Why did the church change its stand on the use of force?

[Ender]

i believe that pacifism was the earliest practice of the church and that it is the best way, they way Jesus taught.

If pacifism is what Jesus taught then how can you not hold that the Church is mistaken in teaching the opposite? Don’t you believe Jesus taught that self defense and war are always wrong? If that is so then the Church must be wrong for teaching that they are sometimes permitted; these are opposing positions and cannot both be right.

i never made the statement the church is wrong.

True, you never made that explicit claim, but the implications of your position leave no other interpretation.

i do not base it on my personal interpretation of the scriptures, but upon the scriptures AND the practices of the earliest church.

OK, you base it on your interpretations of scripture and the writings of the early Church. This doesn’t change the situation: it is still your personal interpretation of those documents versus someone else’s interpretation with no possibility of definitively settling the issue. Personal interpretation is the problem Protestant churches have been unable to resolve, which is why they have fragmented into thousands of denominations each with a slightly different theology.

Aside from the theological problem, however, it’s an interesting point you raise and while it is easy for me to accept that the Church has properly worked all of this out, I have no idea of the debates that took place or of the arguments used to take us from where we were in the early Church to where we are now.

Ender

 

[bengal_fan]

If pacifism is what Jesus taught then how can you not hold that the Church is mistaken in teaching the opposite? Don’t you believe Jesus taught that self defense and war are always wrong? If that is so then the Church must be wrong for teaching that they are sometimes permitted; these are opposing positions and cannot both be right.
True, you never made that explicit claim, but the implications of your position leave no other interpretation.

i can hold the position that the church may not be mistaken because Jesus taught pacifism for us. He is permitted (because He is God and completely just) to use force or order the use of force. it is said in revelation that, at the end, there will be a battle of good and evil and at that time we will probably be called by God to fight. the church is right in that there are times when force and defense are acceptable and those are the times when God specifically orders it.

i would say the church has been mistaken when it has said God ordered war or the attack of a people or place at points in the past, but the only events i see as a possible attack on infallibility is the issue of indulgences for war. of course, if we go with augustine’s idea of grace coming from a spick-et and the church or the bishops or the pope are the ones who have their hand on the spick-et and they can dispense the grace however they want regardless of motivation and sin, then it still in within infallibility although not consistent with the teachings of Christ.

OK, you base it on your interpretations of scripture and the writings of the early Church. This doesn’t change the situation: it is still your personal interpretation of those documents versus someone else’s interpretation with no possibility of definitively settling the issue. Personal interpretation is the problem Protestant churches have been unable to resolve, which is why they have fragmented into thousands of denominations each with a slightly different theology.

i guess, but i am really just reading what the church fathers wrote and letting them speak for themselves as well as what the new testament says Jesus said and the prophecies of the messiah as being the “Prince of Peace” and that when He comes men will “beat their swords into plowshares and war no more.” of course these prophecies could pertain to Jesus’ return. but i am also looking at how the earliest church interpreted the passages and the writings of the fathers. they seemed to interpret them to mean strict pacifism as that is what they practiced. so, yes, i am interpreting all of those things, but i am drawing on the interpretation of many, many others. basically that is what catholics do as well. they look at the interpretations of the church and choose to put their trust in those interpretations. you interpret the RCC to be correct always based on your own interpretation of history, so you do the exact same thing.

the comment about protestantism is somewhat valid but many of the denominations began doing exactly what you do as well. trusting another’s interpretation based on your own research. paul actually commends this in acts 17:11.

Aside from the theological problem, however, it’s an interesting point you raise and while it is easy for me to accept that the Church has properly worked all of this out, I have no idea of the debates that took place or of the arguments used to take us from where we were in the early Church to where we are now.

thanks for this part. it’s not that i don’t think the church has properly worked it out… i am sort of on the fence. i feel pretty convicted lately on it in light of the state of the world and that force seems to continually fail. the church has done great things to point that out. their condemnation of the iraq war from the start was a bold stance to take and really showed the leadership that the RCC can provide.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

i can understand your logic. i might not agree with it, but i can understand it. the only problem i see is that the early church used Jesus’ words, “whoever lives by the sword will die by the sword” and “turn the other cheek” literally. if he only meant until the Christians were in power then i could agree.

