Christopher Etter (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} tantricmagus) wrote,@ 2008-12-04 18:49:00 |
|
Non-Violence in the Christian Church in History and Exegetical Interpretations
Christopher Etter
Seminar in Non-Violence
12/1/08
Non-Violence in the Christian Church in History and Exegetical Interpretations
Introduction
As Christianity emerged it went through many changes as it evolved theologically, socially, and eventually politically. Christianity began as a pacifistic religion with non-violent peaceful doctrines, but it evolved into a socio-political machine as it became the theocratic state religion of the Roman Empire.
I will first be showing, using the doctrines of three early church fathers that Christianity began as a pacifistic movement, but due to the incorporation of political theocratic rule over the Roman Empire, it was forced to undermine its peaceful doctrines and find justification for antithetical doctrines that would allow the church to advocate war and the usage of force to uphold Christian law.
From there I will show how modern exegetical interpretations of the Sermon on the Mount and other teachings of Jesus have been used to either denounce, justify or incorporate violence in Christian teachings.
History of the Early Christian Church
Tertullian (155 CE-240 CE)
Tertullian was one of the first fathers of the Christian church. He lived between 155 CE and 240 CE, and he became one of the primary contributors of theological debates that eventually served to form the basis for the Catholic Church and Catholic theology. He authored many argumentative texts, but it was in “The Apology” that he addressed the question of religion, government, war and Christian ethics.
In “The Apology” Tertullian attempts to address the disconnect between Roman military and social values concerning military service and the standard of Christian ethics at that time. During this time, the Roman empire was ruled by an emperor and the state religion was a Roman pagan religion that considered the emperor to be a human representation of the “gods” on Earth” who directly imparted the law on the people through him. Allegiance to the emperor and obedience was considered mandatory. The Christians however, believed that allegiance to anyone but God and Jesus was a sin, and refused military service for a multitude of reasons. This made the Romans consider the Christians trouble makers because even though they were not violent, they rejected the will of the emperor and refused to take up a sword and commit murder for him.
In “The Apology” Tertullian suggests that government should promote peace and social order, however he argues the main principles of Roman law and suggests that Christians cannot pick up a sword and fight for Caesar and still uphold and live the teachings of Jesus Christ.
He begins by refuting the idea that Caesar has a divine status: “Let the emperor make war against heaven; let him lead heaven captive in his triumph; let him put guards on heaven; let him impose taxes on heaven! He cannot!” (Holmes, 39). In the Roman Empire at this time Caesar is considered divine and this is antithetical to Christian values. He clarifies this by saying: “There is no agreement between the divine and human sacrament, the standard of Christ and the standard of the devil, the camp of light and the camp of darkness. One soul cannot be due to two masters- God and Caesar.” (Holmes, 43-44). Therefore, Christians cannot serve two masters and military service requires allegiance and obedience to Caesar and requires the Christian to commit murder and other crimes under the order of Caesar rather than living by Jesus’ authority.
He is very clear that Jesus never advocated violence and therefore serving the will of Caesar for the sake of committing crimes is completely antithetical to the essence of Christianity. He again states: “Shall it be held lawful to make an occupation of the sword when the Lord proclaims that he who uses the sword shall perish by the sword?” (Holmes, 45).
He considers allegiance to Caesar in military service idolatry and even the vows and rewards of military service idolatry because the vows a soldier under Caesar takes involves praise for Jupiter and other pagan Roman gods.
This remains the popular view among peaceful Christians in the Roman Empire, and they were criticized for dissidence and not living up to Roman standards. Even through all this they remained steadfast and believed in the peaceful non-violent teachings of Jesus.
Origen (185 CE -254 CE)
Origen was another early church father that both contributed to the evolution of Christian thinking, and advocated the refusal of military service and public office for the sake of upholding Christian ethics.
In Origen’s work “Against Celsus” he argues Celsus’s claims that Christians are rebellious for advocated a pacifist lifestyle by refusing military service and public office. Like Tertullian, he argues that it is antithetical to Christian ethics to commit murder, but he goes farther by justifying their position by comparing the Christians to Roman pagan priests. He states: “Do not those who are priests at certain shrines, and those who attend certain gods, as you account them,. Keep their hands free from blood, that they may with hands unstained and free from human blood offer the appointed sacrifices to your gods; and even when war is upon you, you never enlist the priests in the army.” (Holmes, 49). Therefore, it is of spiritual value to be free from murder and a spiritual occupation is as valid as a military one.
When confronted with the argument that refusal to hold public office is to refuse public responsibility and duty, he states: “And it is not for the purpose of escaping public duties that Christians decline public offices, but that they may reserve themselves for a diviner and more necessary service in the Church of God- for the salvation of men. And this service is at once necessary and right.” (Holmes, 50). He clearly sees a need to keep religious spiritual life separate from political life and holds that Christians should refrain from holding political positions.
