Early Christians did not believe in self-defense?

[Marie1234]

Hey everyone,

I’m a college student and my Early Christianity professor said something that did not sit right with me. Let me start by saying I go to a VERY liberal, public school and I’m not even sure my professor is even Christian. Anyway, she has said a number of things that struck me as strange, such as looks to the Gospel of Thomas and Didache to explain early Christian behavoir. She also said women used to be priests…

But she said today that early Christians believed that once you are baptized if you commit murder or kill at all you are done for. The people would be damned to hell forever, no exceptions. To me this is illogical because Jesus can forgive our sins no matter how bad they are.

I then raised my hand and asked her “what about just killing and self defense?” She said no exceptions, they could not even do self defense. That’s why there were so many martyrs back then, was her answer.

To me this does not seem right at all…does anyone know of any writings about Early Christian views on self defense and violence? Thanks!

 

[loozcannon]

One of the basic rules of apologetics is for the person making the claim to provide proof of their arguments. Could you ask her for her sources? What’s her degree in?

Unfortunately it seems most colleges and professors these days have an agenda.

I don’t think it would hurt to ask her to back up her claims.

 

[BVMFatima]

One of the basic rules of apologetics is for the person making the claim to provide proof of their arguments. Could you ask her for her sources? What’s her degree in?

Unfortunately it seems most colleges and professors these days have an agenda.

I don’t think it would hurt to ask her to back up her claims.

This

 

[dee_burk]

Hey everyone,

But she said today that early Christians believed that once you are baptized if you commit murder or kill at all you are done for. The people would be damned to hell forever, no exceptions. To me this is illogical because Jesus can forgive our sins no matter how bad they are.

I then raised my hand and asked her “what about just killing and self defense?” She said no exceptions, they could not even do self defense. That’s why there were so many martyrs back then, was her answer.

Poor St Joan of Arc

 

[ChurchSoldier]

And he said to them, “When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?” They said, “Nothing.” He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.” And they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” And he said to them, “It is enough.”
(Luke 22:35-38 ESV)

 

[JRKH]

MY OPINION <<<<<

I believe that there has been an evolution over time in this regard…Certainly the number fo martyrs during the early persecutions indicates a reluctance on the part of early Christians to undertake armed struggle in order to protect themselves and/or promote the faith.
The very foundation of the faith being “Love” - Love your neighbor as yourself" acts very much against the use of deadly force.
As the faith grew and eventually became legal - and even embraced - by the civil world, things became more complicated. Now you would have Christians in positions where killing could be expected…even required for the benefit of the civil society as a whole.
This led the Church to make distinctions and clarifications on the matter that were not necessary in the very early church.

Just some thoughts…

Peace
James

 

[Neildown]

Hey everyone,

I’m a college student and my Early Christianity professor said something that did not sit right with me. Let me start by saying I go to a VERY liberal, public school and I’m not even sure my professor is even Christian. Anyway, she has said a number of things that struck me as strange, such as looks to the Gospel of Thomas and Didache to explain early Christian behavoir. She also said women used to be priests…

But she said today that early Christians believed that once you are baptized if you commit murder or kill at all you are done for. The people would be damned to hell forever, no exceptions. To me this is illogical because Jesus can forgive our sins no matter how bad they are.

I then raised my hand and asked her “what about just killing and self defense?” She said no exceptions, they could not even do self defense. That’s why there were so many martyrs back then, was her answer.

To me this does not seem right at all…does anyone know of any writings about Early Christian views on self defense and violence? Thanks!

I would assume your professor isn’t making the proper distinction between “killing” and “murder”. There is a definite difference between the two in Christian theology but I don’t know many non-Christians who have made that distinction themselves.

 

[Spider42]

I then raised my hand and asked her “what about just killing and self defense?” She said no exceptions, they could not even do self defense. That’s why there were so many martyrs back then, was her answer.

