No one really disputes that some Christians, especially in the
first centuries, refused to bear arms, and that there were theologians who
approved of and encouraged their refusal. But in a conscious or unconsious
desire to prevent these facts from undermining the very foundations of
traditional Christian moral theology concerning service to the state, numerous
authors have retreated behind a fourfold defense system:
1. Only a tiny minority of the early Christians adopted the
position of "conscientious objection," while the great majority adopted exactly
the opposite stance.
2. The position of "conscientious objection" was a late
development which emerged only at the beginning of the third century, i.e., at a
time at which doctrines more Platonic than Christian had begun to obscure and
contaminate the teachings of the gospel.
3. Early Christian "conscientious objection" was never more
than a theoretical position held by a coterie of bloodless intellectuals.
Neither in its concrete life nor in its official pronouncements did the Church
accept this theory, which as a result remained the eccentricity of a few
theological cranks.
4. There was only one reason why the Christians of this period
refused military service: they rejected the idolatry which was intimately bound
up with the life of the army. Never did they have the slightest objection to
killing other men; but they stoutly refused to put themselves in a situation in
which they would have to pay to the Roman emperor homage which they owed to God
alone.
In this book I shall attempt to refute these four assertions
and to demonstrate that:
1. If there is relatively little surviving evidence of the
Christians of the early centuries refusing military service, there is far less
evidence of their accepting it-except at a later periods. Therefore it is faulty
logic to argue: "Since there is so little evidence of early Christians refusing
military service, these refusals can only represent the position of a minority
among the Christians." On the contrary, sounder logic would suggest the
opposite: "Since there is at least some evidence of Christians refusing military
service and practically none of their accepting it, the majority of the
believers must have been in favor of refusal." This conclusion gains even more
weight if we bear in mind that silence on this matter is explicable not only by
the scarcity of our documents but also by the fact that, for social and
political reasons, the Christians were rarely confronted by the problem of
military service.
2. To allege that Christian antimilitarism must have been a
late development because prior to the third century there is hardly any evidence
of it is almost to lie through omission. For to do so is to ignore the fact that
during the first two centuries of the Christian era there was scarcely any
patristic literature. When such literature began to appear, however, it is
evident that it from the outset dealt with the theme of nonviolence-and it
excluded the theme of military patriotism. The great treatises by writers such
as Tertullian and Lactantius merely amplified systematically the propositions
which their predecessors had already clearly enunciated.
3. It is true that the actual behavior of the believers often
contradicted the attitude affirmed by Christian thinkers. But this, alas, is
hardly a unique phenomenon. Repeatedly throughout church history the same
tension recurs-between the absolute demands of Christian preaching and the
compromises due to Christians' weakness and lack of faith. These compromises are
the mark of sin in the Church. But it would be disastrous to conclude that,
because certain of the faithful have been unfaithful to the teaching which they
have received, infidelity should become the norm of Christian conduct. If
antimilitarism had only been the position of a few eminent ethicists, and if
others had considered this position to be exaggerated, why did these others not
discuss this position and attack it? But in actual fact the Church did
everything in its power to protect itself against the temptations of compromise
in this area. The disciplinary measures which it decreed showed clearly enough
that, although it welcomed the repentant sinner, it nevertheless condemned the
weakness which had led him to defy Christian teaching by accepting a military
uniform.
4. It is obvious that the early Christians stubbornly rejected
idolatry. Since the writing of the Book of Daniel (if not before then),
believers have recognized that this has been the underlying reality which has
compelled them to offer resistance to the state. Thus, from the apostles facing
the Sanhedrin to the German Confessional Church confronting Hitler, the terms of
the struggle have remained exactly the same as those which the prophet had
discerned. But does the idolatry involved in military service consist only of
outward ceremonies, which today have become largely outmoded? Does it not rather
pervade the entire system because it is based on a false scale of values? In the
place of God, the nation and the military authorities receive adoration and
obedience, and like Moloch they demand the human sacrifice which God forbids. I
must also emphasize that the Christians of the early centuries were motivated by
another consideration which was at least as important to them as was their
rejection of idolatry-their respect for life. Emphasis upon the former, true
though it is, becomes a distortion of historical truth when it forgets the
latter and conceals its existence.
I hope, then, to prove that, from the very beginning and
throughout the first three centuries of the primitive Church, its teaching-not
just the fancy of a few individuals-was constantly and rigorously opposed to
Christian participation in military service. I hope also to prove that this
opposition was not based on a particular situation-the cult of the emperor-but
on a fundamental decision: to reject violence and to respect life. Finally I
shall attempt to explain how and why this position, which was so firm and clear
in its principle, was abandoned during the fourth century. If my conclusions are
sound, they inevitably pose two further questions. First, is it not likely that
the understanding of the gospel of the Christians of the first three centuries
was far closer to the authentic gospel than the understandings which have been
prevalent since then? And second, did the theologians of the Constantinian era
really get what they wanted from the bargain which they struck with the state,
thereby justifying in their own eyes a new attitude of Christians toward the
army? If not, is it not high time that we review their decision in the light of
history, which demonstrates that they had been duped into a disadvantageous
exchange from which nothing was gained, and in which the loss was fidelity to
the gospel?
No comments:
Post a Comment