This is something I’ve also struggled with - how to understand “turn the other cheek”. Clearly it is meant as an example, and doesn’t just apply to being struck on the cheek. But how far do we extend it? Did Jesus mean for us to extend it to the extent that, for example “If someone murders your son, offer him your daughter as well”? I think that if Jesus had intended that, he would have been more clear about it, since it is so difficult to accept.

Your quotes from the ECFs seem to deal with military service in the Roman army and rebellion (fighting against the Romans in Jerusalem). **Perhaps you didn’t intend to include self-defense against criminals in your definition of pacifism? If you did, I don’t think you supported that position from the ECF quotes. ** I agree with you that the early church did not agree with participation in the Roman military or with rebelling against the Roman authorities. Paul said that the Roman government had its power from God. (Romans 13)

I believe that we sometimes have a duty to defend the innocent from an aggressor, when it is part of the role we have been given by God. When the lawful authority allows us to defend each other against crime, that would become an obligation for us, especially for family members. I don’t believe that Jesus’ teaching or the ECFs contradict that.

When it comes to military service for a just country, I think this isn’t something that ECF’s were able to contemplate. The notion of a sincerely Christian emporer was unheard of. Perhaps it still hasn’t happened. At least I don’t see any Christian government that practices turning the other cheek to insults. But Christian governments at least are a different thing than the pagan Roman government. It’s a difficult decision for sure.

 

[CathFaith1]

This is something I’ve also struggled with - how to understand “turn the other cheek”. Clearly it is meant as an example, and doesn’t just apply to being struck on the cheek. But how far do we extend it? Did Jesus mean for us to extend it to the extent that, for example “If someone murders your son, offer him your daughter as well”? I think that if Jesus had intended that, he would have been more clear about it, since it is so difficult to accept.

**You have heard that it hath been said: An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.

But I say to you **not to resist evil: but if one strike thee on thy right cheek, turn to him also the other.

Somewhat recently at a local Scripture study, a Deacon explained the reference to “an eye for an eye”. This may have been a great improvement in justice at that time. A lesson in proportionality, not to kill for small offenses, where many may have done just that.

In the NT reference, Jesus first off speaks with the authority only God can. He continues to develop this explaining for us not to strike out w/ revenge in our hearts. Turning the other cheek demonstrates one slow to anger and patience in suffering. Our sense of repaying what is due someone is tempered with mercy. We still need justice for the common good yet Jesus gives us the model to turn away from revenge and hate.

“The New is in the Old concealed, and the Old is in the New revealed.”
St. Augustine.

God hasn’t changed, though our relationship with God has

 

[Ender]

i am really just reading what the church fathers wrote and letting them speak for themselves as well as what the new testament says Jesus said

It’s not really that cut and dry, which is why these passages continue to be debated today.

Augustine: “If the Christian Religion forbade war altogether, those who sought salutary advice in the Gospel would rather have been counselled to cast aside their arms, and to give up soldiering altogether. On the contrary, they were told: ‘Do violence to no man . . . and be content with your pay’ [Luke 3:14]. If he commanded them to be content with their pay, he did not forbid soldiering.”

Aquinas (ST II-II,40,1): “according to the words of the Apostle (Romans 13:4): “He beareth not the sword in vain: for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil”; so too, it is their business to have recourse to the sword of war in defending the common weal against external enemies.” "Hence it is said to those who are in authority (Psalm 81:4): “Rescue the poor: and deliver the needy out of the hand of the sinner”

the fathers … seemed to interpret them to mean strict pacifism as that is what they practiced.

Ambrose (De Officiis i, 27,129) : “For courage, which in war preserves one’s country from the barbarians, or at home defends the weak, or comrades from robbers, is full of justice”

you interpret the RCC to be correct always based on your own interpretation of history, so you do the exact same thing.

No, you have this backwards: I adjust my understanding of truth to incorporate what the Church teaches. Either the Catholic Church is what she claims to be or she has no more claim to the truth than Unitarians or atheists; there is no mid point. Like Jesus: either he is who he claims to be or he has no claim at all.

Ender

 

[pprimeau1976]

who disputes it? constantine was the emperor and he issued decrees for the church to have a council. he and the pope (while they did butt heads on certain things) were definitely partnered. so i’m wondering who the ones disputing it are? are they credible historians? what is their evidence? primary sources?

Anyone could dispute what you are saying. You are claiming that the Church was “partnered” with the government because Constantine ordered that a council be held? What kind of partnership is that?

