“The Right to Bear the Sword the State has”
When asked where I stand on the subject of pacifism, I tend to say that I’m somewhere towards the non-violent end of the spectrum. When asked to elaborate, I admit that the primary reason I’m drawn towards pacifism is that it allows me to tell people I follow a teacher called Yoder.
I jest of course, but there is a strange sort of irony in the fact that the Mennonite pacifist theologian John Howard Yoder bears a remarkably similar name to a little green creature who trained insurrectionists to be fighting machines. Yoder was one of the most significant modern pacifist theologians, who in turn mentored others such as Stanley Hauerwas. His best known book The Politics of Jesus is a seminal text, ranked by Christianity Today as the fifth most important Christian book of the Twentieth Century. I am not an out and out pacifist, nor am I convinced by the entire thesis of Yoder’s book, but in this post I want to make a couple of comments about the nature of pacifism, and then look briefly at just one of Yoder’s arguments.
What Pacifism is and isn’t
Pacifism is not always a weak or cowardly theological position. In fact arguably it’s a very courageous position to take, since it requires self-restraint and counter-intuitive action even in the face of pressure, persecution and of course violence. Many pacifists find the term unhelpful and instead opt for a term like ‘non-violence’, which implies not passivity, but active commitment to something believed to be more powerful than violence. Mark Kurlansky in his (ok-ish-and-worth-a-read-but-a-little-hit-and-miss) book Non-Violence: The History of a Dangerous Idea, writes:
Lesson number one from human history on the subject of nonviolence, is that there is no word for it. […] While every major language has a word for violence, there is no word to express the idea of nonviolence except that it is not another idea, it is not violence […] If we lived in a world that had no word for war other than nonpeace, what kind of world would that be? It would not necessarily be a world without war, but it would be a world that regarded war as an aberrant and insignificant activity. The widely held and seldom expressed but implicit viewpoint of most cultures is that violence is real and nonviolence is unreal. But when nonviolence becomes a reality it is a powerful force. […] Nonviolence is not the same thing as pacifism, for which there are many words. Pacifism is treated almost as a psychological condition. It is a state of mind. Pacifism is passive; but nonviolence is active. Pacifism is harmless and therefore easier to accept than nonviolence, which is dangerous. (Kurlansky, p5-6)
It’s a distinction worth making, and passages like Matthew 5:38-48 can be seen to demonstrate a kind of creative engagement with oppression that is best described not as pacifism, but rather non-violence. It is neither the ‘do nothing’ of pacifism, or the ‘fight back’ of retaliation. Instead it is as Rob Bell puts it, “A particular kind of focussed, disciplined action in the face of the world’s injustice.”
So given the failure of language at this point, perhaps I can make the distinction by referring to capital-p Pacifism, by which I mean passive ‘do nothingness’ and small-p pacifism, which is the end of the spectrum incorporating both non-violence and Pacifism proper.
As Matt Hosier’s article pointed out, the first three centuries of the Church seem to have been largely pacifist, and from that period there are incredible stories of people finding creative, non-violent ways to stand up for themselves and their faith. For example, Josephus recounts the story of Emperor Caius, who sent Petronius to erect a statue of him in the Temple in Jerusalem, telling him that if the Jewish people resisted he could conquer them by war. Petronius took as many auxiliaries as he could find, and two legions of the Roman army, but tens of thousands of Jews came out to meet Petronius, telling him that they could not permit an idolatrous statue to be placed in the temple. Josephus writes:
They replied “We will not by any means make war with [Caesar], but still we will die before we see our laws transgressed.” So they threw themselves down upon their faces, and stretched out their throats, and said they were ready to be slain: and this they did for forty days together, and in the meantime left off the tilling of their ground, and that while the season of the year required them to sow it. (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, xviii.8)
You may well wonder as to the relevance of the tilling of the soil. Josephus continues, explaining that the social issues that would have been caused by the Jews not tilling the ground would have raised an enormous problem for Caesar; with robberies, famine and the inability of people to pay tribute. The threat of social disorder was enough to cause Petronius and Caius to think about the consequences of their actions and eventually back down.
