THE PRINCIPLES OF THE DOCTRINE OF NON-RESISTANCE

THE PRINCIPLES OF THE DOCTRINE

 

 

Up to this point the explicit teaching of the Scriptures on the doctrine of non-resistance has been set forth. But certain underlying principles run through all the passages dealing with this subject. To these it is neces­sary to call the reader's attention.

1. The doctrine of non-resistance is Biblical and is clearly taught in the  Word of God. This was the practice of the early church up until 174 A.D. From that point on the changing circumstances of the Church and the traditions of men began to invade the thinking of believers. Except for isolated instances the church in general gradually drew away from the original position of the church as set forth in the New Testament. This situation continued through the Refor­mation and up until the Pietistic Movement in central Europe and England. With the Bible in the hands of more people, the doctrine of non-resistance was re­covered and in stronger form has been practiced by segments of the Christian Church up to the present.

2. There are four passages in the New Testament that treat this matter  specifically. Matt. 5:38-48 provides the basis for the name given to this doctrine. This passage was given to limit the extent of retaliation in the exercise of justice. It is so much a part of the old nature to requite a wrong with more than one has suffered that in the Old Testament, and now repeated in the New Testament, requital is not to go beyond the extent of the wrong. In fact, in place of requital, there is to be good imparted on the part of the believer to his enemy. This is Christ-like and Christian. The Luke passage (Luke 6:27-36) parallels the one in Matthew except that it gives a larger emphasis on the positive side of communicating good to the enemy. Paul touches on this subject in his letter to the Romans: "Avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath . . . Owe no man anything, but to love one another" (Rom. 12:19-21; 13:8). To support his instruction on this point, Peter cites the example of Christ (1 Pet. 2:18-24).

3. On the basis of these Scriptures, four observations need to be called  to the attention of the reader.

(1) Spiritual principles for guiding the believer are set forth in these Scriptures. Strict retaliation was provided for and permitted under the Old Testament Law (Exod. 21:23-25). This is repeated in the Sermon on the Mount.

But even this was not the highest and best method of social justice. If there was to be the highest measure of good come to everyone, it must be recognized that underlying the Old Testament law there was the second great commandment:

"Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" (Lev. 19:18; Matt. 22:39). Jesus emphasized this in His teaching. Under grace the whole motive of social relations is changed. The Author of the law has come, and seeing how utterly men have misunderstood and misused the law, He now opens His mouth and declares:

"But I say unto you, Resist not him that is evil" (Matt. 5:39 ASV). That which was implicit in the Old Testament Law is now made explicit in His teaching.
Vengeance belongs to the Lord (Rom. 12:19), and believers are exhorted to love their enemies (Matt. 5:38-48; Luke 6:27-36; Rom. 12:19-21;13:8-14; 1 Pet. 2:1-24).
         (2) In every one of these Scriptures the subject and emphasis is upon the personal conduct of individual believers. The very nature of each exhorta­tion is such that only individual believers could be under consideration and could respond to the teaching. These commands are not delivered to groups, or to congregations, or to governments, or to nations. Any careful examination of the language makes this a necessary conclusion. The "whosoever" or "If any man" individualizes the command. And even if these expressions did not appear, and a whole congregation was being addressed, the only way for these exhortations to be carried out would be by personal effort of the individual believer. The individualizing of the application of these Scriptures makes application to governments and nations wholly illogical. Never is the message of the New Tes­tament directed to unregenerate governments of the world.
       (3) In every one of these Scriptures some aspect of the exercise of  physical force is under consideration. Resistance against spiritual evil is not in view here, though it is certainly discussed at length in many other places in the New Testament. In every case where spiritual evil is the subject of dis­cussion believers are called upon to resist it, and to do so in a spiritual way (Eph. 6:10-13; Jas. 4:7; 1 Pet. 5:9). Overcoming physical evil with spiritual good is the thrust of these passages.
       (4) Moreover, these Scriptures set forth spiritual ideals which will be universally realized when the Kingdom of God is established in the earth. Today Christ is calling out a spiritual aristocracy who will someday experience the Kingdom in its physical reality. But inasmuch as they are now subjects of that kingdom, they should display the spiritual characteristics that will someday be universally realized (Matt. 5:3; Luke 6:20). Possessing a "blessed" or "born-again" nature constitutes the right to enter that kingdom. And if this nature is present then it ought to exhibit the characteristics now. The night of sin is far spent and the day is at hand, so true believers ought to be living in non­conformity with the world and as strangers and pilgrims in the earth (Rom. 13:11-12 1 Pet. 2:11). The coming of Christ and the establishing of His kingdom in the earth is strong incentive to display the spiritual characteristics now. The world has seen so little of these traits that Christianity is seen as an impotent and false religion because of the flesh traits they see being displayed in those calling themselves followers of the Teacher and the Lord of John 13:13.

4. The obligations of non-resistance are laid upon believers only. Let the reader go back over the various passages instructing in the area of non-resistance and it will be perfectly clear that each passage is directed to the people of God. The "blessed" people are those to whom Christ directs His word as set forth in Matthew 5:3-10 and in Luke 6:20. The word "blessed" in the original relates to character, condition, consciousness within, and not to a bestowal of blessing from without. It is almost comparable with the expression "born-again." It is used especially to describe the nature of God (1 Tim. 1:11; 6:15). The descriptions "brethren" and "dearly beloved" denote the people to whom Paul wrote (Rom. 12:1, 20). And Peter certainly had Christians in mind when he addressed the "dearly beloved" and insisted that they should deport themselves as "strangers and pilgrims" in the earth (1 Pet. 2:11).