This is fundamentally correct. Take for example, Tertullian, the first great Latin Apologist (much admired by Pope Benedict, though Tertullian missed sainthood because he died in a state of heretical dissent). You might be familiar with him because his treatise on the soul is frequently quoted by right to life groups.

Tertullian wrote that a soldier/fighter had two choices if they followed Christ, either stop being a soldier or prepare to be a martyr for refusing to fight.

Non violence permeates early Christian writing. It also permeates non Christian writing from the same period. The fear was that Christian pacifism was dangerous to the Roman empire.

As it turns out, Christianity basically took over the Roman empire without raising a sword. So, in the late 4th century St. Augustine made the case that it was licit to serve the state and defend others, as this fell under Love thy Neighbor. This was the beginning of Just War theory, but Augustine adamantly defended tradition to that point and rejected the very concept of self defense. His reasoning was that turn the other cheek, basically non violent resistance to unjust attacks which leaves the aggressor with a chance for salvation, is central to Christ’s teachings (we actually still hold this to be true, see CCC 1716-17 in the Universal Catechism).

Self defense as we understand it today emerged much later, around 1000, and was largely codified by St. Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century (and who is quoted in CCC 2464 on the subject). Even that teaching holds that defense must be in moderation with death of the aggressor unintended (Catholic teaching today). And Armed defense is still only a right granted to the state (CCC 2465).

If you would like to learn more of the history, you might want to read “Love Your Enemies: Discipleship, Pacifism, and Just War” by Lisa Sowle Cahill. She is an excellent Catholic theologian and it is a much more accessible text than many on the subject.

She also said women used to be priests…

This is more of a stretch, but not baseless. Up until about the 12th century women did serve as deaconesses, presbyterae, and episcopae. There is some legitimate debate as to wether or not these positions were really equivalent to the Ordinary we understand today (Deacon, Priest, Bishop). But we know that they publicly preached, heard confessions, at least from other women, and performed baptisms (though the last is a Sacrament that requires no ordination even today).

Where there is the most controversy is that we have things like surviving art and text fragments that appears to show women blessing bread and wine for communion. Lest I start an uproar, let me point out right here that a) we don’t know with absolute certainty what the paintings, etc. mean and b) though we have early writings and Canonized text like Revelation that show the Eucharistic Mystery stems from early Christianity, it might have taken time for it to be universally realized that the Sacrament requires Holy Orders.

One other major caveat, Christianity had three major branches at first, Jewish, Pauline, and Gnostic. Pauline is the only branch that really survived (the Gospel of John is the only gnostic influenced text to be Canonized, and it was heavily revised in the 2nd century). So it is sometimes difficult to sort out what was happening only in Gnostic branches, which we would consider heretical, and what was happening in Pauline Christianity; though we have things like letters to Archbishop’s, etc. that confirm things like Mother Superiors hearing the confessions of their subordinates in the Church hierarchy proper.

This is an area that I only touched on in passing in my studies, so I don’t have any book recommendations off the top of my head. Do be careful though, some books on this aspect of Church history are a bit sensationalized and not particularly scholarly.

 

[Elizium23]

Self defense as we understand it today emerged much later, around 1000, and was largely codified by St. Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century (and who is quoted in CCC 2464 on the subject). Even that teaching holds that defense must be in moderation with death of the aggressor unintended (Catholic teaching today). And Armed defense is still only a right granted to the state (CCC 2465).

Oh, no, not the gun control debate again.

 

[Spider42]

Oh, no, not the gun control debate again.

I can only pass on what they teach about Church history in a Seminary. If you are uncomfortable with it rejoice in the fact that Church doctrine holds that no one can be forced to accept the faith against his or her will.

Pax Christi

Edit: Just to be clear, I completely accept Rome and the US Bishop’s teachings on gun control. But I adamantly reject the idea that others being in dissent with the Magisterium on the issue are either better or lesser Catholics than myself.