On the flip side, St. Ambrose of Milan excommunicated Emperor Theodosius after he massacred 7,000 inhabitants of Thessalonica. In order to be reconciled with the Church, Ambrose made Theodocius do several months of public penance. This was after the death of Constantine and after Christianity had been made the state religion of Rome. Is this something that “partners” do to each other?

Saying that there was a partnership is not an objective historical fact. It’s purely subjective historical opinion that is often used when someone has an axe to grind with the Church.

 

[bengal_fan]

This is something I’ve also struggled with - how to understand “turn the other cheek”. Clearly it is meant as an example, and doesn’t just apply to being struck on the cheek. But how far do we extend it? Did Jesus mean for us to extend it to the extent that, for example “If someone murders your son, offer him your daughter as well”? I think that if Jesus had intended that, he would have been more clear about it, since it is so difficult to accept.

He did say that unless you completely give up your most cherished things (my paraphrase of “hate your mother and father, sister and brother”) you are not worthy of Him. i think that leads to the idea of (not offering your daughter as well as we never offered our cheek in the first place or our son) being willing to give up everything for the things Christ gave us to value. one of those being loving our enemies.

Your quotes from the ECFs seem to deal with military service in the Roman army and rebellion (fighting against the Romans in Jerusalem). **Perhaps you didn’t intend to include self-defense against criminals in your definition of pacifism? If you did, I don’t think you supported that position from the ECF quotes. ** I agree with you that the early church did not agree with participation in the Roman military or with rebelling against the Roman authorities. Paul said that the Roman government had its power from God. (Romans 13)

well, the self-defense against criminals would go to the fact that the believers chose to accept martyrdom when being (unjustly) persecuted. they did not choose to defend themselves or their families.

I believe that we sometimes have a duty to defend the innocent from an aggressor, when it is part of the role we have been given by God. When the lawful authority allows us to defend each other against crime, that would become an obligation for us, especially for family members. I don’t believe that Jesus’ teaching or the ECFs contradict that.

this begs the question, “who is innocent?” why do you value one life over another? what makes an “innocent” (even though no one is truly innocent since “there is none righteous, not even one”) life more valuable than an aggressor? the answer is probably because we love that person more more because they probably love us. but Jesus speaks harshly against only loving those who love us. we must value all life equally (human life that is).

When it comes to military service for a just country, I think this isn’t something that ECF’s were able to contemplate. The notion of a sincerely Christian emperor was unheard of. Perhaps it still hasn’t happened. At least I don’t see any Christian government that practices turning the other cheek to insults. But Christian governments at least are a different thing than the pagan Roman government. It’s a difficult decision for sure.

where is there a “just” country? it has never existed.
i agree though, it is a difficult decision. both decision are scary in what the consequences might be.

 

[bengal_fan]

first, your quotes go to illustrate my point that it is not until the marriage of Rome by Christianity that we begin to find justification for the use of force and permission to be in the military.

No, you have this backwards: I adjust my understanding of truth to incorporate what the Church teaches. Either the Catholic Church is what she claims to be or she has no more claim to the truth than Unitarians or atheists; there is no mid point. Like Jesus: either he is who he claims to be or he has no claim at all.

but you still start with your own decision to accept the church’s interpretation which is and interpretation in and of itself. you still begin with what YOU believe to be true.

 

[bengal_fan]

Anyone could dispute what you are saying. You are claiming that the Church was “partnered” with the government because Constantine ordered that a council be held? What kind of partnership is that?

On the flip side, St. Ambrose of Milan excommunicated Emperor Theodosius after he massacred 7,000 inhabitants of Thessalonica. In order to be reconciled with the Church, Ambrose made Theodocius do several months of public penance. This was after the death of Constantine and after Christianity had been made the state religion of Rome. Is this something that “partners” do to each other?

Saying that there was a partnership is not an objective historical fact. It’s purely subjective historical opinion that is often used when someone has an axe to grind with the Church.

i would ask for a credible historian who has put out the claim that the church and rome were not partnered together. i would want to see the primary sources they use. it would be a novel idea for it is pretty accepted that the church and rome were linked from constantine and beyond (with the exception of the 2 year period of julian the apostate whom the church spoke out against with impunity because the government could not stop it at the time).

 

[pprimeau1976]

i would ask for a credible historian who has put out the claim that the church and rome were not partnered together. i would want to see the primary sources they use. it would be a novel idea for it is pretty accepted that the church and rome were linked from constantine and beyond (with the exception of the 2 year period of julian the apostate whom the church spoke out against with impunity because the government could not stop it at the time).