(1) It follows then that the Scriptures were not in any sense directed toward unsaved men. The only way that the Scriptures could possibly reach the unbelieving world is through the ministry of the saved. It is this way that the warning of impending judgment reaches lost men, and it is saved men who communicate the gracious entreaty of Christ to be saved. If they respond to the warning of judgment and the invitation to be saved, then the New Testament speaks to them directly. But in such instances they now belong to that group who are constituted the children of God. To them in this changed spiritual condition the obligations of non-resistance are then directed. Thus the Bible is always and primarily a message for the people of God, instructing them in what to be­lieve, exhorting them to walk according to the truth, and encouraging them in the midst of trial and suffering. If this fact is comprehended it will safe­guard the believer from some of the errors that are prevalent today, some of which bear upon the doctrine of non-resistance. It will become clear that the specific Scriptures on non-resistance, and for that matter all the rest of the New Testament, make no provision for present-day pacifism which includes unbe­lievers, whether it appears in political, social, or theological form.

(2) Moreover, the doctrine of non-resistance is not a plank in some  political platform. Examine the passages to which continuous reference has been made and it will become clear that the writers were not setting one form of government over against another or one nation over against another. In the same context of some of these passages the writer is enjoining believers to be subject to the government under which they live. Christ urges Jews to "render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's," but while doing that, not to forget to render "unto God, the things that are God's" (Matt. 22:21). Paul also speaks in the same vein. "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God" (Rom. 13:1). And Peter follows the same pattern in exhorting believers: "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king as supreme; or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well . . . Honor the king" (1 Pet. 2:13-14,17). This means then that non-resistance is a spiritual principle intended for individual believers under any form of govern­ment.

(3) Again it must be recognized that non-resistance is not a part of  some merely social program. No careful student of the Scriptures will deny that non-resistance has social implications. The very nature of non-resistance is intended to be felt in the social realm. But on the other hand, the doctrine of non-resistance is not primarily and merely social. The primary and basic significance of non-resistance is spiritual, and the social is merely the outward display and the spiritual by product. For instance, the purpose of Matthew 5:38-48 is to demonstrate that those who practice nonresistance are "blessed" (Matt. 5:3-10), that is, born-again people who are the children of God (Matt. 5:45). Luke emphasizes the same thing (Luke 6:27-36). Paul's instruction on dealing with enemies (Rom. 12:19-21) is to display the fact that believers do not belong to this world (Rom. 12:2). Peter's injunction harmonizes with the preceding Scriptures that Christians should regard themselves as strangers and pilgrims in this present world system (1 Pet. 2:11).

(4) In addition to the above, non-resistance is not a chance inconsis­tency in the New Testament theological system. Some religious groups have a sound theological system until they reach the point of non-resistance. At this point they lose sight of the system they have affirmed. The system clearly argues for the separation of church and state, but at this point they project the church and believers back into the state. They do not see that the kingdom of Christ and the kingdom of this world operate in two different spheres. Non-­resistance is claimed by them to be for nations of the world and for human governments during this age. It appears that they do not have a clear picture of the prophetic program for the future. They expect man to be the great factor in the establishing of the Kingdom of God in the earth. But in the teaching of Christ, Paul and Peter, it is clear that the kingdom of God would be established by the supernatural, catastrophic, and sovereign appearing of the great God and Savior Jesus Christ. This method of setting up the kingdom will be necessary because human government will resist the grace and love of God to the last. Even men belonging to the professing but false church will join in one last great religious rebellion of the end time (2 Thess. 2:3).

This leaves the doctrine of non-resistance right where the writers of the New Testament intended it should be; namely, a spiritual principle to be exer­cised by the people of God in the midst of this wicked and gainsaying world. Whenever an entire nation reaches the point that all within its boundaries are Christian, and everyone is practicing the principle of non-resistance, it may be fairly concluded that the kingdom of God has been established in the earth. This will be true only when Christ has returned to earth and by His almighty power has set up His kingdom and purged out all those unfit for His kingdom (Matt. 13:37-43; 25:31-46 NASB).

5. The doctrine of non-resistance harmonizes with the entire teaching of  the New Testament. Non-resistance is a part of that perfect, systematic, logical system. This commends itself to the thinking Christian.

(1) This doctrine harmonizes with the life and ministry of Christ while on earth. His name was called Jesus because He would save His people from their sins (Matt. 1:21). At His coming there was good news for all people (Luke 2:10-11). He came to seek and save the lost (Luke 19:10). He came to save and not to destroy (Luke 9:54-56). He went about doing good and healing (Acts 10:38). When He was reviled He did not respond in kind . . . "but bare our sins in his own body on the tree" (1 Pet. 2:21-24). This is enough to show that the whole life and ministry of Christ was one of non-resistance. And then believers are exhorted to follow His example (1 Pet. 2:21), and to walk as He walked (1 John 2:6).

Only upon two occasions does it appear that Christ seemed to follow a course inconsistent with His regular pattern of life. These relate to the cleansing of the temple (John 2:13-16; Matt. 21:12-13). But on these occasions it has not been conclusively proven that he exercised physical force upon men. He did upon the beasts, but nothing indicates that men were the objects of physical force. But if He did, it is to be explained that He was exercising the sovereign authority of His Messianic office, giving men a foregleam of the vengeance He will inflict when He comes again to execute divine wrath. In His sovereign office as Messiah, believers have nothing in common with Him.