 

[SonCatcher]

This is more of a stretch, but not baseless. Up until about the 12th century women did serve as deaconesses, presbyterae, and episcopae. There is some legitimate debate as to wether or not these positions were really equivalent to the Ordinary we understand today (Deacon, Priest, Bishop). But we know that they publicly preached, heard confessions, at least from other women, and performed baptisms (though the last is a Sacrament that requires no ordination even today).

Where there is the most controversy is that we have things like surviving art and text fragments that appears to show women blessing bread and wine for communion. Lest I start an uproar, let me point out right here that a) we don’t know with absolute certainty what the paintings, etc. mean and b) though we have early writings and Canonized text like Revelation that show the Eucharistic Mystery stems from early Christianity, it might have taken time for it to be universally realized that the Sacrament requires Holy Orders.

One other major caveat, Christianity had three major branches at first, Jewish, Pauline, and Gnostic. Pauline is the only branch that really survived (the Gospel of John is the only gnostic influenced text to be Canonized, and it was heavily revised in the 2nd century). So it is sometimes difficult to sort out what was happening only in Gnostic branches, which we would consider heretical, and what was happening in Pauline Christianity; though we have things like letters to Archbishop’s, etc. that confirm things like Mother Superiors hearing the confessions of their subordinates in the Church hierarchy proper.

This is an area that I only touched on in passing in my studies, so I don’t have any book recommendations off the top of my head. Do be careful though, some books on this aspect of Church history are a bit sensationalized and not particularly scholarly.

Source?

My understanding is that deaconesses may have assisted at baptism but that presbyterae and episcopae were honorary titles reserved to the wives of priests and bishops (who could at that time be married per Church discipline). They could not grant absolution (a key part of hearing Confession) nor celebrate the Eucharist.

Any involvement in Confession would most likely have been being present so to prevent scandal.

All other accounts I have heard of (e.g. St. Brigid) are, as you said, sensationalist.

 

[fix]

If you would like to learn more of the history, you might want to read “Love Your Enemies: Discipleship, Pacifism, and Just War” by Lisa Sowle Cahill. She is an excellent Catholic theologian and it is a much more accessible text than many on the subject.

Would her writings be orthodox?

 

[Spider42]

Would her writings be orthodox?

I’m not sure how you want me to interpret ‘orthodox’ (for me, it has some very specific meanings). If you mean ‘main stream Roman Catholicism’, yes, the text is commonly used in the curriculum of US Seminaries.

She has taught at Boston College (a Jesuit university) since the 1970s, but holds a number of prestigious titles, like the Visiting Professor of Catholic Theology at Yale and is highly respected among Catholic theologians. I’d have to look up the year, but just a few years ago she was awarded the John Courtney Murray Award by the Catholic Theological Society of America. It’s the highest honor the society bestows.

The bulk of her work has been in bioethics and she is regularly cited by papers in the National Catholic Bioethics Council.

 

[Spider42]

Source?

Multiple. I intended to summarize what I have come across in scholarly studies of St. Paul, Church history, 1st century cultural works, etc. I’ve spent a lot of time working on the surviving letters to the Archbishop of Mainz, which is why I wrote more confidently regarding that evidence.

If you felt I overstated the case, I’m sorry. It’s not one of my areas of study, but I didn’t think that I had crossed into controversial territory. After all, the Deaconesses entry in the Catholic Encyclopedia reads:

