October 27, 2006
Good Company I: A Brief History of Christian Non-Violence
"It's very hard to look at [the] family tree of non-violence in a way that makes the religion incidental."
That sentence in a review of Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion intrigued me. The philosophy of Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. is known to all of us, I'm sure. Gandhi's ethic of non-violent resistance inspired MLK's crusade to transform our own country. But, I wondered, who inspired Gandhi? And who inspired the guy who inspired Gandhi? And how far back does this go? What is the well-spring of this important ideal and how (if at all) has it changed?
These, at least, were the questions that I originally set out to answer. I thought I could insulate and isolate a few people apart from the historical milieu of Christian non-resistance and trace their influence on each other over the course of about a century while ignoring everything else. Unfortunately, my research style (rabbit-trailing) got in the way, so we start with some groundwork before moving on.
It should surprise no one to learn that the history of nonviolence begins with Jesus Christ. Christianity and the Church may have inspired a lot of hatred, death and violence, but there's a lot of peace-mongering hovering in the margins as well. Jesus, by all accounts, lived "a blameless life," part of which was the substitution of love and grace for hatred and violence, and the repayment of evil with good.
His life, his message, and the testimony of the church he left behind all attest to the Christian obligation to act always in a spirit of love rather than of violence. The jumping-off point for many later proponents of non-violence begins with Matthew 5:39 (most specifically, "resist not evil"), but really there is a broad scriptural (New Testament) basis for non-violence (Romans 12:17-21 is another reference that comes to mind).
Unlike many of the sectarian doctrines and dogmas under constant debate (*cough*Calvinism*cough*), non-violence does not rely on the sketchy intrepretation of a verse or two. It is a pervasive and recurring theme. Various finer points may be argued as ethical "what-ifs" are proposed, but it does not seem convincingly arguable that a commitment to non-violence should not be a part of the Christian lifestyle. I suspect anyone who would seek to deny this of being more interested in interpreting the Bible based on the standards of contemporary social mores than on discovering and living by what it actually teaches.
For centuries there has always been some portion of Christianity devoted to pacifism, non-resistance, non-violence, etc. These have included the Amish and various other types of Anabaptists, the German Baptist Brethren and the Mennonites. The trail of important individuals which I am trying to link up with, having begun with Jesus Christ and continued through early Church leaders for a few hundred years (more on that in a moment), makes a very long leap of about 14 centuries to George Fox (1624-1691) and the Religious Society of Friends (the Quakers).
Fox established what is known as "the Peace Testimony" in 1651, refusing to be involved in England's military endeavors (he found himself sitting in a nasty prison for his pains). This idea was derived from the teachings of Jesus, various passages from the New Testament and the example of the Early Church. Later Quaker sources point to a multitude of first and second century Christians who either refused to enter military service, or who left the military immediately upon converting.
According to one Quaker (writing in the 1800s), there is no record of a Christian in military service during the first 200 years after Christ's death . . . and precious few for about a century after that (these two statistics are "probably not true" and "probably true," respectively). Early Church leaders who discussed this doctrine in their writings include Justin Martyr, Tatian, Irenaeus, Tertullian and Origenes.
According to this and other sources, the Catholic Church eventually killed that bothersome "pacifist Christians" idea (sometimes literally), ruling that it applied only to members of the clergy. Interestingly enough, this happened practically the year after Constantine made Christianity the official state religion of Rome (Synod of Arelate, 314 A.D.), and Christians suddenly found themselves in a position quite different from any they had ever been in before. I'm trying hard to be fair in my judgment of something that happened a very long time ago, but really I almost have to attribute the sudden change in doctrine to the necessities of political expediency within a Church corrupted by its rise to power. In other words, from the beginning, Christians who say war is okay are pretty suspect.
Various minority groups continued to flock back to it from time to time for the next several hundred years. Most notably, of course, were the Albigensians (or Cathars) in the 11th century. Their beliefs included the condemnation of all war and capital punishment. Eventually, Pope Innocent III declared a crusade on them, and they were wiped out over the course of two decades of massacres which were considered barbaric even by medieval standards. It would be unfair to imply that their doctrine of non-resistance was the only beef the Roman Catholic Church had with them. They also believed in reincarnation, and their view of Jesus had a suspiciously Gnostic flare. However, it was a reason.
