profession to describe the Christain life. This fact has been used by some to imply some pro-war sympathies within the Fathers. I could do no better on this than to quote Gero:

The indirect evidence of "military" language can be exaggerated beyond due bounds. The use of a certain set of verbal images does not imply necessary approbation. It is quite possible to take over symbols not only in a favorable or neutral sense but also with a "combative" intent. Perhaps an example from a different field will be helpful. Christian art appropriated the pagan symbols of the good shepherd (Philanthropia) and the lighthouse (hope), amplifying but not annulling their pristine meaning. However, it seems that the adoption of Dionysiac floral symbolism (the true vine) implied a conscious devaluation of the original orgiastic associations. …it seems to me that military language in the New Testament and the early Fathers was probably more prompted by an apocalyptic-spiritual allegorization of the Old Testament than by concrete admiration of the military institutions of the empire.[23]

When read in their entirety (rather than proof-texted, or cited indirectly) the actual passages cited firmly prove Gero’s words: echoing Ephesians 6:12-14 (a pacifist proof-text), they usually follow the apostle in advocating spiritual war as over against physical:

For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against…the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places. Therefore, take up the full armor of God… (Ephesians 6:12-14)

Please Him under whom you fight, and from whom you receive your wages. Let none of you be found a deserter. Let your baptism endure as your arms; your faith as your helmet; your love as your spear; your patience as a complete panoply….[24]

The loud trumpet, when sounded, collects the soldiers, and proclaims war. And shall not Christ, breathing a strain of peace to the ends of the earth, gather together His own soldiers, the soldiers of peace? Well, by His blood, and by the word, He has gathered the bloodless host of peace, and assigned to them the kingdom of heaven. The trumpet of Christ is His Gospel. He has blown it, and we have heard. Let us array ourselves in the armor of peace, putting on the breastplate of righteousness, and taking the shield of faith, and binding our brows with the helmet of salvation; and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, let us sharpen…[25]

[in advising a rich man on how to go to heaven, Clement of Alexandria advises they] enlist on your behalf an army without weapons, without war, without bloodshed, without anger, without stain. [who will pray for them][26]

           

If there is some connection between these military metaphors and the just-war theory of the Fourth Century and onwards, it is a connection of antithesis rather than synthesis, necessitating a clear-cut conversion rather than a gradual evolution of thought. I thus find the argument from military metaphors to be wholly unconvincing.

Second, many non-pacifists argue that early Christian pacifism was tied only to the Christian taboo against idolatry within the pagan armies. Non-pacifists thus explain that after Constantine, when idolatry was removed from the armies, Christians had doctrinal reasons for non-enlistment. This argument is refuted by the Fathers themselves, however. As will be seen, they provided many ethical and scriptural reasons for pacifism. Military service is also explicitly forbidden, with no particular reference to idolatry. Finally, Tertullian twice turns explicitly to the issue of idolatry and military service to say, in effect, “even aside from the idolatry issue, military service is absolutely off-limits to Christians.”[27] Idolatry certainly one issue – but not the only issue – which lead the Fathers towards a pacifistic stance.

Finally, just as modern soldiers often find it possible to complete an entire tour without a single act of violence it was likely possible for an ancient soldier be a pacifist without the issue immediately confronting him. The Romans kept a standing army which was not constantly engaged in warfare: also, this army performed many non-violent and less-violent services for society, including firemen, postal workers and policemen. Although any pacifist in the ancient armies would have been a living contradiction, attempting “all sorts of quibbling” to avoid defiling their conscience,[28] it should not be assumed that being a soldier is directly equivalent to slaying on the battlefield.[29] This point could be overstated, and non-pacifists are right to bring some balance: however, it the division between military life and actual slaying is present in the writings of the Fathers:[30] thus, we will assume that it was an actual reality in their time.

THE EARLIEST CHURCH 60-170 AD

The Practice of the Earliest Christians (30-170 AD)

Very little is known about Christian practice between AD 60 and AD 170. John also gave instructions to soldiers, on how to conduct themselves as ethical soldiers.[31] Soldiers converting to Christianity[32] were likewise not ordered to immediately desert before or after their baptism.[33] Kopel presents one example of a Christian soldier who was executed under Nero in 63,[34] and Eusebius writes that the man who led James away to his death was moved to confess that he too was a Christian, and was executed along with the apostle.[35] There were, then, a few soldier-converts during this time.