Now this sort of episode raises other ethical questions about the right to strike and suchlike, with which I’m not primarily concerned here. But at least it demonstrates that non-violence, rather than being a passive thing, is a proactive, creative attempt to stand up to wrongdoing in a way that shuns violence and exposes the cruelty of oppression. It is courageous and it is risky; people die for this stuff!
Non-pacifists should resist the urge to fall back on simple stereotypes that paint pacifists as weak, fluffy, irresponsible, effeminate cowards who so value their own comfort that they refuse to get their hands dirty. I’m sure that’s true of some, but not of all. Similarly, pacifists should resist the temptation to vilify those who support Just War Theory as irresponsible, bloodthirsty, trigger-happy, gun-toting violence-loving men who get a kick out of war. Again, I’m sure that is true of some, but not of many. These sorts of issues are too complex and too important to be plagued by a throwing around of cheap caricatures.
Yoder on Romans 12-13
There are, of course, many texts that could be cited for each side of the debate, and I have no doubt we’ll pick some of them up in the comments and rejoinders over the next few days. But let me focus the rest of this post on one key passage, which has given me a lot to think about. Romans 13 is an obvious go-to text for those wanting to justify the use of force or weaponry. It reads,
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. (Romans 13:1-4)
I distinctly remember the first time I read Yoder on this passage. He completely subverted the way I’d always understood it and I’ve been unable to shake some of his questions ever since. In chapter 10 of The Politics of Jesus, Yoder essentially makes six points about Romans 13:
1) The New Testament speaks in many ways about the problem of the state: Romans 13 is not the centre of this teaching.
2) In the structure of the Epistle, chapters 12 and 13 in their entirety form one literary unit. Therefore the text 13:1-7 cannot be understood alone.
3) The subordination that is called for recognises whatever power exists, accepts whatever structure of sovereignty happens to prevail. The text does not affirm, as the tradition has it, a divine act of institution or ordination of a particular government.
4) The instructions to the Romans are to be subject to a government in whose administration they had no voice. The text cannot mean that Christians are called to do military or police service.
5) The function of bearing the sword to which Christians are called to be subject is the judicial and police function; it does not refer to the death penalty or to war.
6) The Christian who accepts his subjection to government retains his moral independence and judgment. The authority of government is not self-justifying. Whatever government exists is ordered by God; but the text does not say that whatever the government does or asks of its citizens is good.
I have reservations with some of these points – but before you dismiss them you really should read the chapter. It’s provocative, if not always 100% convincing. But the point that has challenged my thinking more than any other is point two. Romans 12-13 is one literary unit, and we cannot (as many do) try to understand the ‘bearing of the sword’ outside of its context.
Yoder shows that Romans 12 begins with a call to non-conformity, motivated by the mercies of God (v1-3). This non-conformity finds expression in quality relationships, which flow from a transformed life; we have sober judgment, we use our gifts in service, we love one another sacrificially, we undergo suffering and persecution in a godly manner, we live in harmony with one another, even our enemies (v4-21). Then skipping forward to Romans 13:8-10, we see again the theme of loving one another, followed by v11-14 which talk about the future salvation. It is sandwiched in between these two sections on love, and just before the section on the triumphant future that we find 13:1-7. Yoder argues (I think convincingly) that this is one literary unit, and that 13:1-7 must therefore be interpreted in the light of the immediate context.
I’ll let him speak for himself:
The entire text thus sees Christian nonconformity and suffering love as driven and drawn by a sense of God’s triumphant movement from the merciful past into a triumphant future. Any interpretation of 13:1-7 that would make it an expression of a static or conservative undergirding of the present social system would therefore represent a refusal to take seriously the context. Any interpretation in which God’s mercies are not seen as overcoming hostilities through the creation of community, reaching even to the nuts and bolts of financial sharing and missionary support, has covered over the meaning of each part of the text by not seeing it whole. (Yoder, p198)
He then addresses the role of the Christian in the administering of God’s wrath:
There is a most specific dialectical interplay around the concepts of vengeance and wrath. Christians are told (12:19) never to exercise vengeance but to leave it to God and to wrath. Then the authorities are recognised (13:4) as executing the particular function which the Christian was to leave to God. It is inconceivable that these two verses, using such similar language, should be meant to be read independently of one another. This makes it clear that the function exercised by government is not the function to be exercised by Christians. However able an infinite God may be to work at the same time through the sufferings of his believing disciples who return good for evil and through the wrathful violence of the authorities who punish evil with evil, such behaviour is for men not complementary but in disjunction. God can in his own way, in his sovereign permissive providence, “use” an idolatrous Assyria (Isa. 10) or Rome. This takes place, however, without his declaring that such action which he thus uses is morally good or that participation in it is incumbent upon his covenant people. (Yoder, p199)
I find this fascinating and thought-provoking. When taken together as a literary unit, Romans 12-13 paints a picture of a new community, which refuses to conform to the pattern of the world, but in which people give themselves to each other and overcome evil with good (12:21), heaping not physical coals, but kindness on the heads of their enemies (12:20). The Christian is told not to avenge himself, for that is God’s prerogative (12:19) and that God outworks his vengeance through the state (13:4).