There can be no doubt that in their first institution the deaconesses were intended to discharge those same charitable offices, connected with the temporal well being of their poorer fellow Christians, which were performed for the men by the deacons. But in one particular, viz., the instruction and baptism of catechumens, their duties involved service of a more spiritual kind… The universal prevalence of baptism by immersion and the anointing of the whole body which preceded it, rendered it a matter of propriety that in this ceremony the functions of the deacons should be discharged by women. The Didascalia Apostolorum (III, 12; see Funk, Didascalia, etc., I, 208) explicitly direct that the deaconesses are to perform this function. It is probable that this was the starting point for the intervention of women in many other ritual observances even in the sanctuary. The Apostolic Constitutions expressly attribute to them the duty of guarding the doors and maintaining order amongst those of their own sex in the church, and they also (II, c. 26) assign to them the office of acting as intermediaries between the clergy and the women of the congregation; but on the other hand, it is laid down (Const. Apost., VIII, 27) that “the deaconess gives no blessing, she fulfills no function of priest or deacon”, and there can be no doubt that the extravagances permitted in some places, especially in the churches of Syria and Asia, were in contravention of the canons generally accepted. We hear of them presiding over assemblies of women, reading the Epistle and Gospel, distributing the Blessed Eucharist to nuns, lighting the candles, burning incense in the thuribles, adorning the sanctuary, and anointing the sick (see Hefele-LeClercq, II, 448). All these things must be regarded as abuses which ecclesiastical legislation was not long in repressing.

Yes, it presumes that the activities were abuses, but it concedes they occurred. And that was written over 100 years ago. We’ve had two major finds of historical writings since then and historical picture is not quite as clear.

If you are interested in a book on the subject, I will have to inquire. Again, the handful I know of are pretty sensationalized and make little distinction between Gnostic and Pauline practices.

 

[Rence]

Hey everyone,

I’m a college student and my Early Christianity professor said something that did not sit right with me. Let me start by saying I go to a VERY liberal, public school and I’m not even sure my professor is even Christian. Anyway, she has said a number of things that struck me as strange, such as looks to the Gospel of Thomas and Didache to explain early Christian behavoir. She also said women used to be priests…

But she said today that early Christians believed that once you are baptized if you commit murder or kill at all you are done for. The people would be damned to hell forever, no exceptions. To me this is illogical because Jesus can forgive our sins no matter how bad they are.

I then raised my hand and asked her “what about just killing and self defense?” She said no exceptions, they could not even do self defense. That’s why there were so many martyrs back then, was her answer.

To me this does not seem right at all…does anyone know of any writings about Early Christian views on self defense and violence? Thanks!

Well, they couldn’t have all turned the other cheek, or been encouaged to be martyred or passive, otherwise they would have all been exterminated Somebody or two must have had the common sense to keep their mouths shut and go underground.

 

[Marie1234]

Well, they couldn’t have all turned the other cheek, or been encouaged to be martyred or passive, otherwise they would have all been exterminated Somebody or two must have had the common sense to keep their mouths shut and go underground.

What? Sorry I’m really confused by conflicting views and stuff. Opinions aside, were early Christians forbidden to kill even in self defense or in just wars? Was it believed that if a Christian did, they would go to hell?

I would ask my professor for sources but I’m afraid of ticking her off too much and getting a bad grade. I don’t want to challenge her too much

Thanks for the replies everyone btw!

 

[Spider42]

What? Sorry I’m really confused by conflicting views and stuff. Opinions aside, were early Christians forbidden to kill even in self defense or in just wars? Was it believed that if a Christian did, they would go to hell?

Short answer. Yes. Just War didn’t exist as a concept until St. Augustine, 4th century. At that time killing in self defense was still rejected. Killing as double effect in self defense was not concretely defined until the 12th century (St. Thomas Aquinas).

If you want early Church fathers who strenously objected to killing, even in self defense, try:

Ignatius bishop of Antioch
Clement of Rome
Papius bishop of Hierapolis

Tertullain, who I mentioned above, came later. He was the first great Latin apologist at the beginning of the 3rd century. A lot of his works survived intact, where some of the writers above we get indirect, through people they taught, like Irenaeus, Tatian, Origen, Athenagoras, etc. who quote works we have no surviving copies of.

Edit: Just an example:

“A soldier of the civil authority must be taught not to kill men and to refuse to do so if he is commanded, and to refuse to take an oath. If he is unwilling to comply, he must be rejected for baptism. A military commander or civic magistrate must resign or be rejected. If a believer seeks to become a soldier, he must be rejected, for he has despised God.” - Hippolytus of Rome

That’s not to say that every single Christian was a pacifist, but it seems most were. In the 3rd century Emperor Diocletian tried to purge Christians from the Roman army because they would not fight or ransack and “corrupted” other soldiers by converting them.

