Editorial
September/October, 1972
Volume 7, Number 5
The message in this issue of the Witness is a study of the peace position as held historically by the Brethren. Needless to say, the historic position is no longer the position held by most Brethren nevertheless the historic position is the biblical position. An earlier issue of the Witness (Vol. 6, No. 1), distinguishes between biblical nonresistance and humanistic pacifism by saying: “Pacifists have confidence in a revolutionary upward progress of mankind. The pacifist ideal of a political order requires participation in political activities. He considers it necessary to work for a just world order. He urges disarmament; he lobbies among legislators; he aims to establish a new social order; he ignores the necessity of regeneration and relies largely on education and legislation to achieve his social and political ends. On the other hand, the believer in biblical nonresistance sees no possibility of reforming human nature apart from the grace of God. The nonresistant Christian believes that his allegiance with the higher kingdom forbids (or at least drastically limits) his participation in earthly government. He sees no chance of a just world order, unless and until men are born the second time. He makes a contribution to his government through godly and peaceable living rather than through direct political action.” Dean M. Kelley, in Why Conservative Churches Are Growing (New York: Harper and Row, 1972), describes the early Anabaptists by saying, “Theirs was a stance not so much of pacifism as of nonresistance.”
The Historic Brethren Peace Position
by Harold S. Martin
Harold R. Peat was declared a hero during World War II because he captured more German soldiers than any other person on record. When he returned to America, he wrote a book in which he tells his experiences during the war. He says, “I pointed my gun toward a German soldier one day; I heard him cry, ‘No please don’t; my wife, my family, my children’ – but I didn’t give him time to finish that sentence; with a vicious swing of my weapon I crushed his skull into a hundred bits.” Mr. Peat continues, “That look of horror in his eyes still haunts me down to this day. I’m a murderer; I killed seven men; and yet according to the laws of the land I go free; no judge or jury will ever convict me.” Harold R. Peat was right on one point, but he was wrong on the other! He was right when he said, “I’m a murderer; I killed seven men.” But he was wrong when he said, “No judge or jury shall ever convict me.” For unless he repents, God (who is the Judge of all the earth) will convict him. The Lord hates hands that shed innocent blood (Proverbs 6:17).
Some say, “But the soldier who kills during warfare is not responsible!” James Russell Lowell answers that argument with a bit of poetry:
If you should take a sword and draw it,
And go and stick a fellow through;
The government ain’t gonna answer for it,
God’ll send the bill to you.
It is simply not possible to transfer the guilt for our conduct — to another person or institution. If a man sins, he does it by his own free choice, and he alone will have to answer for that sin. The Church of the Brethren (since its beginning in 1708) has continuously registered its opposition to militarism and violence. In this message we want to think about three factors related to the biblical view of war and peace.
1. THE HISTORIC POSITION
The church during the early centuries refused to participate in war. Church historians say that until A.D. 174, there is no evidence that Christians ever served in the army. Athenagorus was a powerful writer during the period: He said, “We do not go to war with those who plunder and rob us, but to those who smite us on one side of the face, we offer the other also.” Another writer (during the early centuries) says, “Christians do not serve as magistrates or soldiers for the Emperor. Instead, they serve in the church for the salvation of men.” But in the fourth century, a, important event occurred. Constantine (the Roman Emperor) declared himself a Christian – and soon Christianity became the state religion. The church grew rapidly in numbers. Christianity became a popular religion, but it lost much of its original purity. The original nonresistant faith of the early Christians was gradually discarded. Many churchmen no longer condemned warfare, hut rather tried to justify it. Since the days of Constantine, with only a few exceptions, the church has strutted down through the centuries with the sword in one hand and the cross in the other – and preachers have repeatedly argued that killing (when serving as a soldier for one s country in warfare) is not murder, but merely some kind of courage.
In the the sixteenth century (during the Reformation in Europe), there were groups of people known as the Pietists and Anabaptists – who refused to participate in war, and practiced nonresistance in their daily lives. These Christians tried to follow the New Testament literally. They believed that the state was necessary to punish evildoers and so they obeyed the rulers and generally paid their taxes – but they held that the state is not the supreme authority, and that if the demands of the state conflicted with the laws of God – they would have “to obey God rather than men.”
