Is Christianity a Pacifistic Religion?

[SteveII]

I'm not talking about "in practice." Fundamentalists like to brandish their guns. The religious right commonly supports whatever war a Republican president gets us involved in. Historically speaking, there are no shortage of bloody wars waged in the name of Christianity. It is obvious that Christians (by and large) regard pacifism with little esteem.

You really have to separate things here. Can you even name an even moderately serious war that was not mainly about politics, power, or resources? This is interesting:

According to the Encyclopedia of Wars, out of all 1,763 known/recorded historical conflicts, 123, or 6.98%, had religion as their primary cause, and of that percentage, 66, or 53.66%, were related to Islam.[1] Matthew White's The Great Big Book of Horrible Things gives religion as the cause of 13 of the world's 100 deadliest atrocities.[2] In several conflicts including the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, the Syrian civil war, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, religious elements are overtly present but variously described as fundamentalism or religious extremism—depending upon the observer's sympathies. However, studies on these cases often conclude that ethnic animosities drive much of the conflicts.[3]

Some historians argue that what is termed "religious wars" is a largely "Western dichotomy" and a modern invention from the past few centuries, arguing that all wars that are classed as "religious" have secular (economic or political) ramifications.[4] Similar opinions were expressed as early as the 1760s, during the Seven Years' War, widely recognized to be "religious" in motivation, noting that the warring factions were not necessarily split along confessional lines as much as along secular interests.[5]

According to Jeffrey Burton Russell, numerous cases of supposed acts of religious wars such as the Thirty Years War, the French Wars of Religion, the Sri Lankan Civil War, 9/11 and other terrorist attacks, the Bosnian War, and the Rwandan Civil War were all primarily motivated by social, political, and economic issues rather than religion.[6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_war (emphasis added)

But are Christians supposed to be pacifists? It seems to be part of Jesus' teachings. If followed correctly, is Christianity a pacifistic religion or not?

Matthew 7:38-42

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[h]39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Does this verse command pacifism? Leo Tolstoy certainly thought so. And the Quakers hold pacifism as one of their central precepts, undoubtedly out of obedience to this set of instructions from the Sermon on the Mount. 

As some of you know, I am very interested in pacifism, chiefly as a moral means to make positive changes in the world (via civil disobedience and passive resistance as per Henry David Thoreau, Martin Luther King, and Gandhi). Philosophically speaking, I've given much consideration to the idea that nonviolence is at the root of all moral ideals.

I'd like to hear from the Christians: Does Jesus in fact preach pacifism in Matthew? I've heard plenty of interpretations that say "no." Martin Luther said the verse "represents an impossible demand like the Law of Moses." That it was in fact meant to show that "no one can possibly live in full accordance with the Law." --"We're all sinners..." yada, yada, yada. Sounds like a cop out to me. Not unlike when a Christian on another forum explained to me that the commands in Matthew were meant to demonstrate "the person of Christ," and not to be interpreted as imperatives.

If any of you wishes to hear an argument that Christianity is indeed a pacifist religion, and that Christ's commands in Matthew were meant to be followed, I have quoted a (somewhat lengthy) passage from Tolstoy below wherein he attempts to make the case. I understand if you don't have time to read all that. I just included it for sake of thoroughness. I'd still like to hear Christians' opinions on the subject, regardless if you read it or not.

---

After much useless study of the works that have been written in proof of the divinity or non-divinity of this doctrine, and after many doubts and much suffering, I was left alone with the mysterious Book, in which the doctrine of Christ is taught.  I could not interpret it as others did, I could not abjure the Book, and yet I could not find a new and satisfying interpretation.  It was only after losing all faith in the explanations of learned theology and criticism, and after laying them all aside in obedience to the words of Christ (Mark 10:15), that I began to understand what had until then seemed incomprehensible to me.  It was not by deep thought, or by skillfully comparing or commenting on the texts of the gospel, that I came to understand the doctrine.  On the contrary, all grew clear to me for the very reason that I had ceased to rest on mere interpretations.  The text that gave me the key to the truth was the thirty-ninth verse of the fifth chapter of St. Matthew, ‘You have heard that it has been said, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.  But I say to you, do not resist evil…’  The simple meaning of these words suddenly flashed full upon me; I accepted the fact that Christ meant exactly what He said; and then, though I had found nothing new, all that had hitherto obscured the truth cleared away, and the truth itself arose before me in all its solemn importance.