Conversely, the Christian people as a whole did not rise to the occasion either of their Savior’s death,[36] or the destruction of Jerusalem.[37] From the time of the New Testament to 170 AD, there is virtually no evidence of any significant number of Christians in the army:[38] if there were any, they were likely soldier-converts.[39] There are many non-doctrinal reasons why Christians may not have been militaristic at this time. The foremost among them is that the relatively tranquil Roman empire needed few recruits: these recruits needed to be male, non-Jewish[40] Roman citizens, who were not slaves or freedmen. Most Christians simply did not qualify.

The Teaching of the Apostolic Fathers (65-100)

Likely because it did not arise as an issue, the Apostolic Fathers did not explicitly mention military service. They did, however, strongly emphasize love as exemplified by Jesus’ teachings in the Sermon on the Mount (abbreviation, Srm. Mt.) and in his self-sacrificing example. They taught that the foundation of such love is patience, and rejecting “the world” for the “kingdom of God.” These were themes which would be interpreted in exclusively pacifistic directions by later writers.

In one comment, Clement of Rome showed a sense of possession over the military, but without commenting on whether Christians could participate in it.[41]

Marcion (85-160 AD)

Faced with the apparent contradiction between the warring God of the OT and the pacific teachings of Christ, the early heretic Marcion decided that the “Creator” god was evil and maniacal, while Jesus was a separate, beneficent deity. Marcion rejected the OT and most of the NT, retaining only an edited copy of Paul’s epistles.[42] Significantly, Marcion and his followers were pacifists.

The Fathers universally rejected Marcion, writing huge books and tracts against his teaching and, in so doing, refined Christian orthodoxy and the Christian Canon. In their eagerness to denounce virtually every point of Marcionism, however, the Fathers never[43] denounced Marcion’s pacifism. Rather, the answer which they gave was to prove that Jesus’ teachings of peace were prophesied in the Old Testament (OT), and were not foreign to the character of the “Creator.”[44]

The Teachings of the Sub-Apostolic Church (100-170)

In the generation of Fathers immediately following the Apostolic Fathers, a clear pacifism is seen to emerge.

Justin Martyr (103-165) believed that Jesus’ teaching caused those who “hated and destroyed one another” to now “live familiarly with them, and pray for our enemies.”[45] Preferring Christ’s rewards to any rewards bestowed by the emperor on his troops, Christians now “refrain from making war upon our enemies.”[46] The pacifism of Christians is a fulfillment of Isaiah 2:3-4 and Micah 4:3, (Abbreviation: “Is. 2:4”).[47] A primary Christian ethic was to be “patient” in the face of persecutions and martyrdoms.[48] Such a persecuted faith could not be conquered, since, “the more such things [persecutions and deaths] happen to us, the more do others and in larger numbers become faithful, and worshippers of God through the name of Jesus.”[49]

Irenaeus (?-202) believed Jesus’ teaching “not to injure their neighbours, nor to do them any harm”[50] was central to Christianity, and directly fulfilled Is. 2:4.[51] Irenaeus makes a generally positive statement about “kingly and martial exploits,” without commenting on whether Christians can participate in them.[52]

Reputed to be the student of Justin Martyr, Tatian (120-180) condemns at length the execution of persons in the gladiatorial games,[53] and ties warfare to murder.[54] In his most famous citation on pacifism, Tatian implies a radical separation of church and state, which includes a pacifistic stance, and is based upon a spiritual/eschatological reward:

I do not wish to be a king; I am not anxious to be rich; I decline military command; I detest fornication; I am not impelled by an insatiable love of gain to go to sea; I do not contend for chaplets; I am free from a mad thirst for fame; I despise death; … Die to the world, repudiating the madness that is in it. Live to God, and by apprehending Him lay aside your old nature Live to God, and by apprehending Him lay aside your old nature.…etc.[55]

Following Justin and Tatian’s example, Athenagoras (133-190 AD) writes an apologetic defense of Christianity. He describes the essence of Christian doctrine as:

I say unto you, Love your enemies; bless them that curse you; pray for them that persecute you; that you may be the sons of your Father who is in heaven, who causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust.[56]

Although not all Christians are able to give a reasoned defense of their faith, all will be seen exemplifying the lifestyle of the Srm. Mt., since, “when struck, they do not strike again; when robbed, they do not go to law; they give to those that ask of them, and love their neighbors as themselves.”[57] Athenagoras returns several times to this teaching as central to the Christian life,[58] arguing that Christians – although numerous – are thus no threat to the empire,[59] since they even give to those who ask, and do not sue to regain stolen property.[60]

Athenagoras defends Christianity from the charge of cannibalism by appealing to the Christian taboo against the gladiatorial games. “We cannot endure even to see a man put to death, though justly; who of them can accuse us of murder or cannibalism? ... we, deeming that to see a man put to death is much the same as killing him, have abjured such spectacles.”[61]

Within the school-master Clement of Alexandria (150-215 AD), we see perhaps the first concrete interaction between Christians and the Greek ideal of “just-war.” Clement approves of the categories of “just” and “unjust” wars, believing that the Greeks are indebted to Moses on this point.[62] In a discussion on footwear he adds a provision for Christian soldiers,[63] and repeats John’s injunctions to soldiers.[64] These statements are in apparent tension with his generally pacifistic theology elsewhere.

