I never want my convictions about nonviolence to come across as an insult to those who have served in the military or in law enforcement. My grandfather fought in the Pacific during World War II. In fact, if it wasn’t for his military service, my grandparents likely would have never met and I wouldn’t be alive. So, please understand that this is a personal and sensitive subject for all of us, including me. Please read this in the spirit it is intended—an honest wrestling with Scripture—and not as an affront to those who have served.
(Note: If you have not read the previous posts in the Christian nonviolence series, you might want to do so before you read this article.)
Exiles and Sojourners Here
My understanding is that Christians, “Dwell in their own countries, but simply as sojourners.”1 I believe we are supposed to see ourselves as “exiles”2 wherever we live. The Greek word for “exiles” refers to, “staying for a while in a strange or foreign place, sojourning, residing temporarily.”3 In other words, we are not supposed to belong to the cities, states, and nations in which we live. We are to think of ourselves simply as guests.
As Christians, our “citizenship” is in the Kingdom of God. The New Jerusalem—currently hidden in heaven, waiting to be revealed on the Last Day—is our capital and “hometown.” We are to be representatives of that kingdom and that city. In a sense, we are even called to be warriors, advancing the borders of our King’s rule and reign.
However, it is important to note that Christians are NOT supposed to, “wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.”4 We also are NOT to use weapons “of the flesh,” but weapons with “divine power to destroy strongholds.”5
To be clear, the New Testament does NOT claim our battle is both spiritual and carnal. It is not against both human and demonic enemies. Because we are citizens of the heavenly kingdom of God, we have a different battle to fight, against a different enemy, using different weapons. I firmly believe that becoming a Christian means trading one form of combat for another.
The Government’s Sword
That said, earthly governments and lethal force go hand in hand. The rulers and authorities of every nation have been unknowingly coopted by God to carry out his “wrath on the wrongdoer.”6 Just as God used the pagan empires of Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome to keep sin in check, he continues to use the “sword” of earthly governments in this way.
Read through the prophets of Israel and Judah and you will see how God allows destruction to be punished with destruction, evil with evil, pain with pain. He allows the violence of humanity to punish itself. As we learned from the theologically accurate exploits of Wylie Coyote, when violent people scheme to hurt others, they eventually get caught in their own trap.
“Behold, the wicked man conceives evil and is pregnant with mischief and gives birth to lies. He makes a pit, digging it out, and falls into the hole that he has made. His mischief returns upon his own head, and on his own skull his violence descends.”7
Violence ends in violence. It is the very definition of a vicious cycle. Jesus said, “All who take the sword will perish by the sword.”8 It seems this statement has two important meanings: First, it is just and right for violent and wicked people to be destroyed by the same sort of violence they inflict on others. Second, Jesus is calling Peter (and presumably all of us) to stop participating in this cycle of violence.
Earthly governments are a God-ordained part of the cycle. They inflict the pain and punishment that wrongdoers bring down upon themselves. However, Romans 12 makes it pretty clear to me that Christians are not supposed to participate in that cycle. We are called to “overcome evil with good”9 by loving our enemies and doing good to those who harm to us. That is the way we “fight” evil…by doing good.
Just as Isaiah said would happen, God has rescued his people out of the vicious cycle of violence. Through his Spirit, he has taught us to turn our weapons into farming tools and “not learn war anymore.”10
The Roman Military and Christians
The first Gentile convert to Christianity was no stranger to military violence. His name was Cornelius and he was a centurion of the Italian Cohort.11 Cornelius had come to worship the God of Israel. The Lord sent Peter to Cornelius’ house and his entire household became followers of Jesus.
Some people use the story of Cornelius to argue that military service must have been acceptable, because nothing is said of Cornelius resigning his commission. However, it is a logical fallacy (an argument from silence) to claim that if something isn’t recorded it must not have happened. The fact is, we don’t know exactly what happened with Cornelius after he became a Christian. So, Cornelius cannot be used as an argument in favor of Christians in the Roman army.