I had often read the passage, but these words had never until now arrested my attention:  ‘I say to you, do not resist evil.’

In my conversations since with many Christian people, who know the gospels well, I have observed the same indifference to the force of this text that I had felt.  Nobody specially remembered the words; and, while conversing with persons upon the text, I have known them to take up the New Testament in order to assure themselves that the words were really there.

The words, ‘Whoever shall strike you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also,’ had always presented themselves to me as requiring endurance and self-mastery such as human nature is hardly capable of.  They touched me.  I felt that to act thus would be to attain moral perfection; but I felt, too, that I should never be able to obey them if they entailed nothing but suffering.  I said to myself,  ‘Well, I will turn my cheek – I will let myself be struck again.  I will give up my coat – they shall take my all.  They shall even take away my life.  Yet, life is given to me.  Why should I thus lose it?  This cannot be what Christ requires of us.’  Then I said to myself, ‘Perhaps in these words Christ only purposes to extol suffering and self-denial, and in doing so He speaks exaggeratingly and His expressions are therefore to be regarded as illustrations rather than precise requirements.’  But as soon as I comprehended the meaning of the words, ‘do not resist evil,’ it became clear to me that Christ does not exaggerate, that He does not require suffering for the mere sake of suffering, and that He only expresses clearly and definitely what He means.  He says, ‘Do not resist evil,’ and if you do not resist evil, you may meet with some who, having struck you on one cheek, and meeting with no resistance, will strike you on the other; after having taken away your coat, will take away your cloak also; having profited by your work, will oblige you to work on; will take, and will never give back.  ‘Nevertheless, I say to you, do not resist evil.  Still do good to those who even strike and abuse you.’

Now I understood that the whole force of the teaching lay in the words ‘do not resist evil,’ and that the entire context was but an application of that great precept.  I saw that Christ does not require us to turn the other cheek, and to give away our cloak, in order to make us suffer; but He teaches us not to resist evil, and warns us that doing so may involve personal suffering.  Does a father, on seeing his son set out on a long journey, tell him to pass sleepless nights, to eat little, to get wet through, or to freeze?  Will he not rather say to him, ‘Go, and if on the road you are cold or hungry, do not be discouraged but go on’?  Christ does not say ‘Let a man strike your cheek, and suffer,’ but He says, ‘Do not resist evil.  Whatever men may do to you, do not resist evil.’  These words, ‘do not resist evil’ (the wicked man), thus apprehended, were the clue that made all clear to me, and I was surprised that I could have hitherto treated them in such a different way.  Christ meant to say, ‘Whatever men may do to you, bear, suffer, and submit; but never resist evil.’  What could be clearer, more intelligible, and more indubitable that this?  As soon as I understood the exact meaning of these simple words, all that had appeared confused to me in the doctrine of Christ grew intelligible; what had seemed contradictory now became consistent, and what I had deemed superfluous became indispensable.  All united in one whole, one part fitting into and supporting the other, like the pieces of a broken statue put together again in their proper places.

This doctrine of ‘non-resistance’ is commended again and again in the gospels.  In the Sermon on the Mount Christ represents His followers – i.e., those who follow this law of non-resistance – as liable to be persecuted, stoned, and reduced to beggary.  Elsewhere He tells us that the disciple who does not take up His cross, who is not willing to renounce all, cannot be His follower, and He thus describes the man who is ready to bear the consequences that may result from the practice of the doctrine of non-resistance.  Christ says to His disciples,  ‘Be poor, be ready to bear persecution, suffering, and even death, without resisting evil.’  He prepared for suffering and death Himself without resisting evil; He reproved Peter, who grieved over Him because He proposed to yield in this way; and He died, forbidding others to resist evil, remaining true to His own doctrine and His own example.  All His first disciples obeyed the same law of the non-resistance of evil, and passed their lives in disability and persecution.

We may bring forward, as an objection, the difficulty of always obeying such a law; we may even say, as unbelievers do, that it is a foolish doctrine, that Christ was a dreamer, an idealist who gave precepts that are impossible to follow.  But, whatever our objections may be, we cannot deny that Christ expresses His meaning most clearly and distinctly; and His meaning is that man must not resist evil; he who fully accepts His teaching cannot resist evil.

http://www.nonresistance.org/docs_htm/To...hap01.html

---

I find Tolstoy's advocacy of pacifism quite compelling, despite its Christian trappings. In addition to the Hindu doctrine of ahimsa, Gandhi was also heavily influenced by Tolstoy's idea that pacifism is a moral force that can change the world. And through Gandhi, the world was able to witness the efficacy of Tolstoy's ideals. Pretty impressive, really. This demonstrates well that the idea of "resist not evil" transcends Christianity. But I am also wondering if it really originates from Christianity to begin with. Perhaps these are just Tolstoy's own ideas, clothed in Christian raiment. After all, he was branded a heretic and excommunicated by the Russian Orthodox Church (an excommunication that stands to this day, despite an appeal by Tolstoy's great-great grandson to the Church in 2001).