Clement describes the Gospel as the “trumpet” of God. When sounded, it declared war on the enemy by sounding “a strain of peace to the ends of the earth.” He gathers “together his own soldiers, the soldiers of peace… by His blood, and by the word, He has gathered the bloodless host of peace, and assigned to them the kingdom of heaven.” Therefore, Christians should array themselves in the “armor of peace” described in Ephesians 6:14-17.[65] Clement advised the rich man to enlist the aid of, “an army without weapons, without war, without bloodshed, without anger, without stain,” to guard his soul to heaven.[66] Clement’s comment “without stain” may be the first mention of spiritual defilement in connection with homicide. In pagan society, men fight and women do not: in some barbarian societies both women and men fight, but “we do not train our women like Amazons to manliness in war; since we wish the men even to be peaceful.”[67]

The most controversial passage in Clement is as follows: after explaining that it is the “peculiar and distinguishing characteristic” of man to “contemplate heaven” and fit himself for eternity through piety, he goes on to say:

Practice husbandry, we say, if you are a husbandman; but while you till your fields, know God. Sail the sea, you who are devoted to navigation, yet call the while on the heavenly Pilot. Has knowledge taken hold of you while engaged in military service? Listen to the commander, who orders what is right.[68]

On the surface, this passage may seem to be an allusion to 1 Corinthians 7:24,[69] thus placing “the soldier’s profession on a level with any other legitimate calling,”[70] and making violence in the military a morally neutral issue.[71] However, a better reading is to take “commander” as referring to Christ. This reading gains considerable weight when one considers the structure of the passage: three couplets are cited. In each, God is the object. Thus, making “commander” here refer to God[72] would render the meaning of this passage as follows: “whether you are a sailor, farmer or soldier, know, call on and obey God.”[73] This reading would tie Clement’s thoughts together into a coherent whole: even in a just war, a Christian must not kill, but “obey the commander, who orders rightly.”

THE SUB-APOSTOLIC PERIOD 170-220

The Practice of the Sub-Apostolic Church 170-220

The Thundering Legion 170-180 AD

Sometime between 170-180, while on a military campaign in Germany, a remarkable event occurred. This event is the first record we have of large numbers of Christians in the Roman army.

Appended to Justin Martyr’s First Apology is a document which purports to be an actual copy of the speech which Marcus made to the Senate concerning this event. In it, Marcus relates that while fighting in Germany, he was surrounded and shut up in Carnuntum by “seventy-four cohorts,” totaling 977,000 men, nine miles off. His army was also critically weakened by thirst and hunger, due to unfamiliar terrain. He besought his deities but, when that failed, made a search for the Christians in his army:

And having made inquiry, I discovered a great number and vast host of them, and raged against them, which was by no means becoming, for I afterwards learned their power. Wherefore they began the battle, not by preparing weapons, nor arms, nor bugles; for such preparation is hateful to them, on account of their God they bear about in their conscience. … [but] having cast themselves on the ground, they prayed not only for me, but also for the whole army as it stood, that they might be delivered from the present thirst and famine. … And simultaneously with their casting themselves on the ground, and praying to God (a God of whom I am ignorant), water poured from heaven, upon us most refreshingly cool, but upon the enemies of Rome a withering [Schaff notes: or, “fiery”] hail. … Founding on this, then, let us pardon such as are Christians, lest they pray for and obtain such a weapon against ourselves…[74]

This account would likely be discounted as Christian propaganda were it not also recorded by secular historians – although the latter attribute the miracle to pagan deities.[75]

A century and a half later, after the Conversion of Constantine, Eusebius recounts the story as follows: 1) Marcus’ legion was in dire straits, 2) rather than being besieged, with the enemy nine miles away, Marcus’ troops “were drawn up before the enemy,” 3) rather than falling on their faces, the Christians “kneeled on the ground,” and prayed, 4) God sent lighting, rather than hail, 5) the enemy was driven to “flight and destruction.”[76] The structure of the account[77] heavily implies that the whole army (Christians and pagans) marched forward and slew the fleeing army. This is a stark contrast to the explicitly pacifistic connotations of Justin’s account.