 

[SonCatcher]

Multiple. I intended to summarize what I have come across in scholarly studies of St. Paul, Church history, 1st century cultural works, etc. I’ve spent a lot of time working on the surviving letters to the Archbishop of Mainz, which is why I wrote more confidently regarding that evidence.

If you felt I overstated the case, I’m sorry. It’s not one of my areas of study, but I didn’t think that I had crossed into controversial territory. After all, the Deaconesses entry in the Catholic Encyclopedia reads:

Yes, it presumes that the activities were abuses, but it concedes they occurred. And that was written over 100 years ago. We’ve had two major finds of historical writings since then and historical picture is not quite as clear.

If you are interested in a book on the subject, I will have to inquire. Again, the handful I know of are pretty sensationalized and make little distinction between Gnostic and Pauline practices.

In other words: nothing about “presbyterae” or “episcopae” except possibly in connection to notorious heresies. I was unconcerned about “deaconesses” as I am already aware of the encyclopedia entry.

 

[Ender]

This is fundamentally correct. Take for example, Tertullian, the first great Latin Apologist (much admired by Pope Benedict, though Tertullian missed sainthood because he died in a state of heretical dissent).

I disagree: to assume that the Early Fathers opposed killing in self defense is not supported by their writings. It is certainly true that Tertullian took this position but he was in the minority and his position was never that of the Church.From the beginning there were two variant interpretations of State authority relating to war and capital punishment. One interpretation was openly pacifist, and the other was non-pacifist. Two names especially stand out that wrote belligerently against all war, and therefore espoused universal pacifism. Tertullian, 160-220, and Lactantius, 240-320 also fought strenuously against capital punishment of condemned criminals. At the same time, the accepted Fathers of the Church never adopted these extreme positions, either outlawing all war as unjust or forbidding all capital punishment as inherently evil. (Fr. John Hardon)

And Armed defense is still only a right granted to the state (CCC 2465).

First, I think you meant 2265. Second, this is a misunderstanding of what the section says. While 2265 is justification for an armed military or police force there is nothing in that section that limits the use of arms only to those agencies. The Church recognizes the right of self defense and the right to employ weapons in that defense.*I answer that I deny the consequent, for if there is no law commanding or prohibiting something for everybody, many actions which are evil in one man will not be evil in others. For example, if there be no law prohibiting the carrying of weapons, the carrying of weapons will be evil for him who is easily provoked to anger, and who has enemies whom he desires to kill; but it will not be evil for a peaceable man, who only desires to defend himself; yet, if the law forbids it, then it is evil for all, for the law should not consider what is good or evil for this one or that one, but what will profit or harm the State. *(St. Robert Bellarmine, De Laicis, ch 11)
Ender

 

[tjones80]

Hey everyone,

I’m a college student and my Early Christianity professor said something that did not sit right with me. Let me start by saying I go to a VERY liberal, public school and I’m not even sure my professor is even Christian. Anyway, she has said a number of things that struck me as strange, such as looks to the Gospel of Thomas and Didache to explain early Christian behavoir. She also said women used to be priests…

But she said today that early Christians believed that once you are baptized if you commit murder or kill at all you are done for. The people would be damned to hell forever, no exceptions. To me this is illogical because Jesus can forgive our sins no matter how bad they are.

I then raised my hand and asked her “what about just killing and self defense?” She said no exceptions, they could not even do self defense. That’s why there were so many martyrs back then, was her answer.

To me this does not seem right at all…does anyone know of any writings about Early Christian views on self defense and violence? Thanks!

There have been sects over the years that believed that killing is always wrong. Today the Mennonites are such a sect. Not all Christians believed self defense was wrong in the early church.