Once again…you are loaded with subjectivism. What is a credible historian in your eyes? Someone who supports your theories? You made the claim *first *that Rome and the Church were partnered. Where is your proof? Since according to you it’s “pretty accepted”, it should be easy for you to provide.

 

[Ender]

first, your quotes go to illustrate my point that it is not until the marriage of Rome by Christianity that we begin to find justification for the use of force and permission to be in the military.

I cited doctors of the Church who were interpreting scripture, verses that seem to contradict your position. How do you rebut Augustine’s comment on Luke or Aquinas’s interpretation of Romans?

but you still start with your own decision to accept the church’s interpretation which is and interpretation in and of itself. you still begin with what YOU believe to be true.

It’s a good bit more fundamental than that. For me it’s like the difference between studying a course in the humanities or one in the sciences. My opinion might matter in the former but is totally irrelevant in the latter; what is required there is understanding, not interpretation. To me the choice is rather stark: either accept the Church as being what she claims and having “the task of authentically interpreting the word of God” or accept that moral truth cannot be known as there is no final arbiter beyond ourselves.

“If there is no assent, there is no faith, for without assent one does not really believe.” Augustine

Ender

 

[Neil_Anthony]

being willing to give up everything for the things Christ gave us to value. one of those being loving our enemies.

Yes but we have to love our families too… What does it mean to love them if you give them away to be killed?

well, the self-defense against criminals would go to the fact that the believers chose to accept martyrdom when being (unjustly) persecuted. they did not choose to defend themselves or their families.

You’re not distinguishing between governments and criminals. Jesus as the messiah had to clarify his political role and show that it did not mean rebellion, taking power, and waging war. He didn’t use self-defense against the political authorities. But that’s a completely different situation from fighting off someone trying to illegally kill you or your family. I think you’re confusing two different things here.

 

[Brendan]

Look at Luke 3, when a group of soliders asked Christ what they should do to to obey His commandments. Did Christ ask the soliders to quit or desert?

14Then some soldiers asked him, “And what should we do?”
He replied, “Don’t extort money and don’t accuse people falsely—be content with your pay.”

No, he told them not to extort money and be content with their pay.

Why did He not tell them to quit military service?

 

[bengal_fan]

Neil_Anthony;3397606Yes but we have to love our families too… What does it mean to love them if you give them away to be killed?

but how are you loving your enemies if you choose your family over them? what makes your family’s life more important than your enemy’s? i am just asking the question here.

 

[bengal_fan]

Look at Luke 3, when a group of soliders asked Christ what they should do to to obey His commandments. Did Christ ask the soliders to quit or desert?

No, he told them not to extort money and be content with their pay.

Why did He not tell them to quit military service?

that’s a good question. i guess (and this may be a stretch) but because they were not believers (as in jews) so the teachings didn’t apply to them. the other reason i come up with is the same reason that Jesus doesn’t always give the full answer of salvation every time He is asked. He gives parts. there are times when He says that belief is the only thing that is necessary. there are other times when He focuses on works. maybe He was giving these guys a starting point. i see your point that it is a tricky passage. that is why i would ask how the earliest church interpreted Jesus’ teachings. they forbade military service and all forms of violence including defense.

 

[bengal_fan]

I cited doctors of the Church who were interpreting scripture, verses that seem to contradict your position. How do you rebut Augustine’s comment on Luke or Aquinas’s interpretation of Romans?

by citing the earlier (the ones closer to the actual apostles) fathers. i also have to read augustine in the context that the church has now gotten itself involved with government at this time so that might be affecting his interpretation. aquinas simply is building off of augustine. yes, you cited doctors of the church and they were awesome men who shaped the world we live in today, but they were not infallible (neither were the earlier writers, nor am i, nor are you) so they might have departed from a practice the earlier church would have extremely valued because of the political climate of the day.

It’s a good bit more fundamental than that. For me it’s like the difference between studying a course in the humanities or one in the sciences. My opinion might matter in the former but is totally irrelevant in the latter; what is required there is understanding, not interpretation. To me the choice is rather stark: either accept the Church as being what she claims and having “the task of authentically interpreting the word of God” or accept that moral truth cannot be known as there is no final arbiter beyond ourselves.