Much hangs on which account is more accurate. If Eusebius is correct, we have here an example of Christians fighting without reservation as early as 170 A.D. If Justin is correct, we have an example of large numbers of Christian soldiers explicitly refusing to kill, apparently for reasons of conscience,[78] late in the second century. This event was commented without “the slightest sense of embarrassment or disapproval”[79] by later theologians, most notably Tertullian. Thus, whether this is an account of a bloody or a bloodless victory is also of paramount importance in understanding their stance.

Exasperatingly, the nature of the present works prohibits me from making detailed investigations into this topic: I must conclude by saying that either account could be equally disparaged or upheld, but that I personally find the evidence to lean in favor of Justin’s account,[80] especially since it fits better with the Fathers.[81]

Celsus

Sometime during this era, Celsus wrote an anti-Christian work, entitled A True

Discourse. He charged Christians with being poor citizens, because they refused to fight in the army alongside their fellow-citizens.

            Reading the Thundering Legion account through the lens of Eusebius, most have seen a great contradiction between Celsus’ accusation and Christian practice.[82] One explanation is that Celsus was writing in the peaceful interior, while the Thundering Legion was on the perimeter of the empire.[83] A second possibility is that Celsus was simply inventing baseless insults to castigate the church.[84] Both of these theories seem hard to substantiate, considering the high standards of literature in ancient Rome.[85]

Significantly, Celsus’ polemic fits seamlessly with Justin’s account. In this case, Celsus may have known of the many Christians in the armies, but – knowing the Christian prohibition against killing – he saw Christian soldiers as a danger to the empire. If all followed their example, “the empire would fall into the hands of the wildest and most lawless barbarians.” Likewise, the Christians may have actively sought a release from military service, so that if all followed their example, “there would be nothing to prevent the king from being left in utter solitude and desertion.”[86]

The Severian Reforms (180-200 AD)

            Until the late second century, the political situation of Rome made it difficult or impossible for most Christians to join the army: this was about to change dramatically.

From the third quarter of the second century and almost continuously thereafter the imperial forces were engaged in operations on a large scale. … When in 227 the Persians overthrew the Parthians, the danger [to Rome] was increased rather than lessened. The Persians showed themselves haughty and determined foes. …Moreover the military prowess of the Germans was great. … For many decades Rome was fated to wage war on two fronts. In addition, from the third quarter of the second century onward the population of the Empire declined with increasing rapidity. … Rome was strictly on the defensive and the very existence of the Empire was at stake.[87]

            Quite predictably, Rome responded with sweeping reforms, aimed at bolstering the army. “In 212 AD, Roman citizenship was extended to all free subjects of the Empire.”[88] Soldiers were allowed to marry and raise families within the camps, and frontier soldiers were given land to cultivate. Children born into these camps were at times pressed into military service, and the soldier’s term – already twenty-five years – was extended.[89] The soldier’s wage was raised an additional fifty percent, and “the empire became militarized to a great degree.”[90] Tempted by the changing circumstances,[91] Christians began joining the armies in increasing numbers, from this time until the time of Constantine. [92]

A Widespread Debate

It is usually the case that Christians who engage in practices outside of established Christian teaching quickly develop rationales to legitimize their behavior. Thus, it may have been the case the influx of soldiers into the armies brought with it a pressure to read the Scriptures in a way which would support their actions. The young Tertullian may have been a member of this hypothetical, pro-war Christianity, and he certainly can be seen engaging members of it later in his life.[93] Origen[94] and Hippolytus[95] also seem to be combating not only lifestyle, but also doctrine in reference to the military issue.

What is known for sure is that from the time of the Severian Reforms late in the second century, the question of Christians joining the armies became a pressing issue for the Fathers.[96]

TERTULLIAN (160 – 220 AD)

Tertullian is the most prolific and controversial author on this subject. To my knowledge, Stephen Gero has written the only work exclusively on the topic of Tertullian’s pacifism: many thorny debates will be circumvented by deferring to Gero.

In summary, he writes, “Tertullian at first condoned Christian service in the army, but later, when he recognized its dangers and its fundamental incompatibility, in his mind, with loyalty to Christ, firmly and totally came to oppose it.”[97] An examination of his work thus breaks naturally into three sections: 1) Tertullian’s non-pacifist phase, 2) his pacifist phase, 3) an explanation of the shift between the two.

