Grace
Theological Journal 6.2 (1985) 435-455
Copyright © 1985 by Grace
Theological Seminary. Cited with permission.
THE CHRISTIAN AND WAR:
A MATTER OF
PERSONAL CONSCIENCE
DAVID
R. PLASTER
The issue of whether a Christian should participate in
war and, if
so, to what extent is very complex. The Christian must balance
biblical revelation concerning the authority of the state with his
individual responsibility to love his enemies and to do good to all
men. A survey of three attempts to achieve this balance (the
activist,
the pacifist, and the selectivist)
reveals inadequacies in each. A position
that mediates between these positions appears to be a proper
Christian
response to the biblical norms. This position may be termed non-
combatant participation.
* * *
INTRODUCTION
THE
issue of whether the individual Christian should participate in
war has been discussed from the early days of the
Church.
Tertullian, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Martin
Luther, and John
Calvin
are but a few of those who addressed the problem. The
central
issue has been and remains the ethical conflict
between a Christian's
responsibility to serve his government
and the command of Christ to
love his enemies. Godly men seeking to apply
biblical principles have
arrived at different answers to that conflict.
George Weigel points out
the lesson to be learned from the diverse answers
to this chronic
problem:
The very complexity of the Christian
tradition's teaching reminds us
that there
are no easy or simple answers to the dilemma of security and
peace. In a
public climate where the glib slogan or the bumper-sticker
phrase often
defines the policy debate, the richly textured tradition of
the Church
quietly tells us that there is no simple solution to the moral
problem of
war, and that an indignant self-righteousness is a warning
sign of
errors. Moreover, the fact that the Christian Churches have
sustained a
pluralistic dialogue on the ethics of war and peace reminds
436
GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
us to
acknowledge the validity of another's moral concerns-especially
the
concerns of those with whom we disagree. We should search in
others'
perspectives for possible hints and traces of truth that might be
brought
into our own.1
The Brethren response to this concern
has not always been
unanimous. However, the doctrine of non-resistance
has long been
held in Brethren circles and is now held by many in
the Fellowship of
Grace Brethren Churches. The purpose of this
study is to survey the
Issue
and analyze non-resIstance m the face of the
potential of con-
flicting demands placed upon the
believer.
PRELIMINARY
MATTERS
The Authority of the
State
The subject of civil government pervades
both the OT and the
NT.
It is an aspect of God's providence, a fact of biblical history, and
is integral to biblical prophecy. One basic theme
of the Bible is that
civil government is ordained by God.
While the government of
OT
also mentions other civil governments. Joseph and Daniel were
Jews who served as leading officials in
non-theocratic governments.
Amos
2:1-3 points out that God held the government of
accountable for the use of its sword.
lesson (Isa 10:5-19). Daniel
records that God, after previous reminders
on the subject (Dan
account for not recognizing "that the Most
High is ruler over the
realm of mankind, and bestows it on whomever He
wishes" (Dan
25,
32; 5:21).
Thus, the OT consistently indicates
that God has ordained govern-
ment wherever it is found.
The nations with their variety of social
organizations and magistrates operate
as divinely established institu-
tions. These governments are
accountable to God. Since government
is given by God, it follows that to disobey
government is to disobey
God.
This theme of the OT is continued in
the NT. Government is
presented as a human institution reflecting
various forms but deserving
the believer's submission for the Lord's sake (1 Pet
able to God for its ministry of punishing evildoers
and supporting
those who do good (1 Pet
1 George Weigel,
Peace & Freedom: Christian Faith. Democracy and the Problem
of War (n.p.: The
Institute bn Religion and Democracy, 1983) 5. For a
helpful
annotated bibliography of writings on this complex
issue see David M. Scholer, "Early
Christian
Attitudes to War and Military Service: A Selective Bibliography," TSF
Bulletin
8: I (1984) 23-24.
PLASTER: THE CHRISTIAN AND WAR 437
believer to have a clear testimony before the
world by obeying civil
authority (I Pet
Paul
consistently maintain this position.