Constantine and Theocracy
Up until the beginning of the fourth century, Christians maintained this view and remained a peaceful religion in the empire. However at the turn of the fourth century, Emperor Constantine established the Edict of Milan in 313 which reversed the Dicletian persecution of Christians in the Empire. In 325 CE at the Council of Nicea, the Nicene Creed was established as the official statement of faith for the Christian Church. With this socio-political change, Christianity went from a small religion in the empire to the controlling force behind Roman law and the Roman military force enforcing that law.
From this point on, Christianity was shaped as a political and military model to unify the entire empire under on universal (catholic) faith, and adherence to this law was mandatory. Any deviation from theology or law was considered heresy and punishable by the Roman authority. Where before the church fathers advocated refusal of military service and political positions, the church was thrust to the forefront of the largest political and military machine the world had ever known.
At this point, the synthesis of religion and politics forced the Christian Church to face the inevitable fact that had plagued politics ever since the beginning of civilization: war is an inevitable reality of politics. Faced with this reality, the church was forced to reconcile the disconnect between Christianity and politics that had existed due to doctrinal disputes concerning the nature of politics, war and murder. How can the Church justify war and still remain true to the pacifist doctrines of Jesus Christ? Therefore, the “Just War” theory was born.
St. Augustine (354 CE-430 CE) and “Just War” Theory
St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, is arguably the most influential Christian philosopher in the history of the church. His work shaped the scope of Christian theology all the way up to today. His work not only created most of the solid theological concepts of Catholicism, but influenced almost every philosopher to follow him.
Augustine lived in a violent period in Roman history and lived through many uprisings in the empire until he died in 430 CE in Carthage when it was sacked by the Vandals. At this time, Christianity controlled the empire and therefore, uprisings were seen as attacks against the church’s authority and wars were waged and won by the authority of the Catholic Church. The church at this time was faced with the reality that wars were inevitable if they wished to maintain a Christian controlled state. Therefore, Christianity had to reconcile the justification for their actions, because it was the church that waged and authorized murder through war.
Augustine, being influenced by this reality, attempted to formulate a logical justification for the use of force in God’s name, in order to maintain peace and stability in the empire. For the first time in Christian history, Christianity began to advocate justifiable violence as a necessity to maintain peace. Even though this seems to undermine the teachings of Jesus, the necessity for this doctrine was a unwanted side effect of having a church controlled state. The Christian Church was responsible for social order, and therefore responsible to deal with war and violence.
Augustine argued that war can be waged with proper intent if the desired outcome was peace and order. War under these conditions can be seen as an act of love and the restoration of God’s law and therefore, justification can be establish if the intent is to secure peace and it is an absolute necessity to restore order. In a letter to Carthage’s defender, Count Boniface, written in 418 he wrote: “Peace should be the object of your desire; war should be waged only as a necessity, and waged only that God may by it deliver men from the necessity and preserve them in peace. For peace is not sought in order to the kindling of war, but war is waged so that peace may be obtained.” (Holmes, 63). This was to justify the act of war by having proper intent and the to fulfill an unfortunate necessity.
One of the other arguments for justification came from scripture by using the examples of King David and Moses, who had to use violence to fulfill God’s will. He argued that it is an error to see war is a black and white, right and wrong issue. In “Reply to Faustus the Manichean” he clarifies this by saying: “What is the evil in war? Is it the death of someone who will soon die in any case, that others may live in peaceful subjection? This is mere cowardly dislike, not any religious feeling. The real evils in war are wild resistance and the lust of power, and such like; and it is generally to punish these things, when force is required to inflict the punishment, that, in obedience to God or some lawful authority, good men undertake wars, when they find themselves in such a position as regards the conduct of human affairs, that right conduct requires them to act, or make others act in this way.” (Holmes, 64). Using these lines of logic he attempts to propose that war can be justified as a way to restore a peaceful social order under God’s law.
Overview of the History of the Church
By following the progression of early Christian thinkers and doctrines we can see the emergence of a doctrine called “Just War” theory, which attempts to justify the use of violence and force in God’s name for the sake of fulfilling God’s law. This theory came about for two reasons. First, Christianity evolved from a pacifistic, non-violent religion, into a military and political power that dominated the world at that time. Second, because of this theocratic synthesis the necessity for the church to deal with war and violence became a reality and thus a theological justification for the use of violence needed to be developed to reconcile the disconnect between original Christian ethics and reality of the violent world around them. Therefore, “Just War” theory is an unfortunate compromise that was caused by fusing religion and politics, and by doing so the church was forced to undermine traditional Christian ethics to deal with the reality of the socio-political world they now controlled.
Absolutism vs. Utilitarian Practicality
As we take a deep look at the history of the evolution of the Christian Church we saw that the message of the church changed from an Absolutist interpretation of Jesus teachings to a Utilitarian Practical compromise based on the military need for peace and security.
Early Church Fathers were clearly literal interpretators of the Non-violent message in Jesus’ teachings, such as the Sermon on the Mount. It would seem that this would be the clearest interpretation because it was the earliest and closest to the life of Jesus himself. The clear problem with an Absolutist approach to non-violence emerged when the Christian Church was faced with the reality of the need for military peace and security. For the first time it was no longer for the followers of Jesus to be Absolutists and refuse military service or public office on the grounds that violence was a form of serving a master other than Jesus. Christianity was thrust into the frontlines of war and the practicality of non-violence became a serious issue.