(2) This doctrine harmonizes with the divine program of eschatology set forth in the Bible. Eschatology is that system of teaching which outlines the various events with which the present age will come to its close. At that time the day of man will be terminated and the day of the Lord will be ushered in. During the day of man, God is permitting men to go their way, but offering them His grace and love. But at Christ's coming the Lord will take full charge of events. The saved will be raptured into the presence of Christ (1 Thess. 4:13-18). Vengeance will be meted out upon the wicked (Rom. 12:19; 1 Thess. 4:6; Heb. 10:30; 2 Thess. 1:5-9; Jas. 5:7-9). This recompense upon the wicked will be effected at the coming of Christ in glory (Rev. 19:11-21). Because vengeance is yet future, it is right that believers should be patient unto the coming of the Lord (Jas. 5:7-9). It is therefore perfectly proper for believers to practice nonresistance as they look for the soon return of Christ and the execu­tion of vengeance.

(3) It is a striking fact that this doctrine harmonizes with the great  plan Christ laid out for His church during this age. Anything that would contradict, contravene, or counteract that plan should be regarded as inconsis­tent and inimical to the program of Christ. Opposition to non-resistance prevents the realization of that program and believers ought to avoid such. Witnessing for Him to the salvation of souls is one aspect of His program (Acts 1:8; Matt. 28:19-20). This is the supreme business of the Church. Inasmuch as the kingdom was to be delayed for some time, the interim was to be filled with witnessing in preparation for that event. Witnessing was for the purpose of gathering out an aristocracy for that kingdom, an aristocracy from all the nations of the world. To this task believers were to give themselves unreserv­edly. Military service would exhaust their time and effort, but non-resistance would provide for them opportunity to obey this command of the Lord. But in addition to witnessing the believer is called to conduct like that of Christ. Non-resistance is one of the things Christ laid upon believers to observe (Matt. 28:20). Any system that introduces the believer into a course of conduct utterly opposed to what Christ taught cannot be regarded as right and good and proper, nor consistent with what Christ commanded. Moreover, believers were enjoined to point men to the coming of Christ when the ideals and hopes of men will be realized. He is preparing a home for the saved where all sorrow will vanish away and the deepest joy will be experienced (John 14:1-3). Affections should therefore be set on things above, especially upon Him, for with Him the sons of God will be manifested in glory (Col. 3:1-4). And at last the eternal city with foundations, whose builder and maker is God, will be realized in the earth (Heb. 11:10, 13-16; 13:13-14). The puny efforts of men expended, in war will never achieve this. How logical then for believers to reserve all their efforts for the realization of this goal by following the command of Christ in non-resistance.

(4) It is an amazing thing to note also that the doctrine of non-resistance harmonizes with various commands Christ gave to believers and which could  not otherwise be carried out. These commands are far more numerous than those that have already been discussed. It will be sufficient to cite a few at this point. The doctrine of non-resistance harmonizes with the command of Christ for believers to love their enemies (Matt. 5:44; Luke 6:27; Rom. 12:20; 13:8-10), with the responsibility to return good for evil (Rom. 12:17,21; 1 Pet. 3:9), to do good to all men (Rom. 12:17; Gal. 6:10), to make no provision for the flesh (Rom. 13:13-14), and to follow after things which make for peace (Rom. 12:18; 14:19).

6. The doctrine of non-resistance rests upon certain important underlying  principles. Though there are undoubtedly more, I name six at this point.

(1) The kingdom of Christ is not of this world, and therefore the subjects of this kingdom should not employ force to maintain it. "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence" (John 18:36). The nature and source of this kingdom together with those who are subjects of it all argue for some method other than physical violence for defending it.

(2) The Spirit of Christ is not of this world, and therefore those who possess that Spirit cannot use carnal methods to preserve it. James and John requested the privilege of calling down fire on the enemies of the Lord in Samaria, as Elijah did, "But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them" (Luke 9:52-56). One of the firstfruits of the. Spirit is peace, and those who possess that. Spirit should be peacemakers (Gal. 5:22; Matt. 5:9). It should therefore be impossible for men who possess the Spirit to take up arms in hostility.

(3) The purpose of Christ is not of this world, for He did not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them (Luke 9:56). If Christians, promote that purpose they cannot possibly take the lives of men physically. Taking life is taking that which men hold most precious, and it is taking away the opportunity for hearing the word of Christ and being eternally saved from both physical and spiritual ruin.

(4) The methods of Christ are not of this world, for He does not use carnal weapons in His warfare. "For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;)" (2 Cor. 10:3-4). Probably no one has ever yet endured more reviling and persecution from men than Christ. And yet never once did He resort to carnal weapons for defense. As a class of individuals the same things may be said of Christians down across the centuries.. They have won their battles by the message of grace, and by their gracious manner of life.

(5) The evaluations of Christ are not of this world, for He penetrates to the ultimate meanings of life. "For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it" (Mark 8:35; John 12:25). The sense of these passages is ulti­mately spiritual, but the outcome turns on the attitude one takes toward life in this world and the methods he uses to save that life. If life in this world is more important than life with Christ, then he belongs to this world and will employ the methods of this world to save it, but the outcome will be loss of life both physically and spiritually. On the other hand, if one is willing to lose life physically for the sake of Christ and His gospel, he will use the methods of Christ, and the outcome will be the saving of life both physically and spiritually.