As one might expect, when the Reformation rolled in the issue flared up again. However, as I (for one) would not have thought, mainstream Protestants (Lutherans and those dirty Calvinists) were perfectly in step with their Roman Catholic enemies on the subject of Christian non-resistance. Only the Anabaptists insisted that Jesus be taken at his word.
That brings us back to George Fox and the Quakers. I don't want to spend too long on the Quakers, except to note that a large group of them eventually wound up in Pennsylvania in 1681, where they were safe from religious persecution. Their influence has been felt here and there on the history of the United States ever since. In particular, a fellow abolitionist and friend of the Quakers, William Lloyd Garrison (perhaps you've heard of him), was quite probably inspired (at least in part) by their Peace Testimony to take a shockingly strong stand behind the principle of non-resistance in the late 1830s.
I'll quit with Garrison for now, as this will soon be a history of individuals and their ideas rather than of denominations and sects and their doctrines. I'll leave you with a question that a lot of advocates of Christian non-resistance are going to start asking right around Garrison's time, namely: How can so much of mainstream Christianity pretend like the conflict between the true faith of peace and love and Church-sanctioned practice of violence and war does not exist?
Please don't hesitate to throw comments and questions my way. In particular, if you feel that anything needs clarification, further justification, further research, more sources, or you wonder why I didn't mention some fact (I probably wasn't aware of it), say so. That'll help me render my own knowledge of the subject as complete as possible.
Posted by Jared at October 27, 2006 05:14 PM | TrackBackQuick criticism: It seems a bit facile to use the term "nonviolence" to describe the teachings of Jesus (paragraphs 4-7), since that term originated much later. It's a bit like saying "evangelicalism" originated with Jesus.
That said, I like it so far.
Posted by: Wilson at October 27, 2006 07:49 PMWell, as I have been studying the history of the Crusades over here, the topic of Christian holy war and justifiable violence has come up a time or two (read: just about every day). First, there are records of saints and martyrs from the first two centuries of the Church who were soldiers. Now, haigiography is not the best place to go for accurate historical information, but I think that, combined with the fact that the Church Fathers did deal with the topic of Christians in the army, it establishes a precedent fairly early on in the Church's history.
Second, I think it is important to draw a distinction between the issues of Christian non-violence and service in an Imperial army; this is because the writings of Jerome, Ambrose, and Augustine certainly do because they see it as a Biblical precedent. Jesus and his disciples did not encourage their centurion converts to abandon their martial lifestyle, and this was read by the Fathers to mean that to fight an impersonal enemy in a just war for the State was completely ok. In personal affairs, a Christian should never resort to violence. Now, it is argueable that this is somewhat hypocritical, but it is the orthodox view of the issue in most denominations to this day.
The idea of the Christian who is a soldier was a vital one in medieval Europe, which does much to explain its lasting image. In the chaos that led to and followed the collapse of Rome, cities and communities had to be defended against barbarian invasions; the majority of the population is Christian, so what else to do but further develop the ideas of Fathers like Augustine? That being said, I definitely think the idea was taken too far, which is where we get into my study over here: the Crusades and Church-endorsed holy war. I reject the notion of a standing Church army, despite the romantic appeal of the imagery (and yes, I'm man enough to admit I feel it :-p). The Church went too far, as it is want to do, because of political reasons, both internal and external.
Were the beliefs evidenced by the Crusades and the military orders of the Church suspect? Yes, but that does not automatically make their ideological antecedents suspect. I do not think that serving in an army is anathema to the Christian life; neither do I believe that living a pacifistic life is anathema to our faith. I believe that the NT establishes a faith that can include both.
Well, that comment rambled on for a while. Hope it made some amount of sense. I'm interested to see what everyone else is going to say.