The Apology

In his first and most important work, Tertullian seeks to answer the charges – among other things – that Christians are: 1) a danger to the state (as in a revolt), and 2) useless to the state (since they are pacifist).

            In answer to the first charge, Tertullian echoes Athenagoras in replying that Christians are:

equally forbidden to wish ill, to do ill, to speak ill, to think ill of all men.[98] [Further,] If we are enjoined…to love our enemies, as I have remarked above, whom have we to hate? If injured, we are forbidden to retaliate, lest we become as bad ourselves: who can suffer injury at our hands?[99] [and] In our case, murder [is] once for all forbidden,[100] [and] in our religion it [is] counted better to be slain than to slay.[101]

Emperors have even less to fear from Christians than the common people since, “The thing we must not do to an emperor, we must not do to any one else: what we would not do to anybody, a fortiori, perhaps we should not do to him whom God has been pleased so highly to exalt.”[102] Although an alarmingly large and pervading force,[103] with ample motivations and means at their disposal,[104] Tertullian confidently asserts that the emperor cannot charge them with one single retaliatory action. Christians are absolutely no threat to the emperor, since they have been taught to be non-violent by Christ.[105]

In reply to the second charge, Tertullian argues first that Christians are useful to the state in their prayers. Christians pray not only for the emperor’s health and well-being,[106] but also, “security to the empire; for protection to the imperial house; for brave armies, a faithful senate, a virtuous people, the world at rest…”[107] He explains that Christians pray for the success of the Roman empire against invasion since, “a mighty shock [is] impending over the whole earth…the very end of all things…[which is] only retarded by the continued existence of the Roman Empire.”[108] As his prime example of the power of Christian prayer, Tertullian references the example of the Thundering Legion in which, “that Germanic drought was removed by the rains obtained through the prayers of the Christians who chanced to be fighting under him [Marcus Aurellious].”[109]

Tertullian’s second reply to the charge of uselessness is hotly debated:

We are but of yesterday, and we have filled every place among you— cities, islands, fortresses, towns, market-places, the very camp, tribes, companies, palace, senate, forum—we have left nothing to you but the temples of your gods. [110] … We sail with you, and fight with you, and till the ground with you; … How it is we seem useless in your ordinary business, living with you and by you as we do, I am not able to understand. [111]

After a scholarly examination of the Latin words used here,[112] Gero concludes that Tertullian may have used the word militamus (“we militamus with you”) with “studied ambiguity.”[113] Unable to find conclusively whether Tertullian is referring to actual violence or only vaguely to their presence in the armies (perhaps filling only non-violent roles, as mentioned above), Gero turns to the “more decisive” account of the Thundering Legion event. No doubt Gero is reading Tertullian’s skeletal account through the lens of Eusebius’ account,[114] and thus concludes that this is an account of Christians actually fighting.

            This reading assumes a great tension within Tertullian’s Apology. First, Tertullian’s words would then make a severe break from earlier tradition. Secondly, they are inconsistent within Tertullian’s broader argument. If the emperor need not fear the peaceful Christians, why would the enemies of Rome fear them? Or, if Rome’s enemies could fear Christians, why would not an unjust emperor fear them? Kopel matter-of-factly states that “revenge after the fact…is not equivalent to defending an innocent [person] from an attack in progress,”[115] but this dichotomy is not present in Tertullian,[116] nor is any other division between corporate and individual, action and heart-disposition, etc., or any other fourth-century just-war rationale for Christian warfare. In point of fact, the contradiction is not resolved until Tertullian’s later works, when he resolves it by completely repudiating his earlier non-pacifistic stance.

Explaining the Shift

“Rather than charging his very definite change of attitude to Montanism,”[117] writes Gero, “one should recognize the sudden influx of Christians into the military profession, with its new opportunities for advancement and greater respectability, as a contributing, if indeed not the main, factor” in Tertullian’s change of mind on this topic.[118]  Thus, it is likely that the Severian Reforms hardened Tertullian into a firmly-held pacifism.