The Christian Church had a few ways to deal with the need for a practical approach to the reality of evil in the world. There are five main approaches that are taken in the various forms of Christian thought. These five forms are: 1. The Absolutist View, 2. The Catholic Dual-Standard Model, 3. The Lutheran Interpretation, 4.Changing the Absolute Ideal, 5. Radical Non-Violence, 6. Utilitarian Violence
I will be explaining these six approaches and show how they relate to the Absolutism vs. Practicality problem found in Christian Philosophy.
Absolutist views
Absolutism in regards to the Sermon on the Mount and Jesus’ teachings of non-violence and forgiveness is the first but most problematic approach to the teachings of Jesus. The Absolutist views of the Sermon on the Mount is that the words are to be taken literally and the life that Jesus described is to be lived without exception even in the face of violence.
Absolutism calls for strict non-violence and forgiveness no matter what the situation. Leo Tolstoy and St. Francis were two of the major proponents of Absolutism. Absolutist non-violence is also very grounded in absolute forgiveness. The verses concerning the “turning of the other cheek” when struck is taken to literally mean when someone commits violence towards you should forgive and radically be peaceful. This was also seen as a changing of the original law of Moses because instead of the teaching of retaliation in “an eye for an eye”, Jesus’ new law was seen as the embodiment of forgiveness and in turn the way to live a non-violent life. It is therefore, the Absolutist’s view that salvation is the most important thing and salvation is found through living the life Jesus taught us to live directly and literally.
The direct manifestation of this was in the early Christian Church before the Christianization of the Roman Empire. The earliest church fathers lived this teaching absolutely. The already underlined problem with Absolutism is the philosophical consequences of seeing your neighbors brothers and sisters attacked and killed by violent forces. Along, with the Christianization of the military was the idea of moral obligation to your brothers and sisters to defined them from evil, and the moral obligation to try to establish a peaceful community on Earth. This becomes a philosophical conflict with Absolutism because the Absolutists reject murder in any case including military service.
Philosophical Compromises to Absolutism
The second and the third exegetical approaches to interpretationg the semon on the Mount and Jesus’ other teachings are the Catholic and the Lutheran approaches. These two were the first and most influential ion Christianity, and although the Protestant and Catholic churches differed on many levels in exegetical interpretation of scripture they held one thing in common. They both attempted to preserve the Absolutist ideal while coming up with logical and rational reasons when and why the Absolute Ideal of Non-Violence could be broken.
An important factor to realize at this point is the introduction of Neo-Platonic Greek Philosophy to the concept of an “Absolute God”. God from Augustine through Aquinas was seen as an “Absolute”, Perfect and Complete One-ness that was independent of cause and was unchanging. Therefore, if God is perfect, complete and unchanging the philosophical consequence is that God’s Law must be like God. The philosophical consequence of an Absolute God is an Absolute Law.
The problem then became how do we deal with violence and evil if the Absolute Ideal of God is non-violence?
The Catholic Dual Standard Model
The Catholic Dual-Standard model has been the predominant model for most of Christianity. It existed since Augustine, but was articulated most clearly by St. Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas claimed that the Sermon on the Mount and other teachings of Jesus should not be seen as mandates that all people were obligated to follow. Because the Absolute Ideal of God’s Law was something most people couldn’t handle, the Catholic model calls for only a select group of individuals to follow these laws literally. The layity were seen as incapable of attaining things like celibacy, and prefect forgiveness, so the other Christian members of society were allowed to live regular lives, and in turn come to the clergy for forgiveness. The only people that were seen as able to comprehend and actually live according to Jesus’ laws were the priests and clergy and the monastic communities. Outside of these positions it was then acceptable to take jobs as judges and soldiers in the defense of a Christian nation or empire.
This compromise allowed for the church to claim that the teachings of Jesus were still meant o be seen as Absolute Ideals, but it also allowed for the breaking of the Absolute Ideal of Non-Violence by people outside the Church leaders themselves, such as knights and city officials. In this way the Dual standard model kept the concept of Absolutism alive in the Church, but created a Dual standard for people outside the select few who could handle the Absolutist lifestyle. Aquinas taught that the teachings of Jesus were to be seen as spiritual advice for those outside the priesthood rather than a mandate for an Absolutist lifestyle
The Lutheran Dualist Approach
Martin Luther rejected the general idea that the Church leaders were the only ones that were capable of handling the teachings of Jesus, and Protestantism as a whole was a rejection of Catholic authority in general. Luther brought the Bible to the masses and taught a more free theological concept that involved the active participation and interpretation of scripture by everyday laypeople.
In turn, Luther also rejected the traditional Dual-Standard Model, however Luther still considered God’s Law to be Absolutist in essence. His way of dealing with the impracticality of Absolutist Non-Violence was to claim that people had dual responsibility in society, to God and to secular duty.