So we are left with the lingering question: If Christians are instructed not to do what the State is empowered by God to do, to what extent can a Christian participate in the State?
Discuss…
This post forms the second part of a short series on violence and pacifism.
Footnotes
Bell, Rob – Calling all Peacemakers (x3 MP3s)
Boyd, Greg – The Myth of a Christian Nation
Carson, D.A. – Just War (x2 MP3s)
Hayes, Richard – The Moral Vision of the New Testament
Holmes, Arthur (ed) – War and Christian Ethics (a reader)
Kurlanksy, Mark – Non-Violence: The History of a Dangerous Idea
Wright, N.T. – Evil and the Justice of God
Yoder, John Howard – The Politics of Jesus
A few resources to get you thinking:
Comments
By Colin Perkins on 22/11/2011 at 13:53
This is a very helpful article and I am really encouraged to see it in an NFI-related site; having come from that background myself I have sometimes struggled with the lack of attention given to progressive, slightly left-field thinkers such as Yoder and Hauerwas within mainstream NFI thought and it is great to see you bringing these writers to wider attention. Like you I read Yoder (in particular) and felt that there were passages of Scripture that I was reading “as if for the first time” (I realise I’m not the first person to say that regarding Yoder!).
At the risk of sounding repetitive / obsessed in my posts on this site, I wondered if you have also read any work by or about Rene Girard? If so I would be interested to hear your thoughts, particularly in relation to a discussion on non-violence. If not, I would highly recommend that you look in his direction, although Michael Kirwan’s book Discovering Girard is the best place to start, followed by Gil Baillie’s Violence Unveiled (Girard is a french literary critic, and writes like one!). Baillie’s book in particular is one of the best books - Christian or otherwise - I’ve ever read, and has deeply influenced my own thinking about what the Gospel is, and about how it transforms our own response to the world. I’ve posted before about Girard here, if you’re interested in my summary of his overall approach: http://whatyouthinkmatters.org/blog/article/the-bible-made-impossible
Great article though, deeply encouraging - keep them coming!
By Kip' Chelashaw on 23/11/2011 at 00:04
One way to consider the Christian being involved with the State question is to ask what you think would happen if a nation was to have majority Christians? As a postmil, I am convinced that this is where history is heading and so the question is if that point were ever to be reached (and it will) what in your opinion should Christians do re the army/police/etc - eschew or participate? I don’t see any intrinsic reason for eschewing the army especially given the positive description of soldiers etc in the Gospels (e.g. Matthew 8) + that of Jesus himself in Revelation 19
K
By Elspeth Barnett on 24/11/2011 at 10:26
I think Martin Luther’s, “On Secular Authority: to what extent should it be obeyed” would serve as a great response to this article and questions raised.
Luther held [at this time anyway] that although Christians have a kingdom of their own, they are still encompassed in secular society [doctrine of the two kingdoms] and
“Therefore, if you see that there is a lack of hangmen, constables, judges, lords, or princes, and you find that you are qualified, you should offer your services and seek the position, that the essential government authority may not be despised and become enfeebled or perish.”
For Christians are too uphold justice and prevent chaos amongst the ungodly. He goes to some length justifying why this is scriptural, and concludes that
“In this, two propositions are brought into harmony with one another: at one and the same time you satisfy God’s kingdom inwardly and the kingdom of the world outwardly. You suffer evil and injustice, and yet at the same time you punish evil and injustice; you do not resist evil, and yet at the same time, you do resist it.”