Jesus lived in a conquered province in an empire
whose imperial-
istic ruler stood for
everything that was antagonistic to the revealed
faith of the Jews. Jesus was not a revolutionary but
instead conformed
to the laws of civil government.2
Nowhere did he denounce the legiti-
mate power of the state. Jesus paid his taxes (Matt
recognized the authority of Pontius Pilate, even
when Pilate unjustly
delivered him over to his enemies (John
however, that his authority was not autonomous
(John
that it was delegated from the One who was above.3
Thus, in practice
and precept Jesus recognized that the government
under which he
lived was ordained of God.
The most extensive teaching in the NT on the
subject of the
Christian
and civil government is found in Paul's letter to the church
located in the capital of the
some basic principles which are at the very heart of
the question
concerning the believer's participation in war.
First, this passage clearly establishes that the
Christian must obey
the de facto government of the region in which he
lives (13:1). The
fact that a civil government is organized and in
operation gives
evidence that it has been ordained by God. Paul
makes no distinc-
tion between good rulers and
bad ones or between pleasant laws
and unpleasant ones. The command is not
unconditional in light
of the fact that there are times that "we
must obey God rather than
men" (Acts
Christians
will obey authorities and their laws.4
Second, there are several reasons given for this
requirement.
These
reasons give insight into the proper God-given function of
government. The "powers that be," no
matter how pagan and impious,
are functioning under the authority of God (13:1).
It follows then that
to resist such authority is to resist that which
God has established and
2 Robert D. Culver,
Toward a Biblical View of Civil Government (
1974) 183-84.
3 Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John (NICNT;
1971)
797; William Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel According to John
(2 vols.
4 C. E. B. Cranfield
(A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on
the Epistle to the
Romans [ICC; 2 vols.;
verb used here "can denote the recognition that
the other person, as Christ's representa-
to one (cf. Mt. 25.40, 45), has an infinitely
greater claim upon one than one has
upon oneself and the conduct which flows naturally from
such a recognition." This
passage is not teaching uncritical and blind
obedience to authority's every command
since the final arbiter in a particular situation is
not civil authority but God.
438
GRACE
THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
to face his condemnation (13:2).5
Furthermore, on its part the govern-
ment is expected to inflict
punishment upon evildoers and approve
those who do good (13:3-4).6
Third, the obedience expected of every person
(13: 1) is specifically
applied as a moral issue to the believer (13:5).
The believer should not
submit simply for utilitarian reasons. He must obey
because he knows
that it is right. This includes paying taxes to
rulers, who are function-
ing as servants of God
(13:6).
Fourth, it is especially significant .that this
passage reiterates the
power of government to take a human life (13:4). The
sword represents
the God -given authority of civil government to
inflict God's temporal
punishment upon evildoers, including the death
penalty.7 While this
passage deals specifically which matters of criminal
justice and civil
order, It has also been applied to the military power
possessed by
government. The power of the sword is extrapolated
to deal with evil
on an international level.8
Therefore, the practice and teaching of both the
OT and NT
establishes that God .has ordained the human
institution of civil govern-
ment. He expects his people to, submit to its authority m every way
not inconsistent with his revelation.
The Christian's Relation
to All Men
The Christian also has specific biblical
direction regarding the
personal use of violence. This is the other side
of the issue. In both
OT
and NT there is taught a personal ethic of nonretaliation
and
nonviolence to neighbors.9 The positive and
active responsibility of
the samt has always been
to demonstrate kindness.
An OT passage which seems, to capture the
essence of what many
feel is the NT teaching on this subject (Rom
Prov 25:21-22. Jesus' teaching that the whole law
hung upon two
commandments, one of which was to
love your neighbor as yourself
(Matt
Thus, OT believers lived under an ethical system
which proscribed
any act of personal revenge. Self-defense was
permitted, but with
5 There is a twofold aspect of this
judgment: civil and divine. See Cranfield,
Romans, 2. 664; and John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT;
Eerdmans,
1968) 2.
149.
6 This praise of good works may be
conscious or unconscious, willing or unwilling,
as the idea of reward is not implicit in the terms
used. Even unjust acts of persecution
by civil government may ultimately bring praise
and glory to God. See Cranfield,
Romans, 2. 664-65;
and Murray, Romans, 2. 151.
7 Culver, Civil Government, 254.
8 Cranfield,
Romans, 2. 667.
9 Robert D. Culver, "Justice is
Something Worth Fighting For," Christianity Today
24 (
PLASTER: THE CHRISTIAN AND WAR 439
severe limitations.10 Thus, the believer is
not faced with the alternative
of a NT or an OT ethic. The OT lays the foundation
for the NT ethic
which renounces the use of violence against others.
