A. This whole “Should Christians ever use violence for good purposes?” is always tricky.
On one hand, the God-Man Christians worship was 200% non-violent and even let himself be captured, tortured and nailed to a Roman cross. He also said something like “Your Heavenly father loves bad guys too, so you need to pray for them and forgive them.” (Matt 5:44)
The New Testament also appears unanimous in renouncing violence; you don’t see the disciples acting macam Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare and so on.
B. On the other hand…
- What about protecting victims of violence or the weak or even, duh, ourselves(!) if ppl wanna pick a fight!?!? (Even Paul asked for Roman protection from the mob in Acts 23) Given that “love your neighbour” is a key Biblical commandment, what if this commandment required violently stopping someone who may, uh, hurt our neighbors?
- What about the OT and all the divinely commanded fighting?!
- What about the NT giving God credit for removing the Canaanites (in Acts 7:45; 13:19; Heb 11:29–34) which, of course, required more than harsh words?
- What about the NT endorsing the OT’s laws on capital punishment (eg Mt 15:1–6; Acts 3:23; Heb 2:1–3; 10:28–29; cf. Heb 12:18–29) or govts when they punish evil-doers (Rom 13, 1 Peter 2:14 — ok ok Rom 13 is controversial — in fact I’ve listed thirteen interpretations a few years back but oh well…)
- What about Jesus never telling soldiers to quit their jobs (I mean, he could tell a rich dude to sell everything he owned — Matt 19:22 — so why not tell a soldier to stop killing if non-violence is critical?) and/or that John the Baptist also only told soldiers to not abuse their power (Lk 3:14) but didn’t tell them to quit being a soldier?
C. The 4 Views
Essentially, the Just War perspective (“Christians can fight and use violence in wars, as long as these wars are just”) says violence ain’t a problem if you’re defending your borders and kicking bad guys’ asses. This view spends a lotta time on how Christians need to be play a part in politics, in the military, police, etc. One sub-school(?) or cousin of the Just War school is Selectivism (a key proponent of which is Norm Geisler) which, to me at least, says that not all wars which we believe are just are truly just.
This is one problem with JW: Almost everyone who starts or fights a war will claim they have the right to whilst simultaneously blaming the other side for being unjust (cf. Israel-Palestine, the World Wars, etc.).
Pacifism or Non-Violence (“Christians cannot be involved in any violence whatsoever”), on the other hand, says No Can Do. Jesus was very clear about loving one’s enemies, so authentic discipleship means renouncing violence. I’m more familiar with this view which I find refreshingly counter-intuitive; pacifism seeks to renovate our socio-political imaginary which sees the use of violence is inevitable.
Preston Sprinkle has a recent book which tries to give 20 reasons why, say, shooting robbers about to break into the house may not be the best thing to do.
The weakness of the non-violence approach should be clear. What do pacifists think about the cops and army ppl keeping them safe? And what suggestions would Christians give to matters of state?
Folks like Greg Boyd confess they can’t see anyway to reconcile Jesus’ teaching with Christians being in the army/police, etc. esp if these involve employing violence. Not being part of gomen does, in fact, sound like the situation of the early Christians; this book also emphasizes how Christian pacifism cannot be separate from the early Church as a sectarian community with the consequent problem of how today’s Christians (no longer sectarians but often part of governing bodies!) should navigate/operate this iffy issue.
The other two views are sorta new to me.
Realism (“Christians cannot avoid getting their hands dirty and it’s just too bad. Hurting and killing ppl is wrong, but doing nothing in the face of violent attacks is also wrong.”) and Christian Historical (“War is radical evil and there can be no valid ‘Christian’ approach to it”) are less ‘formulas’ on Christians can approach the issue, and more ‘standing paradoxes’ or i.e. how there IS NO ‘Christian’ answer.
In their best forms, they critique both Just War and non-violent approaches and honestly admit nobody has any good answers and every ‘stance’ is gonna be a problem; at their worst it’s like a sort of theological shrug or defeatism.
Nevertheless Meic Pearse from the Historical view (who writes very well) has a good quote which I’ll close this note with:
“Jesus does not propel us into imagining ourselves using force. That much we do all too easily for ourselves, almost every day…Jesus merely assumes we have our own ideas about force, but he does not sanction any of them — still less sanctify them — because that is not what his kingdom is about.”
Biblio:
Boyd, Gregory. 2007. The Myth of a Christian Nation. Zondervan. — the book which sorta put non-violence back on the Christian literary map, pissed off many folks as expected but Boyd is a good debater and any Just War thinker will need to do business with this book
Copan, Paul (ed.). 2022. War, Peace and Violence: 4 Christian Views. Inter-Varsity Press. — timely revisit of the issue
Geisler, Norman. 2010. Christian Ethics: Contemporary Issues and Options. Baker Academic. — a bit dated but still very clearly presented arguments for Just War, Pacifism and Selectivism (which Geisler supports)
Sprinkle, Preston. 2021. Non-Violence: The Revolutionary Way of Jesus. David C. Cook. — recent book on the topic, endorsed by Boyd (naturally)
Stassen, Glen, and David Gushee. 2005. Kingdom Ethics: Following Jesus in Contemporary Context. Inter-Varsity Press. — good systematic approach to ethics, argues that peace-making is one of the ideas the Sermon on the Mount was primarily about