Posted by: Barbour at October 27, 2006 08:50 PMFair warning: This comment is going to be distinctly less "scholarly" (i.e. researched) and more personal. I suspect that some, and perhaps much, of my thinking is based more on "worldly" principles than Christian ones. But this issue has troubled me for many years, and I have yet to hear a fully satisfactory explanation one way or another. I offer these comments in the hope that they will provide food for thought. So here we go:
I firmly and wholeheartedly believe that nonviolence should be the default lifestyle for Christians; violence is not the way we should approach our problems. However, I have a problem with the idea of total pacifism, and here's why: total pacifism seems to me to lie too close to inaction and indifference. To say that one must never fight is to say that nothing is worth fighting for; it is to make violence the supreme evil.
Part of my problem, perhaps, is semantics (this seems to be a theme with me, doesn't it?): What exactly is "violence"? We often conflate "violence" and "killing," but is that right? Is it possible that an action can be both violent and nonlethal? At what point does "aggression" become "violence"? What, exactly, does pacifism forbid?
As I've said, my aversion to total pacifism is at least as much the result of a "gut feeling" as of rational thought. I look forward to seeing how this discussion and the ones that follow proceed.
Posted by: Martinez at October 27, 2006 10:09 PMThat's a very good question -- particularly given this memorable instance of nonviolent behavior by Jesus. And wasn't that at the very least "resisting evil"?
Posted by: Wilson at October 27, 2006 10:52 PMAs jared's little tale pulls up just short of the Civil War, he hasn't caused us to look at the ultimate dilemma for the disciples of George Fox. In fact, the Friends have had to struggle when pacificism and a particular evil colide. In this case they were very much responsible for bringing the slavery related causes of North/South conflict into the public conscious and therefore partially and significantly responsible for the war.
So what were they to do? well they did not protest or picket the war. Many fought inspite of their beliefs....perhaps choosing the lesser of two evils in their minds and hearts. Others staffed the ambulance and medical corps...with no little loss of life. Many many others, beyondthe age of fighting themselves, gave generously to help the victims of the war (black and white) and feed the troops.
Of course, this isn't the only area where the good quaker's faith has been tested. Simplicity, personal revelation, lay clergy have all at one time or another been at odds with this or that social, political or evangelical movement.
Right now, of course, many Quakers are marginalized by the rest of protestant christianity because they vote for social programs...and are at odds with republican agenda items of which war is just one of MANY. Many feel they are treated worse than a cult (at least Mormans vote republican!)
All that to say that one can be a strong pacifist without being destined to sit out every conflict....personal or national.
Sadly to say our goivernment does not see it that way. A former professor of mine (at George Fox College) felt called to fight in WWII ...feeling the eveil of Hitler called even Quakers to arms. When he tried to reclaim his objector status during the Korean War he was told he had to choose: go to war or be tried for treason or some similar crime...
Of course I don't in any way mean to imply either that non-violence is the central purpose of Jesus' life and teachings, or that he "originated" it per se. But non-violence does originate with Christ in the sense that it does not exist prior to him and that his example inspires, informs, and is the basis of all later non-resistance movements. I should have been more clear . . . hopefully that is clear.
As far as the early Church stance on violence and war . . . Yes, Barbour, you're right. There were a few Christians in the military spotted here and there at some point during those first centuries. I tried to indicate that that was the case (althought I didn't dwell on it). My own research indicates that, at the very very beginning, Christian involvement with the military was very limited if not non-existent and that this was widely considered the way things ought to be. Christian military service begins to creep in much later, gaining strength as Christianity drew closer and closer to the State. In particular, The Early Christian Attitude to War (John Cecil Cadoux, 1919) states that there is no historical record of a Christian in military service between 50 and 170 A.D. It backs this up with a variety of references that I shan't reproduce here (it seems like a pretty good examination of the topic: link to full text). Anyway, thanks for filling in some of the gaps where my little history was a bit spotty.
Martinez, valid points for sure. I think you're having trouble with the distinction between passive and pacifist. Hopefully the next section (or two, if I can't get to it all in one) will highlight the two different approaches to pacifism. Suffice to say, I agree completely with what you're saying.
Oh, and speaking of filling in gaps, since I wasn't going to pursue the Quaker line any farther than I have to, thanks to fry for coloring that segment in for me. It's a worthy line to follow, but my own trail diverged. Additionally, the history and legality of conscientious objector status (which I read up on a bit) is also quite interesting, so I'm glad it got worked in.
Posted by: Blame Jared at October 29, 2006 12:06 AM