It was these people (the Pietists and the Anabaptists) that influenced the early Brethren. Way back in the days of the American Revolution, the Brethren are on record as being opposed to participation in war. The Annual Meeting of 1781 said, “It has been unanimously concluded that we should not take part in war, nor in blood-shedding.” The Annual Conference of 1864 (at the time of the Civil War), admonished Brethren to adhere to the teaching on nonresistance. The special Conference in 1918 urged Brethren not to enlist in the armed forces, nor to wear the military uniform. And it was in 1935 that the Church of the Brethren drafted the statement which says, “All war is sin; it is wrong for Christians to support it, or to engage in it.”
The early Brethren position on war (the historic Brethren stand) was this: The Brethren believed in the “doctrine of two kingdoms” – the kingdom of Christ, and the kingdoms of this world. The church held (and this is the position many of us hold today) that there are two classes of people in society – the Christian and the nonchristian. The state embraces all the population; the church is made up exclusively of believers in Jesus Christ. The primary function of those who belong to the kingdom of Christ is to preach the Gospel of salvation, and to evangelize the lost; the primary function of the kingdoms of the world is to maintain Law and order in a society that ignores God. The kingdom of Christ lives according to the ethic of love; the kingdoms of the world use the threat of force. According to this belief, it is permissible for the government (the state – which embraces all the population) to do some things, which it would be wrong for the church to do. For example, the church cannot use the sword (Matthew 5:43-44), but the civil government sometimes has to use it (Romans 13:4).
The Brethren looked upon the state as necessary for the punishment of evildoers (and for maintaining law and order), but the church was a separate kingdom, apart from the state. Early Brethren would not participate in armed resistance, because Christians were members of Christ’s kingdom, which was not of this world. This has been the historic position of the Church of the Brethren.
It’s true that during the 1930’s and 1940’s (as Leslie Eisan says, in his book Pathways of Peace), “The Brethren became increasingly concerned, not only to abstain from war itself, but to join with others in their efforts to prevent war through social action.” One of their goals was to build a society of mutual tolerance and good will, and to build a world of universal brotherhood. But today (as Dale Brown says in Brethren and Pacifism), many “who marched from New Windsor to conquer the world through love, were disillusioned when they met the hard realities of urban ghettos, and the entrenched evil of power structures.” They soon discovered that mere political pacifism was not ushering in an age of peace, as they had hoped that it would. And so today, there’s a need to look again at the older, historic, Anabaptist position.
2. THE BIBLICAL TEACHING
Rufus Bowman, in The Church of the Brethren and War, says, “Their attitude toward the New Testament, was the most significant factor in making the Church of the Brethren a peace church.” The early Brethren regarded the Scriptures as an infallible rule of faith and practice, and they appealed constantly to the Bible, to verify their statements about war. There are several New Testament principles underlying the teaching on war and peace:
(1) Love is the supreme law.
Jesus says, “A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another” (John 13:34). The Apostle Paul says, “Love works no ill to his neighbor” (Romans 13:10). And again, our Lord Jesus said, “But I say unto you, Love your enemies; bless them that curse you” (Matthew 5:44). And so the basic principle is that the Christian should seek at all times to actively promote the welfare of others (even of those who might be his enemies).
(2) Peace is the Christian’s obligation.
Jesus says, “Blessed are the peacemakers” (Matthew 5:9). Paul writes, “Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord” (Hebrews 12:14). And again, “As much as lies in you, live peaceably with all men” (Romans 12:18). It takes two to start a fight. The Bible says, “See to it that you are not one of them.” Each of us must practice peaceful personal relationships with his fellowman. And one who is a peacemaker does not hold a grudge against others; he doesn’t participate in divorce and remarriage and family quarrels; he never sues at the law, but like the early Christians, takes joyfully the spoiling of his goods (Hebrews 10:34).
(3) Retaliation is to be avoided.
The New Testament says of Jesus Christ, “When he was reviled, he reviled not again” (1 Peter 2:23). In Romans 12 we read, “Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but rather leave it to the wrath of God.” And so the New Testament teaches concepts that are contrary to the spirit of war. Following Jesus Christ involves turning the other cheek, going the second mile, avoiding retaliation, and even praying for those who persecute.