It is also a bad argument for another reason. If nothing else, Cornelius’ role as a centurion would have required him to participate in, and even lead, pagan worship rituals. One could not be a commanding officer in the Roman army without participating in idolatry. This is one big reason early Christians argued against military service. Tertullian, for instance, mentioned both the violence and the “performances of camp offices.”
“I think we must first inquire whether military service is proper at all for Christians…Shall it be held lawful to make an occupation of the sword, when the Lord proclaims that he who uses the sword shall perish by the sword?…Then how many other offences there are involved in the performances of camp offices, which we must hold to involve a transgression of God’s law, you may see by a slight survey.”12
Another question I’ve heard raised is Paul’s dependence on the Roman army when his life was threatened. At one point, Paul was protected by 200 soldiers, 70 horsemen, 200 spearmen.13 However, I do not see this as problematic at all. Paul did not join the army or participate in violence. God simply used Roman violence to answer mob violence. The citizens of God’s kingdom were not part of that cycle.
Conclusion
Let’s get practical for a moment. “If someone was breaking into your house,” I’ve often been asked, “wouldn’t you call the police?” My answer is, yes, absolutely I would call the police. I would call the police because violent criminals belong to the world and the world’s governments use violence to punish and restrain them.
Consider this illustration: If you were a guest in someone’s home and their child started misbehaving, you would expect the parents to restrain and punish that child. If the parents were unaware of the child’s behavior, you might have to call them and say, “Please do something about your child, he’s out of control in here.” I believe the same is true with calling the police. When I have called the police, it is because a worldly person needed worldly authorities to restrain and discipline them. Calling the police is like saying to the world, “Come get your kid!”
I am a guest, stranger, and missionary in the Dallas metroplex, the state of Texas, and the United States of America. I understand that the government entities who administer justice in these areas are trying to do what governments do. Sometimes they do well and sometimes they don’t. However, they carry “the sword,” because violence begets violence. I do not believe it is my role to participate in this violence. I believe I have been rescued by Jesus out of this vicious cycle.
Again, please let me be clear, I do not look down on those who serve in the military or law enforcement. In fact, I hate violence because I love those who are most affected by violence. I hate what it does to people physically, emotionally, and psychologically. I love soldiers and policemen. Both now and in the age to come, I want to see Jesus rescue people from the pain of this vicious cycle. As we all do, I long for the day when Jesus puts an end to all war, violence, and death.
I love you and God loves you,
Wes McAdams
The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0101.htm).
1 Peter 2:11
Arndt, William, Frederick W. Danker, Walter Bauer, and F. Wilbur Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.
Ephesians 6:12-13
2 Corinthians 10:4
Romans 13:4
Psalm 7:14-16
Matthew 26:52
Romans 12:21
See Isaiah 2:1-5
See Acts 10
“Christians and the Roman Army” (https://ancientromelive.org/christians-the-roman-army)
See Acts 23:23-35
I see where you’re coming from.
A few things I’d like to point out:
1. You have repeatedly asserted that violence is wrong without, in my view, proving the case biblically.
For example, in our discussion on your post about protecting others, you stated, “…we would all acknowledge that ensuring someone's physical safety is limited to what is right, legal, ethical, etc. John wouldn't be justified in stealing in order to feed Mary, simply because he had a responsibility to care for her. So, we shouldn't assume that caring for her would include killing someone who threatened her well-being.”
(Not to put too fine a point on it, but your argument is that violence of any kind - not just killing someone - is always wrong. Also the Biblical prohibition is against murder - not against all killing).
Similarly, in this post, the Proverbs passage you quoted explicitly addresses “wicked men,” which you seem to conflate with violent men. In doing so, you imply that to use violence is necessarily to be wicked.
Then, in quoting Romans 12, again you have prejudged that “overcoming evil with good” could not possibly include committing violence, in any context for any reason.