According to Luther, the Kingdom of Heaven and God’s Law was something that was entirely unattainable in human existence regardless if you were a priest or layity. He felt that the Absolute nature of God’s Law was something that one could only aspire to, not live directly. Therefore, he taught that we had a dual responsibility to do our own secular duty, but spiritually try to live in accordance as best we could to God’s Absolute Law.
Judges were to condemn from the bench but forgive in there hearts. Soldiers were to practice non-violence but in times of war they should do their secular duty as well. This took the authority out of the Catholic Church and put it in the hands of the people. The Absolutism lifestyle to Luther was not humanly possible so there had to be a dualism between one’s spiritual and secular lives. Because we all fall short of perfection, Luther taught no one could truly live up to the Absolute Ideal of God’s Law
Changing the Absolute Ideal
What we see when comparing the Catholic and Protestant views of exegetical interpretation of Jesus’ teachings is the attempt to preserve the Absolute Ideal of God’s Law. However, the fourth exegetical approach involves the attempt to change the concept of God’s Absolute Non-Violent Ideal.
These approaches tend to reinterpret Jesus’ teaching in different ways and under different circumstances to somehow claim that Jesus did not actually teach Absolute Non-Violence, and they tend to open the door for a less literal interpretation for Jesus’ words. There are too many approaches to name directly. Some are as fanatical as the Islamic teaching of Jihad, which was even prevalent during the Crusades or the Inquisition. During these times, scriptural interpretation was used to justify violence on non-Christians.
Some will simply water down the Sermon on the Mount to claim different ways to interpret “turning the other cheek” as merely a social commentary not an Absolute philosophical statement.
Some will claim that Jesus thought the end of the world and the establishment of the Kingdom of Heaven was coming immanently, and therefore the practicality of non-violence was irrelevant because there was no time to deal with violence. Therefore, it can be suggested that Jesus never addressed the impracticality of non-violence because he thought violence in the world was coming to an end.
Another possible exegetical approach is found in Process Theology and Pragmatism, where the idea that God is unchanging and Absolute is theologically flawed and therefore the philosophical consequence is that God Law can in turn be pragmatic or utilitarian. In other words, if you think God is unchanging and Absolute then God’s Law must have the same characteristics. However, if God is seen in less Neo-Platonist terms, and seen as changing and pragmatic, then you open the discussion for a Utilitarian approach to God’s Law.
In all these cases, an attempt is being made to question the idea that God’s law is absolute, or at least absolutely non-violent. In any case, unlike the compromises of Catholic and Protestant Exegesis which try to preserve Absolutism, these attempts question the very teaching of Absolutism itself, and suggest the possibility of utilitarian Christian violence.
Radical Non-Violence
Radical Non-Violence is the exegetical approach that claims there are ways to bring about the existence of a non-violent society by using extreme actions in the face of violence that don’t involve violence itself.
The principle examples of this philosophy come from the Peaceful Resistance movements in India under the guidance of the teachings of Gandhi. It is therefore also found in the peaceful protests and marches of the Civil Rights Movements under the guidance of Dr. King, and you even see it in Southeast Asia and Tibet under the guidance of the Dalai Lama.
All of these examples are attempts to bring about non-violence, in ways that don’t involve simply laying down and being passive. The most important factor is to be actively in opposition to a violent and oppressive force, but to do something with non-violence in your heart and actions and embody the teachings of non-violence. This is different than traditional Absolutism in that you don’t have to simply be passively non-violent, you can be aggressively non-violent.
Utilitarian Practicality as a Model for Interpretating Scripture
The problem that is being addressed in all these examples is how to deal with violence and evil in an imperfect world. The sixth approach is the Utilitarian approach to violence, which is actually the crux of Augustine’s argument for Just War Theory and as of 1983 is still the actual Catholic declaration of their position on violence. The actual position of the Catholic Church on violence is Utilitarian in nature. Justified War is one that is waged for the sake of a greater ideal of Peace. The Catholic Church’s Just War Theory is utilitarian model for violence that claims that there are times when violence is necessary and mandatory and there are times when military action is not only justified but mandated.
A utilitarian approach is the most philosophically sound approach, but it goes directly against the Neo-Platonist Absolutism of Non-Violence. If God’s Law is Absolute then it can’t be subject to change and based solely on human utility or practical and pragmatic consequentialism. This is the major problem with exegetical interpretations: The question must be asked, “Is God’s Law Absolute and Unchanging? If so then how do we deal with violence?” The utilitarian approach claims that God is not as simple as black and white or right and wrong and may suggest that God’s law is actually pragmatic and subject to change in the name of higher ideals such as Justice, Peace and Security.
Works Cited
Catholic Encyclopedia. The Life of St. Augustine of Hippo. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/020
Etter, Christopher. Dyothelemic Christianity. New York: iUniverse, Inc, 2005.
"Just War." Wikipedia. 3 Dec 2008 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/just_war>.
Peterson, R. Dean. A Concise History of Christianity. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Pub., 1999.