The position of nonresistance derives its name
from NT teaching
in Matt
Matt
5:38-48 shows that there is at least some form of personal
nonresistance expected of the
believer. Even those who reject the
application of this passage to participation in war
agree that the
passage is dealing with personal offenses and
that "the believer must
have the spirit of nonresistance so much a part of
his life that he only
retaliates as a last resort, and then only in a
continued spirit of
love."11
The believer is commanded in the NT to act
positively toward
his fellow man. It is not a matter of merely having
a spirit of
nonresistance. He is commanded to
love his enemies (Matt
Luke
6:27; Rom 13:8-1011. This love for enemies is expressed in doing
good for them (Rom
Those
who persecute the believer should receive back a blessing
(Rom
(Rom
with all men (Rom
peace (Rom
the Galatians:
And let us not lose heart in doing good, for in
due time we shall reap if
we do not grow weary. So
then, while we have opportunity, let us do
good to all men, and
especially to those who are of the household of "
the faith [Gal 6:9-10,
NASB].
In the teachings of both Jesus and Paul the
active lifestyle of
doing good to all men and responding positively to
persecutors is
clearly commanded. The personal ethic of the
believer is based on an
attitude of nonresistance and nonviolence towards
others.
THE MAIN ALTERNATIVES
The Christian world falls into two broad camps
in response to
the question of the believer's participation in
war. One side responds
affirmatively but some limit the kind
of war in which a Christian
10 Ibid., 16-17.
11 Charles G. Stoner,
"The Teaching of Jesus in Relation to the Doctrine of
Nonresistance" (Master of Theology thesis,
Dallas Theological Seminary, 1970) 31.
12 This passage cannot be restricted to love
within the fellowship of believers
(cf.
Murray, Romans, 2. 160; Hendriksen, Romans,
2.439; and Alva J. McClain,
Romans: The Gospel of
God's Grace
[
440
GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
should participate. The other side responds negatively
but is divided on
the question of noncombatant participation. Each
position attempts
to practice biblical principles.
The Activist
In the post-Vietnam War era the position of the
activist became
less prominent. However, new movements closely
associating the
political New Right with some in the
Fundamentalist camp could
possibly lead to a grass roots acceptance of
activism. The activist
position is based on the principle that the
believer is bound to submit
himself to the divinely ordained government.
Thus he must participate
in any war his government enters.
Operating on the assumption that the government
of the
ris based on Christian
principles as well as self-evident truths which
make it the enemy of tyranny
and injustice, these advocates of patrio-
tism are convinced that
their loyalty to the state in time of war is
essential both politically and
spiritually.13
A modern advocate of this position, Harold O. J.
Brown, at-
tempts to justify both the preventative war and the
crusade. A pre-
ventative war is begun in
anticipation of an act of aggression rather
than in response to it. "A preventative war
intends to forestall an evil
that has not yet occurred."14 The
crusade, however, is "a war waged
to remedy a past atrocity, especially one
recognized as such for
spiritual or religious reasons.”15
Brown views
[homeland as the prime example of a justified crusade. Wars
of
national liberation and revolutions motivated by
a concern for ethical
principle would also fit in the category of
crusade.16
Brown argues that the individual is not in the
position to make
any decision regarding the relative merits of the
opposing nations in a Ii!.
war.
It is impossible to require each citizen to know
the facts that will
enable him to judge the
justness of a particular war. In the period when
he might possibly
influence the decision whether to go to war, he has
too little information.
Later, when the war has broken out, the informa-
tion may not do him any
good-"military necessity" will override all
other considerations.17
13 William E. Nix, "The Evangelical
and War," JETS 13 (1970) 138.
14 Harold O. J. Brown, "The Crusade or
Preventative War" in War: Four Christian
Views, Robert G. Clouse, ed. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1981) 155.
15 Ibid., 156.
16 Ibid., 158.
17 Ibid., 165.
PLASTER: THE CHRISTIAN AND WAR 441
Brown
puts full responsibility upon the leaders of the nation. Because
the individual is unable to make an informed
decision he is not
expected to attempt it. Since the leadership
bears full responsibility,
the individual is delivered from any moral
responsibility.
