In pre-modern Christian history, Christians had different approaches to war and peace, such as pacifism, just war, total war and world community. Pacifism was the first approach that they took, whereas the latter three developed much later.
When it comes to pacifism, Muslim polemicists often argue that Christians chose pacifism for the first few hundred years of Christianity because they didn’t have a state. They posit that Christians chose nonviolence because they didn’t have the political power and authority required to exercise violence and coercion, but this argument has a few problems.
One problem with this argument is that you don’t need political power or a state to wage war and commit violence. Sure, a state would be required for Christians to wage offensive warfare (i.e. conquests and expansionism), but Christians would not need a state to have skirmishes with other groups and wage guerrilla warfare against state powers. That can be done without the requirement of a state. Religiously motivated violence doesn’t require political power or authority.
Another problem is that even before Christians had an actual state, they already had opportunities to engage in violence and war by serving in the Roman army.
As Joseph Fahey in his paper “An Overview of Four Traditions on War and Peace in Christian History” notes that pacifism was the dominant stance for Christians up until the late 4th or early 5th century. Fahey says that Christians already had the opportunity to serve the Roman army and fight for the Romans, but refused because it went against pre-established Christian principles, such as Christ’s command to “love your enemies” in Matthew 5:44.
These principles were the major reason for their refusal to shed blood, even for Roman soldiers who converted to Christianity. Fahey cites St. Martin of Tours (316-397 AD), who is recorded as saying “I have served you as a soldier; let me now serve Christ. Give the bounty to these others who are going to fight, but I am a soldier of Christ and it is not lawful for me to fight” to Julius Caesar.
Christians under the Roman Empire would have had ample opportunities to engage in religious and political violence and war, but refrained from doing so.
Fahey then goes on to say that “proscriptions and exhortations against Christians participating in blood-letting are found throughout early Christian teaching” and makes reference to early Christian works such as the Didache (70-90 AD), Justin Martyr (100-165 AD), Tertullian (160-220 AD), Origin (185-254 AD), Maximillian (274-295 AD), the Canons of Hippolytus (3rd to 5th centuries), and Pelagius (350-420 AD).
Fahey quotes a passage from the Canons of Hippolytus, saying: “Of the magistrate and the soldier: let them not kill anyone, even if they receive the order to do so; let them not put crowns on.”
Joseph Fahey’s entire paper is available here.
somehistory says
Jesus said, “Those who live by the sword, will die by the sword.” He also said, “Happy are the peaceable/Blessed are the peacemakers.”
And the Apostle Paul wrote, “As far as it depends upon you, be peaceable with all men.” And he wrote that to the Christians living in Rome.
Christians are allowed self-defense. But violence is not sought….as is the course for mozlums.
Psalm 34:14 New International Version
“Turn from evil and do good; seek peace and pursue it.”
Christianity is the same now as it was when Jesus gave instructions to His disciples.
People may not always act on His words in an appropriate way. But the Teachings and Commandments are always the same.
Ray Jarman says
Excellent opine Somehistory. It might also be noted that nowhere in the New Testament does it express or encourage the killing of anyone, not even those in the close disciples of Satan whereas the Qur’an is full of passages encouraging if not ordering the killing of all nonbelievers.
WPM says
Murder, rape thief from non-believers ,lying to further Islam are part of jihad ,and Jihad is treated like a sacrament in Islam .Slave master balance is part of Islam ,no golden rule, no in the image of god for all people ,non-believers are to be treated as cattle and swine.
Rarely says
I don’t think most people, when they are about to be killed, are even the least bit interested in what the murderer’s religious beliefs may be.
somehistory says
that’s something only those about to be killed could answer. If someone threatened me with imminent death , I’d like to know his motive for doing so.
If he wasn’t doing it out of devotion to his false god and fake prophet, I might be able to talk him out of it.
somehistory says
Thank you, Ray. and of course you are right. Christianity is all about love and being kind as Jesus is; whereas the book of evil filth is just that….evil filth.
40 rounds says
At the same time, somehistory, -Jesus is Lord of the armies a title often used in the old testament and a harbinger of things to come.
somehistory says
Yes, 40, He is the One Paul wrote to the congregation in Thessalonica…. coming in “a flaming fire with His angels” He will carry out divine vengeance upon those who have committed these evils we are seeing all over the world.
Hoi Polloi says
I agree with Mr. Jarman. Nicely done.
somehistory says
thank you, HP.
Hoi Polloi says
You’re always welcome.
WPM says
Yes Rarely
but Moslems scream about killing unbelievers all the time many times in their Friday sermons .Jews “rarely ” or never scream about kill non-believers in their Saturday sermons. Christians never scream about killing unbelievers in their Sunday sermons .Why do Moslems threaten Christians and Jews every time they are in a position of power and Jews and Christian almost never do “weird”.??