At least two other significant shifts also occurred in Tertullian’s later thought. In his earlier work, the well-educated Tertullian may have been blinded by the prevalent division between “Roman” and “barbarian,” and unable to conceive of Christians separating fully from the state. When these two factors changed, they strengthened his later pacifism.[119] Most importantly, however, Tertullian was driven onwards by the constraints of logic and scriptures, for, his later pacifism “is Tertullian’s mature and logical position, consistent with his ethical rigorism.”[120]

Tertullain’s Pacifism

Tertullian’s later pacifism was worked out at such length it is difficult to summarize in this work.[121] The barest sketch of his thoughts are as follows: 1) Jesus explicitly commands Christians – including Cornelius and other soldier-converts – not to wield the sword (Mat. 26:52-54),[122] 2) it is impossible to mix allegiance with Christ and allegiance to Caesar’s army,[123] 3) warfare is incompatible with the Srm. Mt.[124] 4) warfare is incompatible with Jesus’ example of patience on the cross,[125] 5) Christians are forbidden the taking of vows (Mat. 5:36-37), which are integral to military life,[126] 6) the pagan army was full of idolatry, which Christians could have no part in.[127] He

allegorizes the violent pictures of God in the OT and of the Jesus of Revelation[128] and saw Christian pacifism as a fulfillment of Is. 2:4[129] and also of Zechariah 9:15-16.[130] 7)

            Tertullian recognizes that there is a difference between soldier-converts and baptized Christians joining the army. He absolutely condemns the latter, but may begrudgingly allow the former[131] – but warns that Christianity is so completely incompatible with the military life that a martyrs death for insubordination was virtually unavoidable.[132]

            The “acute controversialist”[133] seems to be grappling with a real doctrinal foe within Christianity. He meets and overcomes the Scriptural objections that:1) “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s” applies to military service[134] for, “if all things are Caesar’s what will belong to God?”[135] Christians are to render to Caesar their tax-money, but not their bodies, which belong to God. 2) The soldiers in the OT and particularly those in the NT are superseded by the words of Christ, since, “the Lord afterward, in disarming Peter, unbelted every soldier.”[136]

THE SUB-SUB APOSTOLIC PERIOD (180-250 AD)

Christian Practice, 200-275 AD

Despite Tertullian’s heroic efforts in writing, Christian practice began to follow a different track[137] “Sometime between 193 and 235 A.D., a Christian church was built in the large Roman military camp at Dura Europos, in Syria,”[138] and as early as 235-238, a local Armenian king became a Christian with many of his subjects, and lead a revolt against Maximinus Thrax.[139] The emperor Philip II presented himself for baptism and – after penance for his many sins – was accepted.[140] He later died in a battle with Decius in 249 AD. Christians continued to enlist in the armies, and there many martyr-stories and some epitaphs[141] are a testament to their continued presence in the ranks.

In 250, a new persecution broke out under the emperor Decius. Eusebius notes that “this persecution began with our brethren in the army,” many high-ranking officials were “drawn on by their official duties”[142] to capitulate to the imperial decree to offer incense, while many soldiers and magistrates were martyred.[143]

Origen of Alexandria (185-254 AD)

Origen walked in the footsteps of his teacher, Clement, and greatly expanded and clarified his thoughts.[144] There are no real debates concerning Origen’s stance. Objectors either 1) misunderstand Origen,[145] or 2) disregard his beliefs as repugnant.[146]

Echoing the Greek notion of “just war,” he looks to the wars which bees wage on one another as instructive of the “orderly way” in which wars should be waged among men.[147] He identifies the Jewish wars of the OT as “just-wars:” however, these accounts must be understood, 1) through an allegorical lens,[148] 2) as being tied to land, 3) as predating the teachings of Christ, who, “nowhere teaches that it is right for His own disciples to offer violence to any one, however wicked. [or] …to allow the killing of any individual whatever.”[149] Origen saw Jesus’ teaching prophesied in Isaiah 2:4.[150]

Although differentiating between just and unjust wars,[151] he categorically refuses to serve in either, “even if the emperor commands it.”[152]

In reply to Celsus’ charge that the Christian’s pacifism made them useless to the state, Origen replied that “Christians are benefactors of their country more than others” for three reasons: 1) God providentially expanded the empire and created the pax romana in order to allow the spread of Christ’s peaceful doctrine,[153] 2) Christians form a “special army” of prayer-warriors for the empire. Like priests who are exempted from the contamination of military service,[154] Christians fight best for the king by prayers undefiled by bloodshed,[155] 3) if all followed Christ, the empire would be more, rather than less secure, since the God who heeded the prayers of a mere fifty men could not ignore a praying empire,[156] 3) most importantly, Christians fight for peace by self-denying exercises and teachings, which vanquish mortal passions and “vanquish all demons who stir up war,”[157] so that those who heeded Christ, “will not war at all.”[158]

Significantly, Origen is seen to debate with Biblical objectors to pacifism. He allegorizes Luke 22:36[159] and engages recounts a staged debate with a Christian soldier, who believes he can ethically offer the oblations of pagan sacrifices.[160]

Minucius Felix (160?-270?)