War and Christian Ethics. Ed. Holmes, Arthur F. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1975.
Christopher Etter
Seminar in Non-Violence
12/1/08
Non-Violence in the Christian Church in History and Exegetical Interpretations
Introduction
As Christianity emerged it went through many changes as it evolved theologically, socially, and eventually politically. Christianity began as a pacifistic religion with non-violent peaceful doctrines, but it evolved into a socio-political machine as it became the theocratic state religion of the Roman Empire.
I will first be showing, using the doctrines of three early church fathers that Christianity began as a pacifistic movement, but due to the incorporation of political theocratic rule over the Roman Empire, it was forced to undermine its peaceful doctrines and find justification for antithetical doctrines that would allow the church to advocate war and the usage of force to uphold Christian law.
From there I will show how modern exegetical interpretations of the Sermon on the Mount and other teachings of Jesus have been used to either denounce, justify or incorporate violence in Christian teachings.
History of the Early Christian Church
Tertullian (155 CE-240 CE)
Tertullian was one of the first fathers of the Christian church. He lived between 155 CE and 240 CE, and he became one of the primary contributors of theological debates that eventually served to form the basis for the Catholic Church and Catholic theology. He authored many argumentative texts, but it was in “The Apology” that he addressed the question of religion, government, war and Christian ethics.
In “The Apology” Tertullian attempts to address the disconnect between Roman military and social values concerning military service and the standard of Christian ethics at that time. During this time, the Roman empire was ruled by an emperor and the state religion was a Roman pagan religion that considered the emperor to be a human representation of the “gods” on Earth” who directly imparted the law on the people through him. Allegiance to the emperor and obedience was considered mandatory. The Christians however, believed that allegiance to anyone but God and Jesus was a sin, and refused military service for a multitude of reasons. This made the Romans consider the Christians trouble makers because even though they were not violent, they rejected the will of the emperor and refused to take up a sword and commit murder for him.
In “The Apology” Tertullian suggests that government should promote peace and social order, however he argues the main principles of Roman law and suggests that Christians cannot pick up a sword and fight for Caesar and still uphold and live the teachings of Jesus Christ.
He begins by refuting the idea that Caesar has a divine status: “Let the emperor make war against heaven; let him lead heaven captive in his triumph; let him put guards on heaven; let him impose taxes on heaven! He cannot!” (Holmes, 39). In the Roman Empire at this time Caesar is considered divine and this is antithetical to Christian values. He clarifies this by saying: “There is no agreement between the divine and human sacrament, the standard of Christ and the standard of the devil, the camp of light and the camp of darkness. One soul cannot be due to two masters- God and Caesar.” (Holmes, 43-44). Therefore, Christians cannot serve two masters and military service requires allegiance and obedience to Caesar and requires the Christian to commit murder and other crimes under the order of Caesar rather than living by Jesus’ authority.
He is very clear that Jesus never advocated violence and therefore serving the will of Caesar for the sake of committing crimes is completely antithetical to the essence of Christianity. He again states: “Shall it be held lawful to make an occupation of the sword when the Lord proclaims that he who uses the sword shall perish by the sword?” (Holmes, 45).
He considers allegiance to Caesar in military service idolatry and even the vows and rewards of military service idolatry because the vows a soldier under Caesar takes involves praise for Jupiter and other pagan Roman gods.
This remains the popular view among peaceful Christians in the Roman Empire, and they were criticized for dissidence and not living up to Roman standards. Even through all this they remained steadfast and believed in the peaceful non-violent teachings of Jesus.
Origen (185 CE -254 CE)
Origen was another early church father that both contributed to the evolution of Christian thinking, and advocated the refusal of military service and public office for the sake of upholding Christian ethics.
In Origen’s work “Against Celsus” he argues Celsus’s claims that Christians are rebellious for advocated a pacifist lifestyle by refusing military service and public office. Like Tertullian, he argues that it is antithetical to Christian ethics to commit murder, but he goes farther by justifying their position by comparing the Christians to Roman pagan priests. He states: “Do not those who are priests at certain shrines, and those who attend certain gods, as you account them,. Keep their hands free from blood, that they may with hands unstained and free from human blood offer the appointed sacrifices to your gods; and even when war is upon you, you never enlist the priests in the army.” (Holmes, 49). Therefore, it is of spiritual value to be free from murder and a spiritual occupation is as valid as a military one.
When confronted with the argument that refusal to hold public office is to refuse public responsibility and duty, he states: “And it is not for the purpose of escaping public duties that Christians decline public offices, but that they may reserve themselves for a diviner and more necessary service in the Church of God- for the salvation of men. And this service is at once necessary and right.” (Holmes, 50). He clearly sees a need to keep religious spiritual life separate from political life and holds that Christians should refrain from holding political positions.
Constantine and Theocracy
Up until the beginning of the fourth century, Christians maintained this view and remained a peaceful religion in the empire. However at the turn of the fourth century, Emperor Constantine established the Edict of Milan in 313 which reversed the Dicletian persecution of Christians in the Empire. In 325 CE at the Council of Nicea, the Nicene Creed was established as the official statement of faith for the Christian Church. With this socio-political change, Christianity went from a small religion in the empire to the controlling force behind Roman law and the Roman military force enforcing that law.
