THE DOCTRINE OF NONRESISTANCE IN WAR

THE DOCTRINE OF NONRESISTANCE IN WAR

 

In doctrine and practice the Brethren Church has held to the Biblical teaching of nonresistance in war from the very beginning. Year after year in national and district conferences there has been a reaffirmation of the Brethren position on this point. On page 27 of the 1949 Annual this statement is recorded as a part of the resolutions of the annual conference: "That we reaffirm our historic position with regard to war, namely, that the Brethren Church from her origin has maintained that the use of violence or physical force, as a means to an end, on the part of God's children, is contrary to Holy Writ. We urge that, in this period of peace, this position be presented in our churches by preaching, teaching, and the printed page, in order that our membership may be instructed concerning it and be prepared during a time of peace to know what Biblical position they ought to take in a time of war."

The general teaching of the Brethren Church on this point has been one from her origin. This may be discovered by a inspection of the history of the church. Since at the commencement of the Brethren Church, and also in the continuation of the church, the doctrine of nonresistance in war has been a part of the creed and practice of the church, a solemn responsibility devolves upon every member of the church, to say nothing of the pastoral leadership of the church, to discover its truth and discharge the obligations resulting therefrom. And if one finds himself in opposition to this position and practice, he is morally obligated to seek other affiliations.

Two observations seem to me to be valid at this point. First, in the light of the general teaching and practice of the church, the disagreement of a few pastors and people, or many, has not changed this position and this is a statement of fact. Second, in the light of the fact that the Brethren Church began her existence by incorporating in her faith and practice this particular doctrine, it would be impossible at this late date for a few pastors, or all of them, a few people, or the entire membership, acting unanimously, to change this point of faith in the Brethren Church.

Should the Brethren Church decide to do this, at that moment she would cease to be the Brethren Church. She might carry on the name, but could not accurately or honestly claim the name. If these two observations are a legitimate use of logic, as ministers of the Gospel we need to examine ourselves anew on this point of doctrine, lest we be guilty of using the same methods as modernists, who very glibly affirm the creedal statements of the great evangelical denominations and proceed to deny in their ministry all the great doctrines to which they made affirmation. This is a matter of truthfulness and personal integrity which is a primary requisite for one who is charged with being a minister of truth.

I am aware that there is one argument to which men flee almost immediately when they face the rather uncomfortable logic of the above observations. It is this, namely, that there are so many problems associated with the doctrine of nonresistance. I must confess in answer to this, that I am somewhat amazed that otherwise thoughtful and well-meaning men fall back upon this for support, when in other situations where the problems are well-nigh insuperable, they seem to have no difficulty with acceptance. There is positively no doctrine of the Scriptures that is not surrounded upon every side with problems, and some of them beyond solution. Yet these doctrines we believe and cherish in spite of the problems. It all goes to prove that faith is primarily a movement of the will. Knowledge and understanding may assist and undergird faith. But it still remains that we must will to believe.

The problems associated with this doctrine seem to me to be of three varieties. (1) There are problems of interpretation which relate especially to our understanding of this doctrine. These are primary. These deal with what the Scriptures teach and what the church believes that the Scriptures teach. (2) There are problems of application which relate to the government under which we live. These deal especially with the attitude of the government toward people who hold this doctrine, and the provision made by law for the practice of nonresistance. (3) There are also problems of obligation which relate to the personal practice and obedience on the part of people who have this as a part of their creed, and may only half-heartedly indorse or completely ignore this doctrine. While it is my opinion that there is an answer to every one of these problems, answers which I do not possess, and perhaps never shall this side of heaven, yet there seems to me to be one over-all answer to them. It is this. Does the Bible teach this doctrine? And I am sure that it does.

There were several very sufficient reasons why this doctrine was endorsed by the Brethren Church at the time of its origin. First, the doctrine is Scriptural and is clearly stated in the Word of God. Since the entire Bible constitutes the minimum of truth for the church, this doctrine cannot be set aside (2 Tim. 3:16-17). For too long we have imagined that the only place and the only Scripture setting forth this doctrine is in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5:38-42 ASV). It is there. But you will also find it recorded in (Luke 6:27-29), (Romans 12:19-21), and (1 Peter 2:20-24), and in any number of other places within the New Testament. The very heart and soul of the Gospel moves in that direction.

Second, the doctrine of nonresistance is definitely a part of the believer's responsibility in separation from the world (Rom. 12:2, 19-21).

Third, this doctrine went along with the general movement in the counter-reformation, generally called the Pietistic Movement. This was a movement which insisted that pure doctrine ought to produce purity of life, a thing which had not been stressed in the major Reformation movement under Luther and Calvin (James 2:14, 17, 26).

Fourth, this doctrine was a revolt from the practices exercised by many of the state churches. From the days of Constantine when Christianity was made a state religion, force was employed to advance it. Nor was this abandoned at the time of the Reformation, as any careful perusal of the pages of history will attest. Such atrocities in the name of religion produced abhorrence in many of the people of God, and they turned from the state churches to establish churches which followed the Word of God on this point. The Brethren Church was one.

This is probably the place to point out that the Biblical doctrine of nonresistance has suffered distortion at many hands and is therefore in a state of confusion in the minds of many today. It is confused with the pacifism taught by certain political groups today. The motive of these organizations is to undermine the government of nations. Their methods are subversive. They masquerade under such titles as "The American League for Peace and Democracy," "The American League Against War and Fascism." These are mostly communistic, and their pacifism is purely political in purpose, and in no sense to be identified with the doctrine of nonresistance as taught in the Scriptures. The startling thing is that there are some within the church, ministers, who have been so unacquainted with the true doctrine that they have confused it with political pacifism. One such man wrote a book against it for that reason.

It is confused with the pacifism of liberal theological groups today. These groups are certainly working along with political pacifists, such as described above, although with many of these liberals much of it is unconscious. Liberal theology has lost sight of the spiritual purpose of the Gospel and has reduced everything to a mere social program in this present world. Pacifism, they hold, is therefore for everybody and for nations as well. But this is not what the Word of God teaches on the point, nor what Brethren believe.

It is confused with the pacifism of mistaken religious groups. Some of these groups may in great measure be true to the Word of God and others may not be. But on the point of nonresistance they hold un-Biblical notions, varying greatly from group to group. Quakers, Mennonites, and the Church of the Brethren originally held positions very close to the Word of God, but have suffered much with the inroads of liberal theology. In some of these groups where there is still adherence to the Bible, for some reason or other there is difficulty for them to divorce their doctrine of nonresistance from political creed. Jehovah's Witnesses are almost wholly wrong, although one must admire them in some respects for their fanatical zeal. But Biblical nonresistance is not to be identified with any of these.

I have stated this already in the paper, but I repeat it again, that the doctrine of nonresistance falls within the sphere of separation from the world and is directly based upon this teaching. No amount of statement and restatement and supporting argument concerning the doctrine before us will be convincing until one has a thorough understanding of the doctrine of separation from the world. It is very much like the doctrine of eternal security. If one does not know the ABC's in the doctrine of salvation, it is very unlikely that he will be able to reach the crowning and final conclusion. Do not expect, therefore, to understand the doctrine of nonresistance until you comprehend completely and are thoroughly committed to the doctrine of separation, which, by the way, is also distinctively Brethren doctrine.

Turning now to a positive discussion of the doctrine there are several lines of truth we need to observe.

I. The Statement of the Doctrine

First, the doctrine of nonresistance is clearly stated in the New Testament. I cite four passages for our study. From the first of these, Matt. 5:38-39, A.S.V., comes the name given to this doctrine. "Ye have heard that it was said. An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: but I say unto you. Resist not him that is evil: but whosoever smites thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." In one sense of the word, the title given to the doctrine is unfortunate. It leaves one with the impression that it is a sort of a do-nothing doctrine. Such is not the case, however. For the positive is enjoined along with the negative. While one is prohibited from exercising force, still he is enjoined to do good. Luke 6:27-29 is very similar to the Matthew passage.

Romans 12:19-21 reads, "Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves; but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written. Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shaft heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good."

1 Pet. 2:18-24 reads as follows, "Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the forward. For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully. For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? But if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God. For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should 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 judges righteously: who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed."

There are four general observations I want to make about these passages. First, the Scriptures present spiritual principles to guide each individual believer. These principles are set over in contrast with the principle of absolute justice established by the law (Exod. 21:23- 25). Whereas strict retaliation was permitted and provided under law, the whole motive and procedure is changed under grace, and all vengeance is left to God.

Second, these Scriptures are concerned with personal conduct of individual believers. The very nature of each exhortation is such that only individual believers and their conduct could be under consideration. These commands are not delivered to groups or churches or governments or nations as such. Any careful examination of the language makes this a necessary conclusion.

Third, these Scriptures cover the exercise of physical force in some one of its forms. Resistance to spiritual evil is nowhere in view here. Believers were always enjoined to stand against moral and spiritual evil (James 4:7; 1 Pet. 5:9: Eph. 6:10- 13). But in these passages no one but a prejudiced reader could discover any other thing in them than caution against reacting to evil with physical force.

Fourth, these Scriptures set forth realized when the kingdom of God is established in the earth. Matt. 5 and Luke 6 describe the kingdom of heaven as it will be some day in the earth (Matt. 5:3: Luke 6:20). But the citizens of this kingdom should demonstrate now that they belong to such a kingdom. Rom. 12 is an exhortation for believers not to be conformed to this world. And this is especially in order, for the night of sin is far spent and the day of the Lord's appearing and His kingdom is at hand (Rom. 13:11-12). 1 Pet. 2 is directed to believers as strangers and pilgrims in the earth. They should therefore live as such, and not as though they were members of the earth. In the day of visitation the spiritual ideal will be realized universally.

II. The Obligation on Believers

The second line of truth is this: namely, that the doctrine of nonresistance is laid as an obligation upon believers only. The Scriptures which enjoin nonresistance are all directed to believers. In fact, the entire New Testament was written to believers. This very self-evident truth should be enough to safeguard one from political pacifism or any such theme on a national scale. A parallel truth then is in order: namely, that the Scriptures are never directed to unbelievers at any time except through believers, by way of warning them of judgment, and pleading with them to believe.

I hasten to assert, then, that the Scriptures make no provisions for present-day pacifism which involves unbelievers. The doctrine of nonresistance is not a plank in some political platform. In the same context with passages teaching nonresistance, believers are enjoined to be subject to the State in which they reside. This certainly means that the writers of Holy Writ held governments in respect and urged others to respect and support the government. It is therefore quite obvious that nonresistance is a spiritual principle for individual believers under any government.

Nor is the doctrine of nonresistance a part of some merely social program. The point of each passage is primarily spiritual and not social. The social sphere is merely the place for displaying the spiritual. Every passage clearly teaches that believers are to live in such a way that they demonstrate the new nature, and that unbelievers may be made to realize that believers are not of this world.

And again, it must be insisted that the doctrine of nonresistance is not a quirk in some theological system. Some religious groups have a true system of theology, but go astray at this point, imagining that nonresistance is something for nations and governments, when in reality it applies only to individual believers. Whenever an entire nation reaches the point that all within it are Christian, then, perhaps, nonresistance will apply. But when that is reached, the kingdom will then be established by Christ.

III. Its Agreement with the New Testament

In the third place, it can be asserted that the doctrine of nonresistance harmonizes with the entire teaching of the New Testament. It harmonizes with the life and ministry of Christ while here on earth. Where He was personally involved, it is never recorded of Him that He used force. In fact, it is definitely asserted that "he reviled not . . . threatened not" (1 Pet. 2:21-24). His actions in the temple with the merchants are not pertinent to this discussion. This doctrine harmonizes with the divine program of eschatology in the New Testament. Vengeance belongs to the Lord. His near approach is sufficient reason for longsuffering.

This doctrine also harmonizes with the great plan Christ laid out for His church. This program includes witnessing for Him to the salvation of souls, and is the supreme business of the church. This, Christ laid down in place of the earthly kingdom in which the apostles were interested. While this kingdom will come in its time, it is not now the order of the day. In Christ's program for believers there was provision for present day conduct, and nonresistance was one of those things. Christ's program for the church points men to the coming of Christ when there will be true and full righting of all the wrongs.

This doctrine harmonizes with the various commands which Christ gave to His church, and could not be otherwise carried out. It harmonizes with the command to love enemies, to return good for evil, to do good to all men, to make no provision for the flesh, to follow after those things which make for peace. This list of commands could be greatly amplified, and the spheres of harmony could be more fully developed, but these are sufficient for this occasion.

IV. The Underlying Principles of the Doctrine

For a moment consider briefly at least six underlying principles to the doctrine of nonresistance. First, the kingdom of Christ is not of this world, and therefore the subjects of this kingdom should not attempt to employ force to maintain it (John 18:36). Second, Christ asserted that His Spirit was not of this world, and therefore those who possess it cannot use carnal methods of warfare (Luke 9:52-56). Third, the purpose of Christ is to save, not destroy, and His followers must surely follow Him in this (Luke 9:56). Fourth, the methods of Christ make no provision for the use of carnal weapons (2 Cor. 10:3-4). Fifth, the evaluations of Christ are not of this world, and so one who loves eternal life will not be using the methods of protection that they use who love life in this world. Finally, the protection of Christ is not of this world, but is from above. And it will operate in accordance with the will of God. God may use angels, public sentiment, fallacious reasoning, and prayers to spare His own. But again it may be His will for one to die, as James. It is far better to leave these things in His hands than to usurp the place and performance of God.

V. Unwarranted Conclusions from the Doctrine

Lest, in our zeal for this doctrine, we fasten some unwarranted conclusions upon it, as have liberal theologians and fanatics, it would be well for us to consider very briefly at least three protections for the doctrine.

War is right for civil governments. While the Bible teaches that it is wrong for believers, it does teach that it is right 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. Brethren people recognize this fact and therefore have never fought against the action of civil government.

Weapons that are carnal are also right for civil governments. There is no intimation in the Scriptures that it is wrong in a right cause for civil governments to use carnal weapons, even though it may be forbidden to Christians (2 Cor. 10:3-4; Rom. 13:4).

That wars will continue to the end, is a clear declaration of the Bible (Dan. 9:26, A.S.V.). While the Bible teaches Christians to do all within their power to live peaceably with all men, it does not teach that civil governments may expect a time, until the end of the age, when wars will cease. Therefore, as long as this age continues it will be necessary for nations to defend themselves by armed might. For a Christian to advocate for civil government a type of pacifism is to demonstrate that he knows nothing of the doctrine of nonresistance as it is taught in the New Testament, and he knows less about eschatology.

VI. The Practice of the Early Church

I have no desire to labor this discussion beyond the limit of your endurance, but there are several more things which I think would do much to give balance to our thinking on this point. The historical practice of the doctrine of nonresistance should be of interest to us. There is absolutely no record in the New Testament that any Christian participated in war. From history we learn that there is no record of Christians engaging in carnal strife from the time of the early church to A. D. 174. During this period, however, there is record that Christians spoke against participation in war. From A. D. 174 to 313 there is record of some Christians joining the armies. But this brought forth stern rebuke from notable writers, church discipline was applied, and church councils passed decrees against it. From A. D. 313 on there was a gradually growing number of Christians who entered into military service. Constantine made Christianity a state religion, and this called for the support of Christians and the use of armed might. Church fathers and church councils were gradually lured away from the Biblical point of view by their high place in state affairs.

Several things produced this state of affairs. There was a loss of the doctrine of the coming of the Lord. Christians, therefore, took vengeance into their own hands. The gradual infiltration of false doctrine and compromise with it soon eased the conscience of believers on nonresistant principles. 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. If careful analysis is made of the attitude held by many today, it will be seen that the reason militarism is endorsed is because there is no real differentiation made in their minds between the church and the state.

VII. The Liberty for Nonresistant’s in the United States

It seems to me that Brethren people should be interested in the history of the privilege within the United States to practice this doctrine. Up until the Revolutionary War—that is, for the first 1,800 years of the Christian era Christians never had to suffer for refusing to be conscripted. During the War of the Revolution believers who refused to join the army felt the hurt from mob violence, though none from governmental quarters. Not until the War Between the States did conscription become prevalent. Though no universal provision was made for those holding nonresistant principles, exemption could be secured by payment of a sum of money or the provision of a substitute.

The First World War brought action by the Federal Government in behalf of conscientious objectors, but the laws were not well defined, and as a result many suffered much humiliation and terrible violence at the hands of those who administered the law. The Second World War brought the greatest leniency in the history of our Nation. It is positively amazing how broad and all-inclusive the Selective Service laws were made. No man with any well-meaning and sincere conviction on nonresistant principles, who made any real effort to establish his position, suffered as in the previous war. So far as I know, the same Selective Service regulations are now in force, providing as before for those who conscientiously hold Biblical principles of nonresistance.

In view of the study up to this point, there seems to me to be just two things that need be said. In the first place, Brethren need to know thoroughly their own doctrine on this point, and be prepared to endure whatever it takes to stand for the faith which they hold. The situation in the Government may change in the future and our boys may be called upon to endure hardness as good soldiers of Jesus Christ as the price of their faith.

In the second place, so long as the Government makes liberal and ample room for all who hold this position, to demonstrate their faith in practice, any failure to do so cannot be blamed to the hardness of the times. It must be traced to just one thing, a failure on the part of pastors and people to hold firmly to this time-honored Biblical doctrine followed by the Brethren Church.