The Bible also speaks concerning church and state. As stated earlier, the Brethren held a two-kingdom concept of church and state. The belief is solidly based upon the words of Jesus, when He said, “My kingdom is not of this world; if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight.., but now is my kingdom not from hence” (John 18:36). Obviously, two kingdoms are spoken of in this passage – the kingdom of Christ, and the kingdoms of this world. The church and the state (according to the words of Jesus) are two distinct, separate bodies. The church is spiritual in character; the state is political in nature. The church is ruled by love; the state is ruled by force. Christ is the head of the church; the king (or president) is the head of the state. The task of the church is to proclaim the Gospel; the task of the state is to maintain order.
Romans 13 describes the servant of the state as “an avenger to execute wrath upon him that does evil.” The officers of the state don’t go out to capture the criminal with New Testaments under their arms they go armed with weapons suited for the destruction of human life. The kingdoms of this world do not follow the Christian ethic. Jesus said so! He said, “If my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight.” The kingdoms of this world do fight. But those who comprise the kingdom of Christ, live by the standards of the New Testament.
The Christian belongs to a kingdom not of this world. Paul (in Romans 12), speaking to Christians, uses the pronouns “we” and “us”. In Romans 13, speaking of the state, he uses the pronouns “they” and “them”. The attitude of Jesus toward the state was one of practical indifference. Jesus did speak out against false religious leaders, but He never attempted to demonstrate against the civil powers. He made no attempt to control the Roman government, nor to dictate government policy. The sword belongs to the kingdoms of the world, but Jesus says, “I have chosen you out of the world.”
3. THE CONSTRAINING MOTIVE
There are a number of reasons for standing in opposition to war. Some are opposed to war because of a mere desire for survival. They have a fear of death and destruction in this gruesome atomic age. Others are pacifists because they believe simply that human life is sacred. Still others refuse to participate in war because they believe in the doctrine of progress. They believe the universe is constituted in such a way that mankind will eventually move toward perfection – and the elimination of war is one more step in this evolutionary surge. But the Brethren have historically refused to participate in war – not primarily for the above named reasons – but because of loyalty to Jesus Christ and obedience to the teachings of the Scriptures.
The Anabaptists (and the early Brethren) emphasized discipleship. Martin Luther and the other Reformers talked about salvation by faith. They said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you’ll be saved.” The Brethren believe that too. But our forefathers said, “One must not only believe on Jesus – to be a Christian, means to follow Christ in one’s daily life.” The early Brethren practiced nonresistance because of their obedience to the teachings of the Bible. When Elder John Naas was approached by the army officers and urged to become a soldier under the King of Prussia, he said that he had already enlisted in a most noble army. The king said, “Who is your captain?” Naas replied, “My Captain is the great prince Immanuel, our Lord Jesus Christ. I have espoused his cause – and therefore I cannot and will not forsake him.” The constraining motive for the practice of peace, was loyalty to Jesus and the Scriptures.
Note carefully (in conclusion) that men fight wars basically because man is at war with God. None of us can have peace in his heart (nor peace with his fellowman), if first of all he does not have peace with God. Each one of us, has deep within — passions and drives that only Jesus Christ can control! Each on of us in his natural state, is lost and separated from God by sin. The crucial question is: “How can a holy God and a sinful man be reconciled?” And the answer is that God Himself (moved by love and mercy), acted in our behalf — and provided the means of atonement. He sent His Son into the world, who was crucified at the hands of wicked men, and His blood was spilled from a Cross — and this way (in the plan of God), Jesus secured a reconciliation between God and man. He made peace. The Bible says that God “set forth Jesus to be a propitiation for our sin, through faith in his blood” (Romans 3:25). To “propitiate” means “to turn away wrath.” God’s wrath is heavy upon because of our sins (He’s displeased with us) — but if we believe that Jesus shed His blood to cleanse from sin — God’s displeasure is turned away! It’s propitiated! And there is reconciliation (peace) between us and God. This is the Gospel – and when I experience this grace and forgiveness and pardon and peace in my own heart I can’t help but show the same grace toward my fellowman.
My plea is a call to accept Jesus Christ as Saviour and Master — and to let Him live in your heart, following the way which “resists not evil.”