From this point on, Christianity was shaped as a political and military model to unify the entire empire under on universal (catholic) faith, and adherence to this law was mandatory. Any deviation from theology or law was considered heresy and punishable by the Roman authority. Where before the church fathers advocated refusal of military service and political positions, the church was thrust to the forefront of the largest political and military machine the world had ever known.
At this point, the synthesis of religion and politics forced the Christian Church to face the inevitable fact that had plagued politics ever since the beginning of civilization: war is an inevitable reality of politics. Faced with this reality, the church was forced to reconcile the disconnect between Christianity and politics that had existed due to doctrinal disputes concerning the nature of politics, war and murder. How can the Church justify war and still remain true to the pacifist doctrines of Jesus Christ? Therefore, the “Just War” theory was born.
St. Augustine (354 CE-430 CE) and “Just War” Theory
St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, is arguably the most influential Christian philosopher in the history of the church. His work shaped the scope of Christian theology all the way up to today. His work not only created most of the solid theological concepts of Catholicism, but influenced almost every philosopher to follow him.
Augustine lived in a violent period in Roman history and lived through many uprisings in the empire until he died in 430 CE in Carthage when it was sacked by the Vandals. At this time, Christianity controlled the empire and therefore, uprisings were seen as attacks against the church’s authority and wars were waged and won by the authority of the Catholic Church. The church at this time was faced with the reality that wars were inevitable if they wished to maintain a Christian controlled state. Therefore, Christianity had to reconcile the justification for their actions, because it was the church that waged and authorized murder through war.
Augustine, being influenced by this reality, attempted to formulate a logical justification for the use of force in God’s name, in order to maintain peace and stability in the empire. For the first time in Christian history, Christianity began to advocate justifiable violence as a necessity to maintain peace. Even though this seems to undermine the teachings of Jesus, the necessity for this doctrine was a unwanted side effect of having a church controlled state. The Christian Church was responsible for social order, and therefore responsible to deal with war and violence.
Augustine argued that war can be waged with proper intent if the desired outcome was peace and order. War under these conditions can be seen as an act of love and the restoration of God’s law and therefore, justification can be establish if the intent is to secure peace and it is an absolute necessity to restore order. In a letter to Carthage’s defender, Count Boniface, written in 418 he wrote: “Peace should be the object of your desire; war should be waged only as a necessity, and waged only that God may by it deliver men from the necessity and preserve them in peace. For peace is not sought in order to the kindling of war, but war is waged so that peace may be obtained.” (Holmes, 63). This was to justify the act of war by having proper intent and the to fulfill an unfortunate necessity.
One of the other arguments for justification came from scripture by using the examples of King David and Moses, who had to use violence to fulfill God’s will. He argued that it is an error to see war is a black and white, right and wrong issue. In “Reply to Faustus the Manichean” he clarifies this by saying: “What is the evil in war? Is it the death of someone who will soon die in any case, that others may live in peaceful subjection? This is mere cowardly dislike, not any religious feeling. The real evils in war are wild resistance and the lust of power, and such like; and it is generally to punish these things, when force is required to inflict the punishment, that, in obedience to God or some lawful authority, good men undertake wars, when they find themselves in such a position as regards the conduct of human affairs, that right conduct requires them to act, or make others act in this way.” (Holmes, 64). Using these lines of logic he attempts to propose that war can be justified as a way to restore a peaceful social order under God’s law.
Overview of the History of the Church
By following the progression of early Christian thinkers and doctrines we can see the emergence of a doctrine called “Just War” theory, which attempts to justify the use of violence and force in God’s name for the sake of fulfilling God’s law. This theory came about for two reasons. First, Christianity evolved from a pacifistic, non-violent religion, into a military and political power that dominated the world at that time. Second, because of this theocratic synthesis the necessity for the church to deal with war and violence became a reality and thus a theological justification for the use of violence needed to be developed to reconcile the disconnect between original Christian ethics and reality of the violent world around them. Therefore, “Just War” theory is an unfortunate compromise that was caused by fusing religion and politics, and by doing so the church was forced to undermine traditional Christian ethics to deal with the reality of the socio-political world they now controlled.
Absolutism vs. Utilitarian Practicality
As we take a deep look at the history of the evolution of the Christian Church we saw that the message of the church changed from an Absolutist interpretation of Jesus teachings to a Utilitarian Practical compromise based on the military need for peace and security.
Early Church Fathers were clearly literal interpretators of the Non-violent message in Jesus’ teachings, such as the Sermon on the Mount. It would seem that this would be the clearest interpretation because it was the earliest and closest to the life of Jesus himself. The clear problem with an Absolutist approach to non-violence emerged when the Christian Church was faced with the reality of the need for military peace and security. For the first time it was no longer for the followers of Jesus to be Absolutists and refuse military service or public office on the grounds that violence was a form of serving a master other than Jesus. Christianity was thrust into the frontlines of war and the practicality of non-violence became a serious issue.
The Christian Church had a few ways to deal with the need for a practical approach to the reality of evil in the world. There are five main approaches that are taken in the various forms of Christian thought. These five forms are: 1. The Absolutist View, 2. The Catholic Dual-Standard Model, 3. The Lutheran Interpretation, 4.Changing the Absolute Ideal, 5. Radical Non-Violence, 6. Utilitarian Violence
I will be explaining these six approaches and show how they relate to the Absolutism vs. Practicality problem found in Christian Philosophy.
Absolutist views
Absolutism in regards to the Sermon on the Mount and Jesus’ teachings of non-violence and forgiveness is the first but most problematic approach to the teachings of Jesus. The Absolutist views of the Sermon on the Mount is that the words are to be taken literally and the life that Jesus described is to be lived without exception even in the face of violence.
Absolutism calls for strict non-violence and forgiveness no matter what the situation. Leo Tolstoy and St. Francis were two of the major proponents of Absolutism. Absolutist non-violence is also very grounded in absolute forgiveness. The verses concerning the “turning of the other cheek” when struck is taken to literally mean when someone commits violence towards you should forgive and radically be peaceful. This was also seen as a changing of the original law of Moses because instead of the teaching of retaliation in “an eye for an eye”, Jesus’ new law was seen as the embodiment of forgiveness and in turn the way to live a non-violent life. It is therefore, the Absolutist’s view that salvation is the most important thing and salvation is found through living the life Jesus taught us to live directly and literally.
The direct manifestation of this was in the early Christian Church before the Christianization of the Roman Empire. The earliest church fathers lived this teaching absolutely. The already underlined problem with Absolutism is the philosophical consequences of seeing your neighbors brothers and sisters attacked and killed by violent forces. Along, with the Christianization of the military was the idea of moral obligation to your brothers and sisters to defined them from evil, and the moral obligation to try to establish a peaceful community on Earth. This becomes a philosophical conflict with Absolutism because the Absolutists reject murder in any case including military service.
Philosophical Compromises to Absolutism
The second and the third exegetical approaches to interpretationg the semon on the Mount and Jesus’ other teachings are the Catholic and the Lutheran approaches. These two were the first and most influential ion Christianity, and although the Protestant and Catholic churches differed on many levels in exegetical interpretation of scripture they held one thing in common. They both attempted to preserve the Absolutist ideal while coming up with logical and rational reasons when and why the Absolute Ideal of Non-Violence could be broken.
An important factor to realize at this point is the introduction of Neo-Platonic Greek Philosophy to the concept of an “Absolute God”. God from Augustine through Aquinas was seen as an “Absolute”, Perfect and Complete One-ness that was independent of cause and was unchanging. Therefore, if God is perfect, complete and unchanging the philosophical consequence is that God’s Law must be like God. The philosophical consequence of an Absolute God is an Absolute Law.
The problem then became how do we deal with violence and evil if the Absolute Ideal of God is non-violence?
The Catholic Dual Standard Model
The Catholic Dual-Standard model has been the predominant model for most of Christianity. It existed since Augustine, but was articulated most clearly by St. Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas claimed that the Sermon on the Mount and other teachings of Jesus should not be seen as mandates that all people were obligated to follow. Because the Absolute Ideal of God’s Law was something most people couldn’t handle, the Catholic model calls for only a select group of individuals to follow these laws literally. The layity were seen as incapable of attaining things like celibacy, and prefect forgiveness, so the other Christian members of society were allowed to live regular lives, and in turn come to the clergy for forgiveness. The only people that were seen as able to comprehend and actually live according to Jesus’ laws were the priests and clergy and the monastic communities. Outside of these positions it was then acceptable to take jobs as judges and soldiers in the defense of a Christian nation or empire.
This compromise allowed for the church to claim that the teachings of Jesus were still meant o be seen as Absolute Ideals, but it also allowed for the breaking of the Absolute Ideal of Non-Violence by people outside the Church leaders themselves, such as knights and city officials. In this way the Dual standard model kept the concept of Absolutism alive in the Church, but created a Dual standard for people outside the select few who could handle the Absolutist lifestyle. Aquinas taught that the teachings of Jesus were to be seen as spiritual advice for those outside the priesthood rather than a mandate for an Absolutist lifestyle
The Lutheran Dualist Approach
Martin Luther rejected the general idea that the Church leaders were the only ones that were capable of handling the teachings of Jesus, and Protestantism as a whole was a rejection of Catholic authority in general. Luther brought the Bible to the masses and taught a more free theological concept that involved the active participation and interpretation of scripture by everyday laypeople.
In turn, Luther also rejected the traditional Dual-Standard Model, however Luther still considered God’s Law to be Absolutist in essence. His way of dealing with the impracticality of Absolutist Non-Violence was to claim that people had dual responsibility in society, to God and to secular duty.