All this begs the question because you are asserting precisely the thing you’re attempting to prove (i.e., committing violence is always wrong). You haven’t yet shown, in my view, that Scripture teaches that violence is always wrong.
——
Romans 13:4 states that a ruler “is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.”
Paul draws a moral distinction between the wrongdoer and the one who brings God’s wrath (righteous judgment) with the sword. Per your line of reasoning, however, both would be wrongdoers, making Paul’s teaching - and by extension, God Himself - hypocritical. Paul sees a moral difference in the violence of the lawbreaker and the violence of the one whom God sends to restrain him - so should we. You can argue that it’s a never-ending cycle (and I’d be inclined to agree with you), but I think you overstate the case in attempting to draw a moral equivalence between the two.
——
Finally, calling the police against a violent offender is very likely to result in that person experiencing potentially lethal violence. So, in calling the police, haven’t you facilitated evil by putting your lawbreaking neighbor in harm’s way? And isn’t that simply a way of outsourcing the messiness of life in a fallen world? I also prefer that other people handle certain tough/dangerous people and situations on my behalf. But I only get to keep my hands clean because someone else does the dirty work. I couldn’t then feel that I have behaved virtuously. And wouldn’t it be hypocritical for me to thank the police officer for rescuing me while also criticizing him for having committed violence?
If any kind of violence is always wrong and we should do everything in our power not to use it against someone else, neither should we incite someone else to do it on our behalf.
Christ was viciously murdered largely because he did not in the least behave in accordance with corrupted human conduct and expectation—and in particular because he was nowhere near being the angry and sometimes even bloodthirsty behemoth so many theists seemingly wanted or needed their Creator and savior to be and therefore believed he’d have to be.
Christ’s nature and teachings even left John the Baptist, who believed in him as the savior, bewildered by his apparently contradictory version of the Hebraic messiah, with which John had been raised. Perhaps most perplexing was the Biblical Jesus’ revolutionary teaching of non-violently offering the other cheek as the proper response to being physically assaulted by one’s enemy. The Biblical Jesus also most profoundly washed his disciples’ feet, the act clearly revealing that he took corporeal form to serve.
Perhaps some ‘Christians’ even find inconvenient, if not plainly annoying, trying to reconcile the conspicuous inconsistency in the fundamental nature of the New Testament’s Jesus with the wrathful, vengeful and even jealous nature of the Old Testament’s God. But for many of us, Godly greatness need not be defined as the ability to destroy and harshly punish, as opposed to the willingness and compacity for compassionate forgiveness, non-violence and humility.
... Morally speaking, the citizenry collectively deserve far better than always having either the usual callous establishment conservative or neo/faux liberal government. But, regardless of who’s elected prime minister or president , we in the Far West live in a virtual corpocracy. An insidiously covert rule by way of potently manipulative/persuasive corporate and big-monied lobbyists.
The more they make, all the more they want — nay, need! — to make next quarterly. It’s never enough, yet the corporate news-media, which make up virtually all of Western mainstream news media, will implicitly or explicitly celebrate their successful greed [a.k.a. ‘stock market gains’].
A few social/labor uprisings or revolutions notwithstanding, it seems the superfluously rich and powerful have always had the police and military ready to foremost protect their big-money/-power interests, even over the basic needs of the masses, to the very end.
Even in modern (supposed) democracies, the police and military can, and perhaps would, claim—using euphemistic or political terminology, of course—they have/had to bust heads to maintain law and order as a priority during major demonstrations, especially those against economic injustices. Indirectly supported by a complacent, if not compliant, corporate news-media, which is virtually all mainstream news-media, the absurdly unjust inequities/inequalities can persist.
Perhaps there were/are lessons learned from those successful social/labor uprisings, with the clarity of hindsight, by more-contemporary big power/money interests in order to avoid any repeat of such great wealth/power losses (a figurative How to Hinder Progressive Revolutions 101, maybe)?