            Minucius Felix makes no innovations over what has preceeded him, but writes

that, “To us it is not lawful either to see or to hear of homicide.”[161] Preferring rather death than compromise, Christians consider martyrdoms and persecutions their moments of victory, where they are tested and refined like gold.[162]

Hippolytus of Rome (170-236 AD)

Troubled by the widening gap between Christian practice and Christian teaching,[163] Hippolytus argued forcefully for a return to a purer Christianity.[164] One of the issues he addressed was military service. Briefly summarizing his view of Christian orthodoxy up to his time, Hippolytus allowed soldier-converts to remain in the army, so long as they 1) do not kill, even if ordered, 2) do not take the military oath. Those engaged in public office must immediately abandon their posts, and, “The catechumen or faithful who wants to become a soldier is to be rejected, for he has despised God.”[165]

Cyprian (? – 258)

Cyprian called Tertullian “my father,”[166] and walked faithfully in his mentor’s path on this point. He writes an important treatise on patience and sees this virtue as undergirding the Srm. Mt., as the way in which Christians were to “become perfect.”[167] He lists manslaughter as a mortal sin,[168] and calls warfare murder on a grand scale.[169] He teaches that God created iron for the cultivation of the earth, not for the slaughter of humans.[170] It was because of this teaching that Christians did not avenge themselves when persecuted, although possessing ample means and motive.[171] Like Tertullian, Cyprian ties the fall of Rome to the dreadful events of the eschaton, and the wrath of God on an unjust empire:[172] thus, he looks with apprehension upon the decline of the Roman army as a dangerous sign of the times,[173] and prayed for its continuation.[174]

THE PRE-CONSTANTINE AGE

Christian Practice in the Years 275-300

In the last quarter of the third century, Christianity enjoyed a time of unparalleled peace and missional expansion. Christians also began appearing in civic and military roles in unprecedented numbers,[175] and some distinguished themselves for their political[176] and even military[177] careers. Christian soldiers apparently were allowed to compromise on the sacrifices by simply making the sign of the cross while the ritual was performed.[178] Eusebius notes with joy the wonderful and crowded churches of this time,[179] but also mourns the subsequent laxity, sloth and divisiveness of this time.[180]

This period was ended by the harshest persecution know to the ancient church, and many soldier-martyrs were a testament to their presence in the armies.[181] If Marinus (260),[182] Maximilian (295),[183] and Marcellus (298)[184] died as conscientious objectors, their examples were exceptional rather than normative: most died as faithful soldiers.

Arnobius (? - 330)

Arnobius’ pacifism seems reminiscent of Origen’s. In his "Apology" to the Greek world, he writes that in Jesus' laws, he taught that "evil ought not to be requited with evil, that it is better to suffer wrong than to inflict it, that we should rather shed our own blood than stain our hands and our conscience with that of another." It is because of this teaching that, "an ungrateful world is now for a long period enjoying a benefit from Christ, inasmuch as by His means the rage of savage ferocity has been softened, and has begun to withhold hostile hands from the blood of a fellow-creature." If "the whole world," would listen to Christ there would be no more wars, but, "having turned the use of steel into more peaceful occupations, would now be living in the most placid tranquility, and would unite in blessed harmony, maintaining inviolate the sanctity of treaties."[185]

On the other hand, Arnobius recognizes that global security is maintained best by maintaining the Roman state. Thus, he credits Christian prayers with the large success of the Roman military.[186] The real goal is the end of all wars, however, which will be accomplished by the binding of the demons who stir up wars through lust, greed and anger, resulting in the great atrocity of war. [187]

Lactantius (240-320)

Coming as he does as very nearly the last of the Fathers, and also writing during a time when Christian practice was increasingly allowing Christian soldiers, Lactantius’ pre-Constantinian[188] resolve is highly important for this discussion.