According to Luther, the Kingdom of Heaven and God’s Law was something that was entirely unattainable in human existence regardless if you were a priest or layity. He felt that the Absolute nature of God’s Law was something that one could only aspire to, not live directly. Therefore, he taught that we had a dual responsibility to do our own secular duty, but spiritually try to live in accordance as best we could to God’s Absolute Law.
Judges were to condemn from the bench but forgive in there hearts. Soldiers were to practice non-violence but in times of war they should do their secular duty as well. This took the authority out of the Catholic Church and put it in the hands of the people. The Absolutism lifestyle to Luther was not humanly possible so there had to be a dualism between one’s spiritual and secular lives. Because we all fall short of perfection, Luther taught no one could truly live up to the Absolute Ideal of God’s Law
Changing the Absolute Ideal
What we see when comparing the Catholic and Protestant views of exegetical interpretation of Jesus’ teachings is the attempt to preserve the Absolute Ideal of God’s Law. However, the fourth exegetical approach involves the attempt to change the concept of God’s Absolute Non-Violent Ideal.
These approaches tend to reinterpret Jesus’ teaching in different ways and under different circumstances to somehow claim that Jesus did not actually teach Absolute Non-Violence, and they tend to open the door for a less literal interpretation for Jesus’ words. There are too many approaches to name directly. Some are as fanatical as the Islamic teaching of Jihad, which was even prevalent during the Crusades or the Inquisition. During these times, scriptural interpretation was used to justify violence on non-Christians.
Some will simply water down the Sermon on the Mount to claim different ways to interpret “turning the other cheek” as merely a social commentary not an Absolute philosophical statement.
Some will claim that Jesus thought the end of the world and the establishment of the Kingdom of Heaven was coming immanently, and therefore the practicality of non-violence was irrelevant because there was no time to deal with violence. Therefore, it can be suggested that Jesus never addressed the impracticality of non-violence because he thought violence in the world was coming to an end.
Another possible exegetical approach is found in Process Theology and Pragmatism, where the idea that God is unchanging and Absolute is theologically flawed and therefore the philosophical consequence is that God Law can in turn be pragmatic or utilitarian. In other words, if you think God is unchanging and Absolute then God’s Law must have the same characteristics. However, if God is seen in less Neo-Platonist terms, and seen as changing and pragmatic, then you open the discussion for a Utilitarian approach to God’s Law.
In all these cases, an attempt is being made to question the idea that God’s law is absolute, or at least absolutely non-violent. In any case, unlike the compromises of Catholic and Protestant Exegesis which try to preserve Absolutism, these attempts question the very teaching of Absolutism itself, and suggest the possibility of utilitarian Christian violence.
Radical Non-Violence
Radical Non-Violence is the exegetical approach that claims there are ways to bring about the existence of a non-violent society by using extreme actions in the face of violence that don’t involve violence itself.
The principle examples of this philosophy come from the Peaceful Resistance movements in India under the guidance of the teachings of Gandhi. It is therefore also found in the peaceful protests and marches of the Civil Rights Movements under the guidance of Dr. King, and you even see it in Southeast Asia and Tibet under the guidance of the Dalai Lama.
All of these examples are attempts to bring about non-violence, in ways that don’t involve simply laying down and being passive. The most important factor is to be actively in opposition to a violent and oppressive force, but to do something with non-violence in your heart and actions and embody the teachings of non-violence. This is different than traditional Absolutism in that you don’t have to simply be passively non-violent, you can be aggressively non-violent.
Utilitarian Practicality as a Model for Interpretating Scripture
The problem that is being addressed in all these examples is how to deal with violence and evil in an imperfect world. The sixth approach is the Utilitarian approach to violence, which is actually the crux of Augustine’s argument for Just War Theory and as of 1983 is still the actual Catholic declaration of their position on violence. The actual position of the Catholic Church on violence is Utilitarian in nature. Justified War is one that is waged for the sake of a greater ideal of Peace. The Catholic Church’s Just War Theory is utilitarian model for violence that claims that there are times when violence is necessary and mandatory and there are times when military action is not only justified but mandated.
A utilitarian approach is the most philosophically sound approach, but it goes directly against the Neo-Platonist Absolutism of Non-Violence. If God’s Law is Absolute then it can’t be subject to change and based solely on human utility or practical and pragmatic consequentialism. This is the major problem with exegetical interpretations: The question must be asked, “Is God’s Law Absolute and Unchanging? If so then how do we deal with violence?” The utilitarian approach claims that God is not as simple as black and white or right and wrong and may suggest that God’s law is actually pragmatic and subject to change in the name of higher ideals such as Justice, Peace and Security.
Works Cited
Catholic Encyclopedia. The Life of St. Augustine of Hippo. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/020
Etter, Christopher. Dyothelemic Christianity. New York: iUniverse, Inc, 2005.
"Just War." Wikipedia. 3 Dec 2008 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/just_war>.
Peterson, R. Dean. A Concise History of Christianity. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Pub., 1999.
War and Christian Ethics. Ed. Holmes, Arthur F. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1975.
