While all of these additional reasons for prohibiting individuals from joining the military may be true, it seems very difficult to say that doing violence wasn't one of the issues the early church had. You can look at many of the quotes in section 4 and see that violence against those found guilty for capital punishment, violence in general, violence allowed by public laws, violence in self-defense, and violence to the extremely wicked are all things some in the early church were vocal about condemning. You can also look at the context of some of the soldiers like Martin of Tours who stated his reason for leaving the army as an inability to fight. Sure, the early church may have had reasons other than violence to prohibit jobs which required one to do harm to others, but violence was certainly one of the central reasons for such a prohibition.
It's undeniable that a huge consideration for the early church in regard to joining the military was based on oaths soldiers may have had to take, required god worship, participation in carnal feasts and partying, intimidating behavior through the use of power, and the list could go on. It's for some of these same reasons that other, seemingly harmless professions were judged wrong for a Christian. As one great example, you can see a quote from the early church (Hippolytus, I believe) which condemns Christians who become actors. Now part of this may have been because some actors put on plays in the Colosseum and sometimes used the condemned as props in battle reenactments (so deaths weren't acted, but real), but the condemnation was likely due to other aspects of the theater scene which couldn't be separated from the immorality in which they were saturated.
While all of these additional reasons for prohibiting individuals from joining the military may be true, it seems very difficult to say that doing violence wasn't one of the issues the early church had. You can look at many of the quotes in section 4 and see that violence against those found guilty for capital punishment, violence in general, violence allowed by public laws, violence in self-defense, and violence to the extremely wicked are all things some in the early church were vocal about condemning. You can also look at the context of some of the soldiers like Martin of Tours who stated his reason for leaving the army as an inability to fight. Sure, the early church may have had reasons other than violence to prohibit jobs which required one to do harm to others, but violence was certainly one of the central reasons for such a prohibition.
0 Comments
I want to begin with a lengthy quote from Roland Allen's book, "The Spontaneous Expansion of the Church." THE GREAT HERESIES IN THE EARLY CHURCH AROSE NOT FROM THE RAPID EXPANSION RESULTING FROM THE WORK OF THESE UNKNOWN TEACHERS; BUT IN THOSE CHURCHES WHICH WERE LONGEST ESTABLISHED, AND WHERE THE CHRISTIANS WERE NOT SO BUSILY ENGAGED IN CONVERTING THE HEATHEN ROUND THEM. THE CHURCH OF THAT DAY WAS APPARENTLY QUITE FEARLESS OF ANY DANGER THAT THE INFLUX OF LARGE NUMBERS OF WHAT WE SHOULD CALL ILLITERATE CONVERTS MIGHT LOWER THE STANDARD OF CHURCH DOCTRINE. SHE HELD THE TRADITION HANDED DOWN BY THE APOSTLES, AND EXPECTED THE NEW CONVERTS TO GROW UP INTO IT, TO MAINTAIN IT AND TO PROPAGATE IT. AND SO IN FACT THEY DID. THE DANGER TO THE DOCTRINE LAY NOT IN THESE ILLITERATE CONVERTS ON THE OUTSKIRTS; BUT AT HOME, IN PLACES LIKE EPHESUS AND ALEXANDRIA, AMONGST THE MORE HIGHLY EDUCATED AND PHILOSOPHICALLY MINDED CHRISTIANS. IT WAS AGAINST THEM THAT SHE HAD TO MAINTAIN THE DOCTRINE. The last paragraph summarizes one of Allen's main points, which is that doctrine must be a description of our experience with God. Our God is a living God and our religion is centered around relationship. We are not stalkers of God, but friends, servants, and communers of God. The doctrine of the trinity was formed from experience. The Apostles encountered Christ and he was truly human. They encountered Christ and he was truly God. No doctrine could be formed which did not adhere to these two experienced truths. The doctrine took so long to solidify because the true experience of God couldn't let humanity get away with rationalizing how we think God should work. The experience of God held theology ransom until it aligned.
First, I would argue that the theology of the trinity was debated pretty thoroughly for several hundred years. To my knowledge you don't see the same sort of thing occurring with non-violence. The church was fairly univocal for the first few hundred years. Sure, the topic wasn't covered nearly to the same extent, but you just don't have the same sort of back and forth you have with the discussion of the trinity. Second, the lack of debate seems to have a pretty clear source - there was no room for a competing view. The early church struggled to explain the trinity because they had two seemingly competing ideas. They thought they had a paradox, when in reality they had an antinomy. How can Christ be God and human? To see the same sort of debate about violence vs. non-violence, there would have to be two competing foundations - a seemingly non-violent Jesus and a seemingly violent Jesus. But the early church seemed to only recognize a non-violent Christ and non-violent commands, as he reserved all judgment and violence for his coming. Third, it wasn't until the empire and the church merged and philosophizing began that a non-violent approach was explained away. Allen points out that it is rationalizing and philosophizing that tend to create doctrinal problems - as you move away from explaining experience. The experience of Jesus and his means was clear to the Apostles, and they made it clear to their disciples. The early church didn't have a problem with non-violence because as an experience of Christ, it made sense. It wasn't until they began trying to figure out how to fit God into the empire that things began to change, as they moved away from describing their experience with Christ. The power of the pacifistic position comes in the fact that it is not only the most natural reading of Christ's and the Apostles's teachings, but it is also the common practice of the early church. You have some teachings, like the trinity, which aren't explicitly taught in the Bible, and are only solidified a few hundred years after the establishment of the church. You have other practices, like the sharing of property, which are early traditions in the church, but not explicit teachings. Pacifism doesn't fit either of these categories. Pacifism, unlike the trinity, is less a deduction and more of a natural reading. Along with being the most natural reading of the text, pacifism is also the common practice of the early church. When you find something that is both early tradition (as opposed to developed tradition) and the most natural reading of explicit teaching from Christ and the apostles, you have a very hard teaching to overturn. |
*The views and ideas on this site are in no way affiliated with any organization, business, or individuals we are a part of or work with. They're also not theological certainties. They're simply thinking out loud, on issues and difficulties as I process things.
Categories
All
|