Therefore Luther has no problems with Christians as soldiers, policemen, and maybe even ‘Dog the Bounty-Hunter’ as
“Peter in Acts 10 [:33-34] preached Christ to Cornelius, he did not tell him to abandon his profession, which he would have had to do if it had prevented Cornelius from being a Christian…Luke …does not criticize…a soldier-the centurion of a pagan emperor… John confirms a soldiers’ calling, saying they should be content with their wages…”
Although Christians don’t need rules externally, as Christians have the Holy Spirit, they still must submit to
“the governing authority not because he needs it but for the sake of others, that they may be protected and that the wicked may not become worse.”
That is, using the sword so far as they aren’t seeking revenge but justice and are submitted to God and government, with real emphasis on preserving the good in culture rather than trying to redeem it [which makes for interesting discussion alone!]
I think this article has raised some great questions and stimulated a lot of thought! THANKS!
By Pete Thorne on 24/11/2011 at 11:22
Thanks Liam for this article, I’ve always struggled with this area in my Christian life so it’s great to see such issues tackled here.
As you end off, we are left with many questions and I’ll throw some more into the mix:
If God uses state rather than individual - is that because
(a) He wants to use non-Christians only for vengeance
(b) He wants to use people removed from the situation to offer unbiased justice
(c) He wants to show his sovereignty in moving a large body to act
(d) He wants to involve a justice system rather than a victim in imparting vengeance
(e) None of the above.
And, if Yoder is right that God is using man to repay evil with evil, does that make God complicit or guilty of evil by association?
Also, as Kip asks above, what happens when the state is governed by Christians?
By Liam Thatcher on 24/11/2011 at 13:57
Thanks Colin - they are hugely influential writers and need to be taken seriously. (I heard Hauerwas lecture a few months ago, the content of which was sadly disappointing - though he was engaging and provocative as ever!)
I haven’t read Girard (though I remember you mentioning him before.) I’ll check out the link. Thanks!
By Liam Thatcher on 24/11/2011 at 13:57
Hi Kip - Though I don’t personally share your postmil convictions, I do feel the force of the practical questions like: what would the army look like if all Christians disengaged?
As I see it, many of Jesus’ comments on violence in the NT are primarily in relation to the Kingdom (though with wider application, certainly), his point being that violence is an inappropriate way to establish the Kingdom of God (and thus perhaps leaving room for the question of whether it is appropriate to use force in other settings, such as defending your country). The question is made more difficult when the lines between Kingdom and Nation get blurred, as is arguably the case in the OT where Israel is both a nation and God’s people, and also in the case of the postmil vision of the future.
I would be cautious about invoking Jesus in Revelation 19. As I said in http://whatyouthinkmatters.org/blog/article/who-would-jesus-punch “The sword-tongued Jesus of Revelation is hardly meant to be a model for us to attain to; the point is that he is completely unique in his perfection and right to judge, and not to be emulated by fallible human beings. It is completely coherent for a pacifist to hold to the belief in God’s right to judge mankind, whilst also recognising that as humans we should refrain from doing so.”
And of course, Jesus’ second coming will be very different to the experience of a soldier here and now since: (a) His cause will be utterly just, whereas modern wars - for all their aims at being grounded in Just War Theory - deal with sinful humans and mixed motives, (b) He is not submitted to another’s authority as a modern day soldier would be, (c) He doesn’t enlist anyone else to do the ‘killing’ with him or on his behalf, (d) It is not the only, or even the most prominent, depiction of Jesus in Revelation, and must be coupled with the picture of the lamb who was slain (Rev 5; 13:8). He is both lion and lamb; warrior and the sacrificial offering. (Richard Hays - The Moral Vision of the New Testament, has some good material on this)
Thanks for the comments… Keep them coming!