“If there is no assent, there is no faith, for without assent one does not really believe.” Augustine

i see your point, but i still maintain that you start by choosing to believe the interpretation (and adopting it for yourself) of the church that says it is THE church and infallible. you still start with your interpretation that the interpretation you trust is correct. everyone starts there. that is my only point. i am not denying that after that it is about submission and assent, but it all begins with your own interpretation.

 

[bengal_fan]

Once again…you are loaded with subjectivism. What is a credible historian in your eyes? Someone who supports your theories? You made the claim *first *that Rome and the Church were partnered. Where is your proof? Since according to you it’s “pretty accepted”, it should be easy for you to provide.

a credible historian probably has a doctorate (or at least has done masters level work) in history (or a similar field like journalism). they have been published, submitted their work to peer reviews, and use sources to back up their claims. they use all available sources and reach a conclusion that is supported by their evidence. they are willing to go where the evidence takes them, but they have been trained to interpret the evidence through sufficient study in the discipline.

From Alexander to Constantine By Ernest Barker

Constantine and the Christian Empire By Charles Matson Odahl

Christian Theology: An Introduction By Alister E. McGrath

Historical Theology By Alister E. McGrath

Christianity and Roman Society By Gillian Clark

Church History in Plain Language By Bruce Shelley

History Of Christianity By Paul Johnson

just to name a few books that would say the church and state united. also, there are numerous articles in historical journals going back to the early 1900’s all the way up to today of historians who study that period and i have never seen one that has said the church and the government weren’t partnered. granted, i haven’t read every single journal article (i have read all of the books i cited), but i have read a fair share.

 

[bengal_fan]

who knew the subject of pacifism would turn into such a battle??

 

[Neil_Anthony]

but how are you loving your enemies if you choose your family over them? what makes your family’s life more important than your enemy’s? i am just asking the question here.

Yes thanks for identifying that “love thy neighbor as thyself” is the ultimate law and that turning the other cheek has to fit into that.

So how can it be loving to use force and kill someone? I think that to love means to act for the common good. Unfortunately if one person is going around killing everyone, we need to stop them for the good of all. Maybe not for their own good I suppose. And we have to try to stop them in the most loving way, restrain them, taser them, etc. It’s an easier decision when we’re killing one person to stop them from committing a mass murder, because we can reason that at least we’re saving more people than we’re killing. But in a case where the only way to stop 1 person from murdering one other person is to use deadly force, I guess “love they neighbor as thyself” isn’t as clear. Although, think about how you love yourself. What would you want someone to do if you were ever going to commit murder? Would you want them to stop you? Or let you do it?

Killing a murderer for revenge simply can’t be justified by Jesus’ teachings. But we have to distinguish between using the minimum force to prevent grave harm to someone in our charge, out of love, and simply refusing to do anything. Yes in real life when we go to war there is all sorts of selfishness and pride involved as well as good reasons, so the questions aren’t clear-cut.

Another way to make sure that something is done out of love is to use objective rules. Separate ourselves and our pride from the situation and think lovingly for everyone involved what is the best course of action. I can honestly say that I’ll subject myself to being killed in self-defense if I ever go crazy and start murdering people. And I won’t blame them for doing it. And I love myself a lot, and if this is how I would treat myself, I can treat others the same way, I think.

And this isn’t just about loving the people we know, and our relatives more. Imagine two people you don’t know at all, and one of them tries to kill the other for no good reason. We have no personal interest in the case, but love makes us want to help the victim. Jesus cared for people who were oppressed and victimized.

 

[Ender]

you cited doctors of the church and they were awesome men who shaped the world we live in today, but they were not infallible (neither were the earlier writers, nor am i, nor are you) so they might have departed from a practice the earlier church would have extremely valued because of the political climate of the day.

This won’t do. You cannot simply ignore their interpretations because they were not early Church fathers, you have to deal with the substance of their comments. In post #73 Brendan cited the same verse in Luke that Augustine commented on but you chose to respond to Brendan (“good question”) and dismiss Augustine. The interpretations of Aquinas and Augustine are either correct or incorrect and they don’t become wrong simply because of who they were and when they wrote. You didn’t do very well with the quote from Luke and I doubt that you’ll do any better with the one from Romans (13:4) but I’d like to see your explanation. You also said nothing whatever about the quote from Ambrose re self defense and war.

it all begins with your own interpretation.

It all begins with our own choice.

“Do not seek to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand.” Augustine

Ender