An individual is morally obliged to refuse to
participate in individual
acts that he knows to be
wrong, but he cannot be held responsible for
knowing that the war itself is
wrong. If he does know it and acts upon
that knowledge by refusing
to fight, he deserves praise. But if he obeys
his orders and fights, it
is very hard to condemn him. Individual respon-
sibility means not making the
decision to launch a wrong war, when
the citizen has the right
to participate in decision making, and not
performing wrong acts in war.
However, if a wrong decision has been
made by the government, it
is hard to hold the individual responsible
to resist it.18
This
is the essential argument of the activist position. However, this
approach is disputable.
First, to argue that a believer must always
submit to his govern-
ment implies that his nation
is a "chosen people." This is not the
case, since only
theocracy.19
Moreover, the Bible makes it clear that there
are higher spiritual
obligations which may require the believer to
disobey the government
in order to obey God. In the OT Daniel, his three
fellow exiles, and
the Hebrew midwives in
to higher spiritual obligations. In the NT the
apostles chose to obey
God
rather than men (Acts
It seems clear that the believer cannot escape
his responsibility to
make a decision regarding his participation in war.
To argue other-
wise could lead to moral bankruptcy. However, one
question raised
by Brown still remains. In this day of propaganda
controlled by sinful
men on all sides, how is the Christian to know that
he is not killing
others in the name of a cause that is ultimately
unjust?
The Pacifist
The pacifist takes the position that the
believer should avoid any
participation in any war. There are
many forms of pacifism founded
upon philosophical, political, or social agendas.
There is a new breed
of "peace" scholarship which converts
the gospel of Jesus as seen in
traditional "peace" churches into a
political program, including the
abolition of national defense and the complete
elimination of war in
18 Ibid., 165-66.
19 Nix, "The
Evangelical and War," 140.
442
GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
the world. It has as its goal the remodeling of
society.20 However, the
present study is focusing on those who seek a
biblical base for their ,.
position. Myron Augsburger,
a Mennonite and a spokesman of the
rhistoric "peace
church" movement, states, "I want this stance to be
clearly interpreted as evangelical and
biblically based and different
from humanistic and moralistic pacifism.”21
In contrast to the activist who has one basic
argument for his
with attached corollaries which form the foundation
of the pacifist
position.
First, many pacifists cite the pacifism of the
pre-Constantine
church. Christenson and Bainton
make this one of their primary
rsupports.22 Augsburger
himself is not adverse to including historical
data in his discussion,23 though it does
not have a primary role.
It
is indisputably clear that the pre-Constantine church did resist
rparticipation in war. Admitting that
opposition to war was almost
unanimous in the second and third
out,
Evangelicals today reject many views of the
second and third centuries:
the developing legalism,
dependence on rites called sacraments for sal-
vation (sacerdotalism),
transfer of all liturgical acts and church govern-
ment to a priestly class
(prelacy). So we are surely free to re-examine
early views on war.24
Accordingly,
in this study the use of church history to support pacifism
will be set aside. The focus will be biblical
arguments.
Second, Augsburger
points out that the Church as a voluntary
association of believers is "a minority in
society always separate from
the state (any state, recognizing that God has ordained
government
for the good of the people). The church is not
coterminous with the
state.”25 Hoyt points to John 18:36 where
Christ declared to Pilate,
"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" (NASH). Believers are thus part of a
kingdom separate from
20 Robert Culver, "Between War and
Peace: Old Debate in a New Age," Christianity
Today 24 (
21 Myron S. Augsburger,
"Beating Swords Into Plowshares," Christianity Today 20
(
22 Reo M.
Christenson, "Christians and Nuclear Aggression," The Christian
Century
100 (
Peace (Nashville: Abingdon,
1960) 66-84.
23 Myron S. Augsburger,
"Christian Pacifism" in War: Four Christian Views, 92.
24 Culver, "Justice Is Something Worth
Fighting For," 14.
25 Augsburger, "Christian
Pacifism," 83.
PLASTER: THE CHRISTIAN AND WAR 443
the state and have a responsibility to live as
pilgrims and strangers
upon the earth. Their conduct is to be conditioned
by their heavenly
citizenship.26
William Nix in response argues that this view
"assumes that
believers must be a minority group within society
and be without
political responsibility for the actions of the
state.”27 Actually, when
Christianity
became the dominant religion, its role in society caused
many changes.