By Nathan L on 27/11/2011 at 02:24
Would it be fair to suggest that, reading Ro 12-13 in it’s historical context, Paul says that the government holds the sword is based on his readers experience at the time, and not a general, necessary principle (a bit of a “man with long hair = shameful” moment). I don’t have the text I. Front of me and am dealing with insomnia whilst trying to not wake my sleeping wife up right now so I may be making no sense of the flow of the passage, but could we fi d a compromise between Yoder’s biblical assertion of non-violence, and the idea that Christians in government could actually yield God’s authority in a God-honoring, Christ-imitating manner ? Would Paul, on te basis of 12.1-3 actually be in favor of a Christian government who would exercise justice not with the sword, but in a manner fitting of a transformed mind? Not staking my exegetical credentials on this one, but it seems compelling to me at this unearthly hour!
By Michael Snow on 29/02/2012 at 23:12
The most helpful thing in seeing Romans “13” clearly is to remember that Paul wrote a letter not chapters. And then to read it with the historical context in mind.
323 BC Death of Alexander the Great. Kingdom divided among the generals.
Judea comes under the Ptolemies, who also rule Eygpt
198 BC Judea annexed by the Seleucids, under Antiochus III, who rules Syria
During this period, Jews were under no government edicts to change customs [though many fell under the spell of the Hellenistic spirit of the times]. Antiochus strengthened the High Priesthood, made Torah official law for Jews and exempted Jews from taxes.
Judea was still a theocratic/Temple State.
Internal strife precipitated a crisis under the next king, Antiochus IV, Epiphanes. High Priestly faction, the House of Zaddock, was pro-Ptolemaic.
Another artistocratic family, the Tobiads, was pro-Seleucid.
Complaints against High Priest Onias III led to removal. Office was sold to his brother, Jason, who received permission from Antiochus “to transform Jerusalem into a Greek polis…” “For the first time in Jewish History, the office of high priest had changed from heritage to a privileged position…” to be bought.
Later, Jason refused to surrender that office. Civil war broke out. Besides the political factions, the scribal class, to whom the common people looked, produced the Hassidim who attacked Jews who were Hellenizers.
168 BC Antiochus Intervenes in Jewish civil war.
This led to the events described in Maccabees: Desecration of the Temple; the Abomination of Desolation.
This then led to Revolt of the Maccabees, joined by the Hassidim
164 BC “On December 25…Temple was purified and rededicated to Yahweh.”
Annual observance—Hanukkah, Festival of Lights
Judea gains autonomy. Simon, one of the Maccabees, rules from 140-135. Holds Offices of High Priest [first of the Hasmonean Dynasty], Ethnarch, military and civil Governor.
Intervening Years till reign of Herod.
Battles continue between factions and enemies.
63 BC Pompey Captures Jerusalem.
Antipater, father of Herod, honored by Julius Caesar.
40 BC After Rome’s Civil War, under Octavian Caesar, Antony and Roman Senate confer title on Herod: “King of the Jews”
4 BC Death of Herod The Great
Revolts put down
Kingdom divided among sons
Archelaus rules over Judea…strife continues
Jewish delegation to Rome: complaints about Archelaus’ rule; asks for Roman rule
AD 6 Archelaus’ rule ends. Judea Becomes Roman Province
Change in government calls for census—taken for purpose of taxation. To devout Jews, this was a symbol of subjugation to Rome, a foreign, pagan power
Judas the Galilean [Acts 5:37], with Zadock the Pharisee, leads Revolt
Judas recruits his band around Sepphoris, the capitol [a short distance from Nazareth]
Three Roman Legions under Varus crush revolt.
2000 Jews Crucified [Josephus, Ant.17:295]
[From this period until the outbreak of the final Jewish War in AD 66, Zealots and assassins would continue to foment rebellion and violent outbreaks. Josephus, The Jewish War, is great background reading for understanding NT times.]
c. AD 29 “Barrabbas had been imprisoned with the insurrectionists who had committed murder in the insurrection.” [Mark 15]
AD 46-48 Insurrections: Two Sons of Judas the Galilean executed by Rome
c.AD 49 Edict of Claudius
Jews expelled from Rome for disturbances [Acts 18:2]
AD 54 Claudius Dies
Jews begin return to Rome
AD 57 Paul Writes Letter to the Romans
AD 66 Jewish War begins. Temple Destroyed in 70
Read IN CONTEXT: Rom 12-13
[Note: Paul wrote a letter, not chapters. New Testament Had NO Chapter numbers for over 1000 years.]
I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind,...
Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse….. Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,“says the Lord. On the contrary: “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God…