So killing people according to your hate of their beliefs ,makes no difference to them right before they are killed?
Quote
“I don,t think most people who are about to be killed are the least bit interested in the murder’s religious belief may be”??
Even if that person’s religious belief make it a sacrament to kill you ??He threat to kill you on many occasions ?
Weird strange jihad violence should not be taken seriously or investigated according to your post ??
Weird??
David Ross says
Martin could hardly have said anything to Julius Caesar four centuries after the Ides.
You might intend Julian, the apostate.
Mindy says
Christianity has never been a political ideology and as such from the time that Christ walked the very places that the poison of islam now claims, Jew and gentiles from all over the middle east formed the Christians community , people of every nation, tribe and tongue. islam was nonexistent during this period, I believe it reared up from hell around 732 ad thru the false prophet mohammed. Those who followed this false prophet lied, slaughtered, raped, tortured, enslaved their way across the middle east and nothing has changed. The reasons the savagery of the muslims doesn’t change is because the false prophet told them to lie, slaughter, torture, enslave all non muslims, to dominate and subjugate the entire world. I read the book written by the false prophet mohammed before I even read the bible and saw it for what it is, a book written by a savage man, possibly possesed, which would appeal to the hearts of men who sought power and riches.
somehistory says
True, Mindy. Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world.” that would make Christianity non-political from the beginning.
Hoi Polloi says
I recently encountered, again, the claim that muslims are uniquely devout. This is easy for criminals and satanists since their book allows, and even commands, a comprehensive list of evil acts and motives. So little is forbidden to muslim males.
WPM says
There are very “devout ” Moslems they are devout to enslave or convert or kill you .That is their mission statement to the world .Allah being a fake or very weak god has his little minions spreading misery ,heart ache ,and fear is either the devil or one of his chief helpers in this world of the living here on earth. The is my opinion I am sticking to it . Many useful idiots in the west who hate our cultural our laws our tradition are siding with this evil cult (Islam) that if Islam or and sharia became law they would be the first to lose their heads or thrown off of tall buildings.
somehistory says
I listened this week to a podcast by Glenn Beck interviewing Astrophysicist Hugh Ross. Fascinating interview and I learned some things from that self-taught Chirstian man.
At one point, he said he was listening to Carl Sagan and Sagan said that it was his hope that one day, ‘intelligent life on a far distant world would give humans on planet Earth, a book telling us how to live.’
Dr Ross said he responded…not to Sagan…’there is such a Book.’
Sagan heard him and said that he had read ‘that book and its moral code was too high for man to attain.’ (I don’t recall Sagan’s exact words as Dr. Ross said, but that’s the gist of his meaning.)
Dr. Ross said to Beck, ‘and that’s the point.’
Christians cannot perfectly follow Jesus Christ any more than the Jews could perfectly follow the Law.
It’s relatively easy to give in to selfish, fleshly, thoughts and wants.
The book mozlums follow, gives praise to those things. And worse.
Hoi Polloi says
Thanks; will listen to that.
somehistory says
You’re very welcome, HP. I know you’ll enjoy it.
gravenimage says
Were the Early Christians Nonviolent Solely Because They Didn’t Have State Power?
When it comes to pacifism, Muslim polemicists often argue that Christians chose pacifism for the first few hundred years of Christianity because they didn’t have a state. They posit that Christians chose nonviolence because they didn’t have the political power and authority required to exercise violence and coercion, but this argument has a few problems.
………………………………
It does indeed. While Muhammed was less warlikke *very* early, he soon left Mecca and began a campaign of vicious caravan raiding, looting, and enslavement long before he had a state–or indeed any political power, save over his thuggish “companions”. Of course he was even worse once he’d gained real political power.
There was no such campaign of violence in Christianity.
Christianity and Islam–compare and contrast.
Hoi Polloi says
You’ve made a very interesting point; thanks.
gravenimage says
Thank you, Hoi Polloi.
Hoi Polloi says
Yw.
Unknown guy says
According to me, this creates a huge problem for christianity bcoz when you are tolerating and forgiving of everything how will you preserve and enforce christianity in the population. For any religion to survive, you need some sort of force to be applied to the population, otherwise the religion will slowly start vanishing. This is what has happened in europe and usa where once upon a time christianity was a dominant religion but now people don’t care about christianity. On the contrary, if we compare with Islam it is exactly the opposite and that is why Muslims are successful in preserving their religion from corruption and succesful in maintaining their values and culture in woke western countries. If christianity has to survive or grow then this Us/European model of conservatism cannot help.
Also another question, if the old Testament laws are not applicable in today’s times how will you reduce the influence of wokeism and progressive policies in the population.