(6) The protection of Christ is not of this world, but is heavenly, eternal, and divine. Protection operates within the sphere of and the control of the sovereign will of God. Even though Christ was in the hands of hostile Jews He could encourage His disciples by saying, "Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?" (Matt. 26:53-54). Christ came to fulfill the will of God and at this point it meant that He must die (Matt. 20:28).

But in the case of others it was the will of God to protect by various means. He rescued Peter from prison by angelic intervention (Acts 5:19); later Peter and John were saved by public sentiment (Acts 5:26); and still later they were saved by the fallacious reasoning of a great Jewish teacher (Acts 5:38-39). The twelfth chapter of Acts recounts how God allowed one apostle to suffer martyrdom (Acts 12:2), but Peter was saved from death by the prayers of the saints (Acts 12:3-17).

Those who practice non-resistance are in the center of God's perfect will. The outcome rests with Christ. Some may have to pay with their lives for the privilege and determination to follow the commands of Christ. Others may be rescued from mortal danger by various and sundry means under the control of Christ. But in either case the obedient servant will bear a vigorous and lasting testimony to the grace of God.

THE PRESENTATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF NON-RESISTANCE

THE PRESENTATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF NON-RESISTANCE

 

It is unfortunate that the title "non-resistance" has been given to this doctrine. This caption gives the impression that this pattern of response is something altogether negative and passive. The name comes from the words of Matt. 5:39, "That ye resist not evil" [Italics mine], and has become fixed. It now remains for those who hold this truth to explain what it means. But many who get no further than the name draw false opinions. Quite to the contrary from what the name suggests, the practice is very positive and active. Seven elements may help to make clear precisely what is involved.

1. Non-resistance is one aspect of the Biblical teaching on separation  from the world. One of the first things a saved person is commanded to do is to separate himself from the practices of this world. Paul admonishes him to be "not conformed to this world" (Rom. 12:2). This covers all practices of life that make up the pattern of this present evil age, which practices conceal the new nature within. Inasmuch as true Christians are "not of this world" (John 17:16), but have been chosen by Christ out of this world (John 15:19), it is the divine purpose to keep them from the evil in this world (John 17:15). One of those evils is the exercise of physical force to accomplish the purposes of life. This includes the use of physical force in times of peace and also in times of war.

2. It becomes clear from the basic injunction on separation that there is a definite separation of church and state according to the divine Word. Christ declared to Pilate, "My kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36). Paul explained that all those who name the name of Christ and experience the miracle of regeneration have been translated into the kingdom of Jesus Christ (John 3:3,5; Col. 1:13). They are no longer of this world even as Christ is not of this world (John 17:16). They now have citizenship in heaven (Phil. 3:20 ASV), and it is their responsibility to live like pilgrims and strangers in this world (Heb. 11:8-16). Their conduct should be conditioned over the pattern of those who belong to another kingdom, the kingdom of the heavens.

3. Since the church and state belong to kingdoms or spheres of operation, the methods for defense and offense should also be different. Christ was so patently clear in addressing Pilate. "If my kingdom were of this world; then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence" (John 18:36). This means that the believer is not free to employ physical force as a method of warfare. He cannot "war after the flesh: for the weapons of our warfare are not carnal" (2 Cor. 10:3-4). But this is not to depreciate the weapons available to the Christian, for they are "mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds" (2 Cor. 10:4).

4. On the basis of the foregoing points, it follows that physical violence  is forbidden to believers as a method of accomplishing a purpose. A careful examination of Matt. 5:38-48 leads to the conclusion that physical violence is not Christian. In the light of the fact that the believer is urged to follow the example of Christ this conclusion is made even more emphatic (1 John 2:6). For we are exhorted "to walk even as he walked," and to "follow His steps: who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth: who, when He was reviled, reviled not again; when He suffered, He threatened not; but committed Himself to Him that judgeth righteously: who His own self bare our sins in His own body on the tree" (1 Pet. 2:21-24).

5. Where physical violence is forbidden for any purpose, it is made only too clear that believers have no right to use physical violence in the propaga­tion of the-Christian faith. This does not mean that believers are without power for accomplishing the task that has been committed to them. For the gospel itself is the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1:16). As an added encouragement believers are instructed that "Ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you" (Acts 1:8). And this power provides the weapons of our warfare that are "mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds" (2 Cor. 10:4). Whenever the church has turned aside from this equipment to the use of physical force to enlarge the borders of the church nothing but reproach and ruin followed in its wake.

6. What has been true in using physical force to extend the church, has also been true when the church joined the nations of the world in the exercise  of force. This situation has produced an incongruity that aroused defamation from even men of the world. If believers belong to the kingdom of Christ, then they do not belong to the kingdom of the world. And if it is wrong for be­lievers to employ physical force to advance spiritual interests, then it is also wrong for believers to join the world in the use of physical force to achieve temporal interests. The words of Christ come with tremendous power at this point. "If my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight . . but now is my kingdom not from hence" (John 18:36).

7. Lest the reader draw an incorrect conclusion, let it be said here that even though the believer is forbidden the use of physical force to accom­plish a temporal end, he is still obligated to exercise spiritual means to do  good and to bring blessing to others. Jesus left no doubt in the minds of His disciples both by example (1 Pet. 2:21-24), and exhortation (Matt. 5:38-48), and apostolic instruction, that believers are responsible to display good and stand against evil by spiritual means (Rom. 12:17-21; 13:8). While it is not easy to resist spiritual evil by spiritual means, Christians are left with no other alternative (James 4:7; 1 Pet. 5:9; Eph. 6:10-13).

NON-RESISTANCE IN ARMED CONFLICT FOR CHRISTIANS

NON-RESISTANCE IN ARMED CONFLICT FOR CHRISTIANS

by Herman A. Hoyt

 

Introduction

The exercise of physical force has characterized the course of history since the entrance of sin into the human family. Expulsion from the Garden of Eden was followed almost immediately by the sin of Cain when he slew his brother (Gen. 4:8). He then became the object of physical wrath in the society of that day (Gen. 4:14-15). His descendants followed the path he made so that physical violence became a way of life (Gen. 4:23-24). This pattern of life grew to such enormous proportions that God was forced to bring the flood on mankind (Gen. 6:13).

From that day till this hour the pages of history are replete with the accounts of physical violence in ever expanding proportions. Personal animosi­ties, family feuds, racial strife, class conflict, religious hatreds, civil hostilities, and national conflagration have all employed physical force to attain their ends. The mounting dimensions of armed might and military opera­tions have now reached the point where they threaten the very existence of civilization, perhaps even more, the survival of mankind. But even so, the development of war on a global scale moves on, and as the instruments of war increase in size and destructiveness it means that the worst is yet ahead.

It is this frightening prospect that has produced a veritable contagion of effort on the part of nations to halt the toboggan slide to world destruction. The past two hundred years, more particularly the last seventy-five years, even more precisely the last thirty years have been marked by every conceivable invention known to men to halt the trend toward total annihilation. There have been alliances to maintain a balance of power, world courts, disarmament confer­ences, the League of Nations, the United Nations, Detente, NATO, SEATO, Salt talks, but all to no avail. The Middle East Crisis threatens to engulf the whole world. In the face of demands made by the Arabs, Israel faces two alter­natives. On the one hand Israel can resist the pressures of the Arabs, real­izing this course will lead inevitably to war. On the other hand she can yield to these pressures and face annihilation.

These prospects mean that the ever increasing involvement of the Church in the wars of nations lies ahead. From its beginning at Pentecost Christians have been forced to face the realities of armed strife. During the first three hundred years this was minimal. But when Christianity became the religion of the Roman Empire the possibilities of personal involvement increased. As long as armies were constituted by mercenaries, there was the possibility of avoiding armed service. When the reformation appeared on the scene, and Luther and Calvin identified church and state, involvement in military service reached a high point.

It was not until the days of Napoleon that the situation became serious for Christians. He inaugurated nationwide conscription. While this did not spread to the new world until much later, there was a feeling among the American Colonists that Christians should not be exempt from military service. However, they were permitted to pay money in lieu of military service. And in addition they were not only expected to pay the regular tax, but also a special war tax. And on top of this they were expected to contribute to the needs of the army and the alleviation of suffering.

By the time of the Civil War, universal military conscription had become the pattern of government across the world. It was slow in being employed during the war between the States, and even after it was made law in both North and South, Christians were permitted to pay for a substitute. World War I saw a definite change. Universal conscription was made absolute. No substitutes were allowed nor any commutation fee. Every man had to answer the draft in person. When the law covering conscription was finally passed, it did make provision for conscientious objection, but defined noncombatancy as that under military direction.

In World War II the government provided greater breadth for exemption from military service. Not only were religious scruples made the basis for relief from military service, but philosophic considerations were also given a place for evaluation. The Korean War and the War in Vietnam brought new pressures on the government to reevaluate the stipulations involved in universal military conscription. Without a doubt any war of the future will develop demands upon the manhood and womanhood of this country commensurate with the emergency. This is then the time to give new thought to the proper Christian position to take in the next emergency. Calm reflection will be more apt to produce right thinking and response than would be true in the midst of the wildfire of emotion.

Through the years four positions have developed as to the proper response of. Christians as dictated by the Scriptures. There are those who believe that the Scriptures teach the rightness of "Preventive War." Another position has long been held that there is such a thing as "A Just War" sanctioned by the Scriptures. Still another view held by many sects in Christendom is that the Scriptures teach "Pacificism." The writer of this monograph believes that the Bible teaches "Nonresistance" on the part of Christians.

THE NATIONAL PROVISION FOR THE EXERCISE OF NON-RESISTANCE

THE NATIONAL PROVISION FOR THE EXERCISE OF THE DOCTRINE OF NON-RESISTANCE IN WAR

lb. Up until 1800 no such thing as universal conscription was practiced among the nations, except perhaps for Rome in the early years of the Christian era.

While non-resistant Christians had to suffer for various reasons, yet refusal to be conscripted was not one. From the time of Napoleon on con­scription became a universal practice and religious groups with non-resistant principles were persecuted.

2b. War of the Revolution: In Pennsylvania companies of soldiers were organized called "associations." They were voluntary. But public pressure was brought to bear for every citizen to join. When non-resistant Christians refused, mob violence broke out against them. Responsible authorities took action against this needless violence on June 30, 1775, the Pennsylvania Assembly in behalf of the non-resistant recommended that people treat them with tenderness for their religious scruples. In midsummer, 1775, the Con­tinental Congress passed a resolution assuring non-resistant people that their religious beliefs would be respected, but earnestly recommending that they contribute liberally in this time of calamity. Late in November 1775, the Pennsylvania Assembly adopted a resolution urging all between the ages of 16 and 50 to join the association except conscientious objectors; and that all those physically able to bear arms, but who fail to do so, be required to pay a sum of money equivalent in value to the time spent by the associations in military drill.

This is the nearest approach to conscription during the Revolutionary War.

3b. The war of 1812: this war was not of sufficient importance to affect non­resistant peoples in any large way.

4b. The Civil war of 1861-65: It was during this war that the American people had their first real experience with conscription.

Both the North and South used conscription. But it was not absolute. For it was possible, at least theoretically, to secure exemption by hiring a sub­stitute. The Federal Militia Acts was passed in July 17, 1862 calling for 75,000 men between the ages of 18 and 45. A few weeks later the President issued an order for the drafting and enrolling of 300,000 men, this to be carried out by each state. Neither this, act, nor the President's order made any provision for conscientious objectors, except as the laws of each state provided for exemption. Many states had such provision. In Indiana the law read, "No person conscientiously opposed to bearing arms, shall be com­pelled to do militia duty; but such person shall pay an equivalent for exemption, the amount to be prescribed by law." In Indiana this amount was $200.00 and Iowa $300.00

In March 1863, Congress took this out of the hands of the state to avoid con­fusion, and passed the "Act for enrolling and calling out the National forces." There was no provision for conscientious objectors, but there were two ways to avoid the draft: (1) By providing an acceptable substitute: (2)By providing $300.00 with which to procure a substitute.

Opposition arose to this act, and another was passed on February 24, 1864, providing for conscientious objectors by regarding them as non-combatants with three alternatives to military service:

(1) Assignment to duty in hospitals for the care of sick and wounded soldiers

(2) Assignment to duty in the care of the freedman;

(3) Payment of a commutation fee of $300.00 to be applied to the benefit of sick and wounded soldiers.

Apparently only the third of these was ever carried out into practice.

While the situation for non-resistants in Confederate States was much like the North, it was far more severe, the commutation fee was $500.00, and many suffered at the hands of soldiers.

5b. The First World War: In this war conscription was absolute and universal:

There was no escape through the employment of a substitute or the payment of a commutation fee. Each man who was drafted was required to meet the test in person. The Selective Service Act came in May 18, 1917, and required that all men between the ages of 21 and 31 were liable for service.

It provided exemption for conscientious objectors, but the clause was qualified, stating that "no person shall be exempted from service in any capacity that the President shall declare to be non-combatant."

September 1, 1917, Secretary, of War Baker ruled that conscientious objectors when drafted should report to military camps where (1) They would be segregated; (2) They would not be required to wear military uniform nor engage in drill; (3) They would be offered a list of services considered noncombatant by the Department of War, but not forced to take any in violation of conscience

(4) Those who could not accept any under the military arm of the government would be held in detention camps to await such disposition as the government should decide upon.

On March 20, 1918 President Wilson defined service to mean noncombatant service under military service.

In March of 1918 Congress enacted a law which relieved the situation for non-resistants. This law provided for furloughs to men in the army to engage in civil occupations and pursuits. In June of 1918 the Secretary of War applied this law to conscientious objectors. In the same month of 1918 the Department of War established the "civilian board of inquiry" to visit the military camps and review all the cases of conscientious objectors. Those found sincere were to be released and granted furloughs for farm work or relief work in France.

The treatment of conscientious objectors in American camps during the entire period of the war, with prison sentences which followed, is a story too gruesome to tell.

6b. The Second World War. In this war far greater provision was made for non-resistant Christians, and also many others.

In the summer of 1940 the Burke-Wadsworth bill was introduced in Congress. It was passed and became law in September, 1940. In its original form it was practically like the law of 1917 so far as conscientious objectors were concerned. The efforts of a committee made of Mennonites, Quakers, and Brethren brought a change in the form before it became law. It then pro­vided that "all persons who by reason, of religious training and belief were conscientiously opposed to all forms of military service, should, if con­scripted for service, be assigned to work on national importance under civilian direction."

While an effort was made to obtain complete exemption of men with conscien­tious objection to all forms of service, including civilian service, under conscription, such as the English conscription laws have, yet this abso­lutist position was rejected.

1. Noncombatant service under military direction; or 2. Noncombatant service under civilian direction. In this last the Civilian Public Service Camps were the places where noncombatants went. Work projects were under the direction of government technical men; while the social and religious life of the men was under the direction of the church.

7b. The prospect for the future: this is always an unknown quantity and no certain statement can be made. But some things may be ventured:

lc. If the present religious state remains unchanged, and the government does not fall into hands of men who might turn a deaf ear to all non­resistant groups, the situation may remain as in the recent war.

2c. If the state of emergency should grow more acute than in the recent war, even the above conditions might well be offset, and the non­resistant Christian forced into very trying and difficult circum­stances.

3c. If the religious situation grows worse and the government is filled with men of little sympathy for any sort of religious scruples, conscientious objectors may well expect to face the most trying experiences of life during the next national emergency.

8b. The responsibility of Brethren: there are two things they need to know in the light of such things.

lc. They need to know the provisions made for their faith by the govern­ment under which they live, and insofar as possible, being consistent with their faith, adjust themselves to these provisions in time of national emergency.

2c. They need to know thoroughly the Brethren position and the Biblical basis, and be prepared to endure whatever is necessary for their faith, if they are called upon to endure hardness as a good soldier of Jesus Christ.

THE NECESSARY PROTECTIONS FOR THE DOCTRINE OF NON-RESISTANCE

THE NECESSARY PROTECTIONS FOR THE DOCTRINE OF NON-RESISTANCE

Like any doctrine that is not thoroughly understood, some of the most ardent friends of it do it the most harm by drawing unwarranted conclusions and fasten­ing extremes upon it that were never intended.

The following points safeguard it:
lb. War is permitted for civil government. While the Bible teaches that it is wrong for Christians, it does not teach that it is wrong for civil governments.
John 18:36; Rom. 13:1-7

The very nature and constituency of the kingdoms of this world demand that they be defended by armed might. Whereas the kingdom of Christ is an altogether different thing.

Brethren people recognize this fact and therefore have never fought against the action of civil government. In this sense Brethren are not pacifist.

2b. Weapons are permitted for civil government. There is no intimation in the Scrip­tures that it is wrong in a right cause for civil governments to use carnal weapons, even though for the Christian it is forbidden.
2 Cor. 10:3-4; Rom. 13:4

Arbitration and other methods are good and to be used insofar as possible. But there finally comes a time when force alone is understood by the nations of the world.

3b. Wars will continue to the end. While the Bible teaches Christians to do all within their power to live peaceably with all men (Rom. 12:18), it does not teach that civil governments may ever expect a time until the end of the age when wars will cease (Dan. 9:26 RV "And even unto the end shall be wars.". Therefore, as long as this age continues, it will be necessary for governments to defend themselves by armies, navies, air-fleets, and atomic bombs.

They that take the sword will perish with the sword. The age will end in war (Joel 3:9-12; Rev. 19:11-21) and then Isa. 2:4 will come to pass.

THE HISTORICAL PRACTICE OF THE DOCTRINE OF NON-RESISTANCE IN WAR

THE HISTORICAL PRACTICE OF THE DOCTRINE OF NON-RESISTANCE IN WAR

lb. There is absolutely no record in the New Testament of any Christian partici­pating in war.

Cornelius and Sergius Paulus and the Philippian Jailor were men under Roman authority, but we do not know whether they continued in those places after conversion. The testimony of the New Testament against the use of force would lead one to believe that no one of that early period gave any assistance in armies.

Such passages as Matt. 5:38-42; Luke 6:27-29; Rom. 12:19-21; 1 Pet. 2:18-24; and James 5:6 all lead us to believe that the early church were non-resistant in practice.

While the language of the New Testament shows a use of martial metaphors, yet there was no danger of misconception because the church was so well known for non-resistant principles.

2b. There is no record of Christians engaging in carnal strife from the time of the  early church to 174 A.D.

When the Romans besieged Jerusalem in 70 A.D., the Christians left the city and settled beyond the Jordan in Perea.

The Didache (80-120 A.D.) urges against hate and carnal strife toward anyone. Ignatius (110 A.D.) enjoins the Ephesians not to avenge themselves on those who had done them harm, and to follow the words of Peter in 1 Pet. 2:18-24.

Polycarp (150 A.D.) urges not to render evil for evil, or blow for blow.

Justin Martyr (153 A.D.) "We who were filled with war, and mutual slaughter... have changed our warlike weapons, or swords into plowshares."

Athenagoras (180 A.D.) "We have learned, not only not to return blow for blow, nor to go to law with those who plunder and rob us, but to those who smite us on one side of the face to offer the other side also."

Celsus (Pagan philosopher about this time) wrote against Christians because they were not taking part in the civil government or serving as soldiers. He argues that if everyone did as Christians the Empire would be ruined.

3b. There is some record of Christians in military service from 174 to 313 A.D., though very few.

It was known that in the "Thundering Legion" recruited by Marcus Aurelius (161­180) there were several Christians.

Tertullian (190 A.D.) writes vigorously against this new development. He admits a problem for those who were converted during military service. But he says it is their responsibility to abandon it, the course of many, or suffer martyrdom. Origin (250 A.D.) He wrote against the use of force to settle arguments, and specifically stated that Christians do not serve as soldiers or magistrates for the Emperor. He argued that by peaceful means Christians were of more value than soldiers.

Cyprian (258 A.D.) insisted that Christians should not kill but be ready to be killed. That it was not lawful for a Christian to engage in warfare.

Arnobius (310 A.D.) implies that non-resistance was the accepted practice of Christians from the beginning.

Church Canons during this period, not universal but local, show, the attitude.

1.  "He who is a soldier among the, believers, and among the instructed,. . . and a magistrate with the sword or chief of praefect, . . . let him leave off or be rejected. And a catechumen or believer, if they wish to be a soldier, shall be rejected, because it is far from God."

2.   "Let a catechumen or a believer of the people, if he desires to be a soldier, either cease from his intention, or if not let him be rejected. For he hath despised God by his thought, and leaving the things of the Spirit, he hath per­fected himself in the flesh, and hath treated the faith with contempt."

Eusebius (300 A.D.) tells of a Roman officer of, high rank who became a Christian, and then "by his voluntary confession and after nobly enduring bitter scourging succeeded in getting discharged from military service."

There were many who did likewise and also paid for their faith with their lives. Maximilian (295) a young Numidian was brought before the proconsul of Africa for induction into the army at the age of 21. He refused, saying, "I cannot serve as a soldier; I cannot do evil; I am a Christian." When told that his refusal would mean death, he replied, "I shall not perish, but when I shall have forsaken this world my soul shall live with Christ my Lord." He was then put to death. Throughout the church there was much sympathy for the stand of Maximilian, and he was recognized as one of the heroes of the Church.

It is believed that many cases like this helped to bring on the persecution of 303.

4b. From 313 A.D., there was a gradual growing of the number of Christians who went into military service.

lc. The admission of a few soldier-converts to the church in 174 A.D. was the thin end of the wedge which slowly but surely opened the church for gen­eral admission of soldiers as members.