Lactantius ties pacifism to the Srm. Mt.,[189] and the sanctity of life.[190] Warfare really amounts to vengeance and greed on a grand scale,[191] only patience is can really assuage anger and end hostilities.[192] A Christian is content with his lot in life, and thus will not war, engage in overseas expeditions, or even avenge a wrong done.[193] A truly “just” man will – even if compelled against his will to be on a battlefield or in a shipwreck – prefer to die rather than to put another to death.[194] Lactantius writes against the attempt to convert people by force: “For religion is to be defended, not by putting to death, but by dying, not by cruelty, but by patient endurance.”[195]

CONCLUDING NOTES

Summary: An Overview of Pacifism

As has been seen, the Fathers developed and taught a comprehensive pacifistic position. This pacifism was grounded especially in the Srm. Mt., as well as the other words and examples of Christ, which they interpreted as forbidding killing in any form. They allegorized the warfare of the OT, and saw Is. 2:4 as fulfilled in the pacifism of the Christians. They also tied pacifism to the sanctity of life, and believed that killing – either justified or not – created a moral stain on the conscience. Although Christians were loyal citizens, who increasingly saw Christianity as tied to the Roman world, and understood the distinction between just and unjust wars, they participated in the necessary wars of the world only through prayer, while seeking to end all wars through their teaching and examples. The Fathers made a distinction between soldier-converts and Christians enlisting. They allowed the former on strict conditions, and absolutely forbade the former: their teaching hardened rather than softened in the face of increasing insubordination on the part of the Christian laity.

Explaining the Constantinian Shift

Considering the firm and continued pro-war policy of the fourth-century and onwards, some rationale must be presented for the shift between the pacifism of the early Church and the later church.

Although Constantine’s influence was almost certainly the decisive turning point at the end of the third century, there were, perhaps, at least five other factors which contributed to this shift:[196]

First, as early as Tertullian, Christians had warned dire consequences for emperors who – as agents of Satan – persecuted Christians.[197] The Fathers never explicitly stated the converse – that emperors who sought the good of Christians would be blessed as agents of God – although it was likely assumed. Especially in Lactantius and Eusebius’ histories, one can see how the early, “evil” emperors are contrasted with the “good” emperor Constantine.

Second, as has been noted, Christian participation in the military was gradually increasing, despite the protests of the Fathers. Likely, this group was championed by teachers who provided theological reasons for a pro-war stance. Some have associated the Gospel of Thomas with such a sentiment among the laity, and the younger Tertullian himself may have been a member of this hypothetical, dissenting faction of pro-war Christianity. Perhaps Eusebius was favoring this under-current of Christian militarism over the prevailing strain of pacifism within the Fathers. As Gero puts it, “The church in North Africa could not sell her soul, so to speak, to Constantine; she had already sold it much earlier, to Septimius Severus and to Caracalla.”[198]

Third, Ryan notes a strain of loyalism to the empire running through most of the Fathers.[199] The barbarian Tatian is an exception among the mostly-Roman Fathers, and Tertullian’s plea that “Christ is also among the barbarians”[200] is exceptional rather than normative. The Fathers, then, may not have been completely immune to the dehumanizing superiority of the empire, making it easier for the next generation to equate “Roman” with “Christian,” and “barbarian” with “non-Christian.”

Fourth, Christians adopted and often referred to the Gnostic idea of “just-war.” They prayed for the success of just wars, especially in the case of the Roman Empire: later writers were quick to do what the Fathers would not – stating that “Christians fight in just wars.”

Finally, late third-century incident involving Paul of Samosata. Although condemned by a large council and expelled from his church, Paul refused to leave. The church besought the aid of the emperor Aurelian and Paul was thus, “driven out of the church, with extreme disgrace, by the worldly power.”[201] This event may have set a president for the later fusion of the worldly power with the divine office.

CONCLUSION

As stated at the outset, there is virtually no debate as to the pacifism of the Fathers. Authors who wish to prove that the pacifism of the Fathers was very weak usually begin with a one-sided “summary” of Scriptures. This summary is tied to the later stance of the fourth-century church, and an argument is made from silence: those Fathers who did not speak on this issue were secretly in favor of just war. The debated passage in Clement and in the earlier Tertullian, as well as the practice of the laity, are used to bolster this belief. Against this supposed “consensus,” those Fathers who did speak out on pacifism are made to seem as outcasts, even heretics. Usually, all of the errors mentioned in the introductory notes are made in support of this thesis. The overall impression created is of disharmony and tension within the time-period – not just among the Fathers, but within the works of the individual Fathers themselves.

Even if all of these points could be granted to the non-pacifist, however, it is beyond debate that there was, “however strong, a strain of doctrinal pacifism in the early church.”7 This stance contrasts sharply with the firmly pro-war stance of the fourth-century church and onwards, leading to questions such as “what caused this shift?” “was this shift an improvement or degradation of Christian values?” and “which version of Christian war theory should modern Christians follow?”

I leave these questions for the reader, and for other writers to decide.

For $2.50 you may buy the PDF of this article, including over 200 footnotes and a large bibliography.