Pacifism vs. Violence: Which Is the Way of Christ?
David Saxon
THE PRIMARY QUESTION THAT MUST BE ANSWERED
“They that take the sword shall perish with the sword.” These are Jesus’ famous words as Peter begins to launch a one-man military exercise against the “great multitude with swords and staves” that had come to arrest the Lord in the Garden of Gethsemane (Matt. 26:47, 52). Coupled with Christ’s equally famous command to present our left cheek to the person who has struck us on the right (Matt. 5:39), this teaching has led believers in every era of the church to reject violence of all kinds. Interpreting both passages as referring to self-defense, Christian pacifists have formulated the following argument: selfdefense would appear to be the most justifiable use of violence; Christ forbids self-defense; nonviolently facing violent aggressors who hate Christ and His followers is the glory of Christian pacifism. Worldly people can trust to their brawn, bullets, and bombs, so the argument goes; the way of Christ is the way of the peacemaker. If such a path leads to suffering, we can be even more certain that it is the Christian path. “If the world hate you,” Christ said shortly before correcting Peter in the Garden, “ye know that it hated me before it hated you” (John 15:18). If we want to be “godly in Christ Jesus,” we should embrace opportunities to suffer rather than defend ourselves or, worse, use force against others.
Most Christians, however, have not embraced this pacifist vision of the Christian life and testimony. They have believed in the occasional necessity of violence and have developed arguments to justify it. From personal self-defense, which includes defense of one’s family and friends, to capital punishment for some crimes, to just war theory, which justifies self-defense on a national scale, most Christians have argued that violence is not only permissible at times but a duty. They have further argued that failure to exercise violence at the right times is itself sinful.
Both sides appeal to Scripture, and, of course, this author believes one side has a much more successful appeal than the other. If one were to grant, however, that Scripture could be interpreted either way, what would be the fundamental issue separating the two positions? It would appear to be this: how best can a believer value the God-given gift of life?