2c. In 313 A.D. Constantine the Emperor declared himself a Christian and recognized Christianity as a legal religion. Since the Emperor was a Christian soldier, many Christians followed, and non-resistant princi­ples were given up by the Church. The sign of the cross became an imperial military emblem.

3c. Other changes took place after this, following as a natural sequel to the merging of church and state.

1.  Council of Arles in 314 announced a decision: "They who throw away their weapons in time of peace shall be excommunicated."

2.  Church fathers changed their statements: Athansius (350) "Murder is not permitted, but to kill one's adversary in war is both lawful and praiseworthy." Ambrose - "And that courage which either protects the homeland against barbarians, in war or defends the weak at home, or saves one's comrades from brigans, is full of righteousness."

4c. Decision made by the Empire in 416 went so far as to forbid non-Christians from serving in the army at all.

The non-resistant Christian brotherhood after 3 1/2 centuries has become a militant imperial state church.

5c. The trend from this time on was generally toward militarism with the sanction of the church.

Augustine worked out an elaborate system in favor of "just wars."

The crusades during the Middle Ages were a series of religious wars to take the holy land.

Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century still further supported the idea of just wars.

Such groups as Montanists, Donatists, Paulicians and Waldensians held to non-resistant principles all during this period.

Lutheranism was a state religion and taught that, as a citizen of the state the believer must bear arms, but as a Christian he should obey the Sermon on the Mount. But Lutheranism never concerned itself much with the state.

Calvinism was different. It was a state religion and taught that the church should rule the state. It taught that even wicked people in the state should be compelled to live righteously. Most of the moral and ethical principles of Calvinism on this point came from the Old Testa­ment.

The larger Christian denominations of today, and many smaller ones, have a heritage which comes down from Catholicism, Lutheranism, or Calvinism.

From the 17th century to the present, Quakers, Mennonites, and Brethren have followed non-resistant principles in some form.

NOTES: Why the change from the early church to the present?

1. The loss of the truth concerning the coming of the Lord, when the per­secuted will be relieved and the wicked recompensed_, led believers to take wrath into their own hands.

2. The gradual infiltration of false doctrine and compromise with truth in the church, gradually eased the conscience of Christian people on non-resistant principles.

3. The union of church and state removed completely the line of demarcation between the church and the world, and made it impossible for men to see where loyalty to Christ left off and for the world or state began.

4. It will be seen that all insistence upon militarism by most denominations finally reduces itself to identity of church and state in the minds of most.

5. Today we have a church with washed out doctrinal beliefs and focus on numbers and a body whose truth has more sin incorporated than holiness. They have no influence on the society around them as well as the society influencing their stances. Many bear arms due to the scare of the society they are to influence. The Teacher and Lord of John 13:13 no longer directs and leads their congregations. And He is soon to return. Many will say in that day "but Lord, Lord...."

THE FUNDAMENTAL OBJECTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE OF NONRESISTANCE IN WAR

THE FUNDAMENTAL OBJECTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE OF NON-RESISTANCE IN WAR

 

lb. Non-resistance does not harmonize with the wars of Israel, many of which were authorized and blessed of God.

The answer: Israel was a theocracy where church and state were one. It was a nation of this world, made up of unregenerate people, operating under the dispensation of the law. God changed all this with the dispensation of grace.

2b. Non-resistance is contrary to the example of Jesus who used force when necessary.

Only twice is it affirmed that Christ used force (John 2:13 ff and Matt. 21: 12-13). This was the wrath of the sovereign God, and believers are never exhorted to follow His example. In fact they are urged to wait upon Him to execute wrath.

His wrath in Rev. 19:11-21 is that of the great judge, and, then He uses no carnal weapon. His weapon is the sword of His mouth or His almighty word.

3b. Non-resistance leads to an extreme position which ultimately results in greater evil.

The answer to this objection is simply this, namely that when taken in its true intent, non-resistance is meant to restrain from doing a greater evil in retaliation for a lesser. If this is constantly kept in mind, any lack of resistance which would lead into sin instead of away from it should be shunned as being out of keeping with the spirit of Christ's words.

4b. Non-resistance is the same as the pacifism endorsed by liberal theologians and modern political groups. And this would destroy the state.

The answer to this: non-resistance has nothing to do with present day pacifism. It does not teach that the state should not employ force to pro­tect against enemies. It is not a political scheme for states or governments. It is for individual believers, and these believers are taught to respect and uphold the governments under which they live.

5b. Non-resistance is gross insubordination to civil government and is therefore contrary to the Scriptures.

Answer: It is not insubordination to the state. It is rather a recognition of the state in everything which the state is ordained to do. Anything that is contrary for believers because God has commanded otherwise is simply the recognition of a higher power.

6b. Non-resistance is rank cowardice in the face of great physical danger using the Scriptures for a smoke screen.

Such an accusation is untrue. For those who have taken this position often come into all the dangers of other soldiers, with the added fact that they are not armed. The non-combatant under military direction may be placed in positions of grave danger.

7b. Non-resistance is the refusal of a citizen to aid his government in protecting the liberties he enjoys.

This is not true. The non-combatant merely places himself in the same position along with the chaplain. Chaplains take their places because they believe that in that position they can best serve their government, and their assistance is moral and spiritual. But there is no such thing as a clerical class recognized by the New Testament. All believers are priests. And on that ground the believer in non-resistance holds that he will be of greater assistance to his country giving moral and spiritual help, than by bearing arms.