The pacifist position often leads to a "dropoutism" mentality,
including the refusal to pay taxes or to serve in
any political office.
There
is a disengagement from the whole body politic.28 However,
this mentality is not intrinsic to the pacifist
position. Augsburger, for
example, does not rule out all political
participation by Christians.
He
believes that Christians may serve in political positions so long as
they do not attempt to create a state church.
However, "they should
not consider holding positions where they could not
both fulfill the
obligations of the office and remain consistent with
their membership
in the
unfortunately all too often fallen
into isolationism or has led to a
refusal to pay taxes.
Separation of Church and State is an important
truth that needs
to be underscored. Obviously, the use of force or
political power to
further the ministry of the Church is forbidden.30
Though the Church
is separate from the state, the Christian
functions in both realms.
Since
government is ordained by God, serving the government is not
in itself immoral.
Neither Hoyt nor Augsburger
would disagree with what has just
been stated. What they are saying, however, is that
"since the church
and state belong to separate kingdoms or spheres of
operation, the
methods for defense and offense should also be
different.”31 There is
a dual obligation recognized by most Christians.
Christians recognize
that some things which are expected from them by God
are not
properly matters for legislative action on the
part of the civil govern-
ment.
We operate under the myth that we are a
Christian nation, and we seek
to interpret for society
an ethic we can bless as Christians. We need a
26 Herman A. Hoyt,
"Nonresistance" in War: Four Christian Views, 32.
27 Nix, "The
Evangelical and War," 136.
28 Norman L. Geisler,
Ethics: Alternatives and Issues (
1971) 175.
29 Augsburger, "Christian
Pacifism," 89.
30 Stoner, "The
Teaching of Jesus Christ in Relation to the Doctrine of Non-
resistance," 36-37.
31 Hoyt, "Nonresistance," 32.
444
GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
new awareness of the
pluralism of the New Testament. The crucial
issue is the difference
between the Church and the world; the Church
operates "within the
perfection of Christ," while the world operates
outside the perfection or will
of Christ. Only an understanding of this
can save us from a cultural
religion and from a civil religion.32
Simply appealing to separation of Church and
State does not
prove the pacifists' case. However, it does open the
possibility that
there may be things which individual Christians
should not do which
nevertheless are not forbidden for
the entire nation.
A third pacifist argument, related to what has
just been discussed
above, emphasizes the priority of the believer's
obligation to his
heavenly citizenship. "The church is an
interracial, supranational
transcultural body composed of all
who put their faith in Jesus Christ
as Savior and follow him as Lord.”33
All those who name the name"
[of Christ are translated into his kingdom (John 3:3,5;
Coll:13) and
are no longer of this world, even as Christ is not
of this world
(John
tion in relation to nationalism
and allegience to any particular nation:
To affirm that one is a member of the
that loyalty to Christ and
his kingdom transcends every other loyalty.
This stance goes beyond nationalism and calls us
to identify first of all
with our fellow disciples,
of whatever nation, as we serve Christ to-
gether. This is not a position
which can be expected of the world nor
asked of the government as
such. ...The Christian can only encourage
the government to be the
government and to let the church be the
church.35
Augsburger believes that this
outlook on the primary loyalty of the
Christian
is even more basic to the NT than the principle of love.36
This
difference between the Church and the State points to a
distinction that must be recognized. What
what was commanded in the OT theocracy is not
necessarily binding
upon the NT believer.37
Up to this point in the argument, there may not
be much with
which most Christians would disagree. The priority
obligation to obey
32 Augsburger,
"Beating Swords Into Plowshares," 8. ,
33 John Drescher,
"Why Christians Shouldn't Carry Swords," Christianity Today
24
(
34 Hoyt, "Nonresistance," 32.
35 Augsburger, "Christian
Pacifism," 87.
36 Ibid., 94.
37 Tom Fitts,
"A Dispensational Approach to War" (Master of Theology thesis,
PLASTER: THE CHRISTIAN AND WAR 445
God
rather than men is widely recognized. This alone does not estab-
lish a basis upon which the
pacifist can refuse all participation in war.
However,
this priority does come into conflict with a believer's active
<