So, to repeat the question- 

Christians: Is Christianity a pacifistic religion or not? 


If it isn't, what doctrinal teachings exempt a Christian from following the commands of Jesus found in Matthew 7?

Or if you think that Christianity is in fact a pacifistic religion, what do you make of all the gun toting and war mongering?

No, Christianity is not a pacifist religion. You can be a pacifist and a Christian, but pacifism does not necessarily follow from Christianity. 

I think that Matthew 5 and other similar passages are all about the internal attitudes of the heart and having the most Godly perspective on everyday living. Even when you continue to Paul and have the Fruits of the Spirit, they are of a personal nature. Nowhere in the NT are those concepts extrapolated to geo-political issues. There is plenty of opportunity to do so, yet, nothing--the topic is clearly focused on attitudes of the heart.

Jesus says: "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting, that I might not be delivered up to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm." (John 18:36). There are many other passages throughout the NT that recognize the rights and purposes of governments to protect citizens and oppose evil doers. Romans 13 is interesting: starting out talking about government instituted by God for order, justice, avenger, etc. and then right into "love your neighbor" by verse 9. 

What can we extrapolate? I think a coherent "just-war" theory can developed from the Judeo-Christian worldview. Tyrants must be opposed. Wars of oppression are morally wrong. Christians have been talking about the concept of quite some time:

Saint Augustine[edit]
Augustine of Hippo claimed that, while individuals should not resort immediately to violence, God has given the sword to government for good reason (based upon Romans 13:4). In Contra Faustum Manichaeum book 22 sections 69–76, Augustine argues that Christians, as part of a government, need not be ashamed of protecting peace and punishing wickedness when forced to do so by a government. Augustine asserted that this was a personal, philosophical stance: "What is here required is not a bodily action, but an inward disposition. The sacred seat of virtue is the heart."[15]

Nonetheless, he asserted, peacefulness in the face of a grave wrong that could only be stopped by violence would be a sin. Defense of one's self or others could be a necessity, especially when authorized by a legitimate authority:

They who have waged war in obedience to the divine command, or in conformity with His laws, have represented in their persons the public justice or the wisdom of government, and in this capacity have put to death wicked men; such persons have by no means violated the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill."[16]

While not breaking down the conditions necessary for war to be just, Augustine nonetheless originated the very phrase itself in his work :

But, say they, the wise man will wage Just Wars. As if he would not all the rather lament the necessity of just wars, if he remembers that he is a man; for if they were not just he would not wage them, and would therefore be delivered from all wars.[17]

J. Mark Mattox writes that, for the individual Christian under the rule of a government engaged in an immoral war, Augustine admonished that Christians, "by divine edict, have no choice but to subject themselves to their political masters and [should] seek to ensure that they execute their war-fighting duty as justly as possible."[18]

Saint Thomas Aquinas[edit]
Nine hundred years later, Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) laid out the conditions under which a war could be justified (combining the theological principles of faith with the philosophical principles of reason, he ranked among the most influential thinkers of medieval Scholasticism):[19]

• First, just war must be waged by a properly instituted authority such as the state. (Proper Authority is first: represents the common good: which is peace for the sake of man's true end—God.)
  
  
• Second, war must occur for a good and just purpose rather than for self-gain (for example, "in the nation's interest" is not just) or as an exercise of power (just cause: for the sake of restoring some good that has been denied. i.e. lost territory, lost goods, punishment for an evil perpetrated by a government, army, or even the civilian populace).
  
  
• Third, peace must be a central motive even in the midst of violence.[20] (right intention: an authority must fight for the just reasons it has expressly claimed for declaring war in the first place. Soldiers must also fight for this intention).[21]
  

In the Summa Theologica, Thomas proceeded to distinguish between philosophy and theology, and between reason and revelation, though he emphasized that these did not contradict each other. Both are fountains of knowledge; both come from God.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory