Home

Biblical Pacifism

and the Future of the Church of the Brethren

by Travis Edward Turner Poling

November 2003

Biblical pacifism is not a new concept. Not only has Dale W. Brown significantly revised his book on the topic since its original edition in 1970, but the idea has taken on many forms throughout the history of the biblically based faith community. The timeless importance of this topic shows that a pacifism informed by the Judeo-Christian scriptures has little possibility of fading out altogether. The progression of thought and application of these principles in the Church of the Brethren are but a small segment of this theological tradition, but important and relevant to Brown’s Biblical Pacifism. Further, the Church of the Brethren is now in a state of discord and fracture over many issues including pacifism, which if not addressed could lead the church further and further from “the life that Jesus offers¼ [and] from God, from each other, from ourselves, and from God’s creation” (Grout, 16).

“Pacifism” seems a simple enough word to define to those familiar with its use, but it has some complications. The term is often misinterpreted by others as “bleeding heart liberalism” (Brown, 25), and it holds the unfortunate power to convey what it is not: remaining passive in the face of violence, or a belief in non-action. It is sometimes seen as an inability to stand up to the forces of evil in our world resulting from some weakness in one’s character. In reality, pacifism is not synonymous with “passive-ism.” Brown does not directly define pacifism, but the dictionary yields a sufficient definition: the “opposition to war or violence as a means of resolving disputes” (Dictionary.com). To go a little further,

pacifism is an ethical opposition to violence. This position does not lead its adherents to do nothing or to advocate inaction in the political sphere, but rather to seek alternatives to violent and harmful resolution of conflict. There is a great diversity of belief among Christians who, while reading the same scriptures, come to believe in different, sometimes conflicting pacifisms. For simplicity of focus, the two predominant traditions of biblical pacifist thought, “‘nonresistance’ and ‘nonviolent resistance’” (Brown, 40) will be briefly discussed. Of these two traditions, Brown states

Both sides of the debate believe Christians should refuse to participate in warfare, which involves killing and destructive violence to God’s good creation. Both perspectives maintain that ethics derived from the Sermon on the Mount are applicable to our life together in communities of faith. And both advocates of peace can garner biblical support for their particular interpretations. In times of war, both groups are identified as “pacifist Christians,” often in the same denominations. Yet there are distinct differences between nonresisters and nonviolent resisters. (Brown, 40)

It is these parallels and differences, and how they can inform each other within the context of the future possibilities for the Church of the Brethren that will be explored here.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus states, “Do not resist an evildoer” (Matthew 5:38-39). From this verse comes the term “nonresistance,” which has come to signify a pacifism which declares, as the influential third century theologian Origen did, “We Christians no longer take up sword against nation, nor do we learn to make war anymore, having become children of peace for the sake of Jesus who is our leader” (Brown, 32). Nonresistance evolved further to claim, based on one interpretation of Paul’s letter to the Romans, followers of Christ must not take part in the political system: “There is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God” (Romans 13:1), and therefore must not be challenged. Furthermore, anything that the state does that is contrary to Christian doctrine is insignificant. In the end, the judgment will sort out the righteous from the wicked, and the final battle of these forces will result in the victory of God. In terms of Brethren theology of nonresistance, the conservative Brethren Revival Fellowship, which represents a concern within the denomination to remain true to the values of the original Brethren church, and states, “Call us fundamental, but we respectfully decline the label ‘fundamentalist’” (Myers), argues that

Biblical Nonresistance thinks in terms of individual peace with God, with peace among the nations coming only when men submit to the rule of Christ¼Believes allegiance is to the higher kingdom which forbids involvement in earthly government¼Regards war as an inevitable and recurring evil so long as the heart of man is not at peace with God through the blood of His son. (Ray)

Those who hold to nonresistance do not, however, stand idly by. In nearly every conflict the Brethren have been impacted by, they have provided “servant ministries of help” (Brown, 42), from medical assistance to both invading and defending armies during the American Civil War to feeding European immigrants after the Second World War. This is a heritage that Brethren who believe in the pacifism of nonviolent resistance both respect and often participate in, often side by side with nonresistant Christians. Experiencing the effects of war while living with the privilege of democratic rule in the twentieth century, Brethren at that time may have wondered if there was anything more that could be done to help alleviate the great suffering brought about by war. Brethren may not have invented a pacifism that went so far as to protest in this country, but seeing movements take shape and possibly discerning them not antithetical to their faith (indeed they promoted them), many Brethren took part in movements such as the ones against war, racism, and sexism. Some were in fact lead by Christians such as Martin Luther King, Jr. who wove Christian faith and values into their tactics and messages. These concerned Christians saw in such movements ethics similar to the apostle Paul in his letter to the Romans. Chapter 12 of the epistle admonishes

Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse, ¼associate with the lowly, ¼Do not repay anyone evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all, ¼live peaceably with all, ¼never avenger yourselves, ¼If your enemies are hungry, feed them, if they are thirsty, give them something to drink, ¼ [which will be like] heaping burning coals on their heads. ¼overcome evil with good. (verses 14-21)

This great list provides much of the core to nonviolent resistance (Brown, 45). This pacifism opposes violence, and one’s participation in it, but takes it a step further, applying the ethic found in Romans 12 and other places in scripture to the greater world, actively holding political structures accountable to its instruction.

Biblical Pacifism explores the influence of the ideas of such prominent thinkers as John Howard Yoder, Walter Wink, Mohandas Gandhi, and Martin Luther King, Jr (Brown, 45-66). While none of these individuals were Brethren themselves (the closest is Yoder, a Mennonite who put beliefs very close to the Brethren’s on the theological map), their influence is widely known and respected among religious and secular pacifists, and much of their ideas have been embraced as nearly synonymous with current Brethren theology of nonviolent resistance. Activism has been somewhat of a debatable tactic for world change among the Brethren. Historically, the church has certainly set its sights on the day in which every person in the world, great and small, shall “beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore; but they shall all sit under their own vines and under their own fig trees, and no one shall make them afraid” (Micah 4:3-4). At the same time, they have tended to keep to themselves, praying, and working minimally with the outside world, hesitant to impose their beliefs on the world outside the church. Adherents to nonviolent resistance take much of their guidance from scriptures such as the Sermon on the Mount as well, but interpret them in a slightly different way than those who hold to nonresistance. Biblical teachings have evolved into theological arguments for tactics of change such as civil disobedience, protest, advocacy, and conflict transformation. While these are beliefs held by individuals and groups apart from the church, Christian ideas on nonresistance and nonviolent resistance have certainly embraced and been embraced by secular pacifism.

The dichotomy between these two major pacifisms within the Church of the Brethren, which values the New Testament as viewed through its unique history, makes it all the more important to explore the biblical implications of opposition to violence and war, and what limits and opportunities might need to be kept in mind as the church works together for a better world. “Nonresistant pacifism has much to preserve, while the pacifism of nonviolent resistance has much to add” (Brown, 43). The question becomes: What must be discarded, and what must be embraced in order to bring God’s peace to this planet, our home? A look at the past may reveal cues for the future of biblical pacifism.

The aim of the Church of the Brethren from its conception in 1708 was to “thoroughly adhere to the New Testament” (Statement, 1998). It is in the Gospels that one finds accounts of Christ rebuking his disciples for wanting “to command fire to come down from heaven to consume” their enemies (Luke 9:52-53), healing a wound of an adversary inflicted by his own disciple (Luke 22:50-51), and allowing himself to be executed without violently resisting (Matthew 26:51-54). These powerful illustrations of Christ’s own pacifism, as well as the ethical teachings of Jesus and Paul, have served to influence many Christians. These scriptures lead eighteenth century Brethren to believe in similar fashion to nonresistant Christians that “war was contrary to the life, spirit, and teachings of Jesus,” and “for them [as Christians] to fight [in war as soldiers]” was sin (Bowman, 43). And it is probably fair to state that the common assumption among Brethren today is that the church’s founders believed in nonresistance. This pacifism comes from the Two Kingdom theology which declares “that Christ is Lord of the Church but not of the state,” because “one cannot expect unredeemed people to live the Sermon on the Mount” (Brown, 41). The church is one kingdom, and the world with its ruling structures is another. According to the thirteenth chapter of Paul’s letter to the Romans, “those authorities that exist have been instituted by God¼ the authority does not bear the sword in vain! It is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer” (verses 1, 4). The wrongdoer refers to those who act against God’s will, and modern readers often assume that the state (“authority”), because it is “instituted by God,” automatically performs what God desires. Did the early Brethren hold these beliefs?

While seeking to be “entirely biblical” (Bowman, 48) in their approach toward the state, the early Brethren in Germany struggled greatly with this text. “They could not see how all governments¼ were ordained of God, [and]¼ through the years developed the interpretation that the fact and necessity of government are ordained of God but individual governments may not be” (48-49). Alexander Mack, the man credited as founder of the Brethren movement “believed he solved the problem by stating that governments are ordained of God, ‘if they will fulfill their office according to the will of God’” (48). Where governments and churches were actually separate institutions, this belief could possibly be more tolerated, but Germany in the 1700s was under the rule of governors with close ties to either Lutheran or Reformed churches. In this context, it may be possible to speculate that for their times this interpretation of scripture was seen as a direct threat to the state. To claim that members of the church should not go to war, in a time when the state and the church were virtually synonymous, may have been the same as saying that the state had no right to go to war. Brethren in Europe did not petition the government heavily except to ask for the right to freely practice their faith. And if this was not granted, they often left the area under “voluntary” exile rather than protest their treatment, which could often lead to torture or even execution, punishment certainly fit for traitors. Until the American Revolution and the advent of democratic rule, early Brethren may not have considered many options other than to flee.

As their access to petition and possibly choose their leaders in the newly formed United States became a viable option in contrast to their imperial homeland, Brethren interaction with the government, while still fairly minimal, did change, if only a little bit, and if only a few times. In post-colonial Pennsylvania, the Quakers, along with the Brethren, were opposed to war against the indigenous peoples. Christopher Sauer, Jr. a member of the Brethren community in that time took advantage of the benefits of democracy in order to keep in power the Pennsylvania State Assembly delegates who were of the Quaker faith (Bowman, 87-88). It may be argued that Sauer was interested only in keeping the nonresistant Brethren from being forced into military service, but a look at his life and writings reveals a concern for the natives who were enemies of the majority of the state, and worked toward economic independence for them in order to make war no longer seen as necessary (Bowman, 73). At the same time, Christopher Sauer, Jr. and his father, Sauer, Sr., do no necessarily represent the entire church in their era. They “probably engaged in more political activity than any other members of the Church of the Brethren during the first one hundred fifty years” (87), but activism is rarely embraced by the entire church in these days either. Either way, it is clear to see that, in at least one instance, early Brethren did take up the cause of active pacifism, and took advantage of their rights of democracy in order to influence the government towards their faith based convictions. This historical witness stands counter to claims that this group saw participation in politics as unchristian.

Following this same spirit over two hundred years later, Annual Conference, the highest authority of the Church of the Brethren, stated in 1967 that, “Christians should appreciate and support the worthy functions which government performs. They should willingly obey the state in matters on which they have no contrary moral conviction” (Statement, 1967). This is little surprise considering that at that time of this statement the United States government was waging war in Vietnam. One can definitely see the influence of nonresistance in this position. What this statement achieved, however, was to take this attitude one step further towards espousing nonviolent resistance. It continues, “On the other hand, they should be alert to occasions when government neglects or misuses its trust from God. When they are profoundly convinced that God forbids what the state demands, it is their responsibility to express their convictions” (emphasis added) (Statement, 1967). While this message may not come directly from

scripture, it nonetheless is an interpretation that the denomination still officially holds to. Modern biblical interpretation scholar Walter Wink, as well as the Mennonite Church USA came to similar conclusions as Mack and the 1967 Statement. In regards to resisting evildoers, he says that the Greek word interpreted “resist” in Matthew 5:39 implies “to resist violently,” therefore pointing to assertive, nonviolent resistance. Wink writes that it is Christians’ “spiritual task to unmask¼ and recall the powers to their created purposes in the world,” and that the group which “exists specifically for the task” is “the church” (Wink, 29). In this, Wink refers to Ephesians 3:10, which reads “through the church the wisdom of God in its rich variety might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places” (29). The Mennonite Church in its doctrinal Confession of Faith agrees that the church is the only institution able to claim the ability to know and do the will of God, and therefore, is responsible to influence the state towards the ends of doing the will of God (General Boards, 85-86). That this evolution of interpretation took place speaks volumes over and against the conception that government, because it is ordained by God, automatically carries out the will of God. It also affirms Mack’s solution which resulted when “the church started out by taking the New Testament as its basis with the attitude of seeking for [new] light [rather than relying on] unyielding creeds” (Bowman, 30). Brethren today, who seek to follow in the spirit of the founders, should appreciate this tradition and respect biblical interpretations from current scholarship while seeking for clarity in what the scriptures can mean for us. If this is to be the case, then Brethren must take Wink and others who support similar ideas seriously, awake to what the scriptures are saying, rather than shut off from the possibility of new understanding.

Some would ask, does scripture not point away from political involvement? On this issue, Brown states that nonresistance can actually help keep nonviolent resistant Christians scripturally grounded (Brown, 45). Brown speaks of being “in peace demonstrations where the gospel was powerfully present¼ [and] in demonstrations in which nonresistance teaching was sorely needed because the crowd manifested a spirit if violence¼” (Brown, 42). Nonviolent resistance must be tempered by the tradition of nonresistance if it is to be truly pacifist. In Romans 12, Paul merely keeps in mind the Sermon on the Mount ethic, and was in fact an activist himself, advocating the action of overcoming evil with good, not merely letting it go unchallenged (Brown, 45). By treating enemies with love, feeding them when they are hungry, “you will heap burning coals on their heads,” (Romans 12:20). Martin Luther interpreted this to mean that “the only way to convert anyone [is] by showing persons love and kindness” (Brown, 46). This loving engagement with the world is to convert it for God, and by its nature this conversion will lead ultimately to, according to the prophet Micah, the day that war will be rejected by people and their leaders and violence and war will come to an end.

If the churches are to take seriously their calling to work for peace, this must be based in faith, beginning with scripture interpreted through Christ and his example, rather than the secular version of nonviolent resistance. When this happens, there will be more hope for war and violence ceasing within a few lifetimes. First, however, these faith communities, including the Church of the Brethren must begin by embracing their own traditions – not the “way things always have been,” not keeping up the North American cultural status quo which Pope John Paul has labeled “a culture of death” (Grout, 16), but returning to their religious source, and placing faith in the power of God to transform human hearts, and therefore, bring radical social change to the entire world. Mere secular Liberalism will not suffice. The current state of our world demands an ethic of biblical pacifism: a belief in the possibility of humanity without violence, biblically based, of biblical and heavenly proportions. This pacifism must be informed not by prooftexts, but rather by faith that arises from the scriptures through the community of believers, because “apart from law [read Torah, or more generally scriptures], the righteousness of God has been disclosed, and is attested by the law and the prophets, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe” (Romans 3:21-22). More than following scriptural commandments is required of Christians. It is faith in God that is most important. And faith in God is part of what has been lost, what must be found again. Those who believe in the pacifism of nonviolent resistance must be willing to learn from their nonresistant brothers and sisters. Nonresisters have been known for their separation from the greater world, and in this, they can teach those who lean more toward mirroring the nonviolent resistance shaped by the world that does not claim accountability to Christ.

The Church of the Brethren has become (to borrow from a study of fundamentalism) exiled once again, but this time, within its own nation, just as many religious fundamentalists claim (Almond, 30). Fundamentalists, in similar fashion to the Brethren Revival Fellowship, seek “to arrest the erosion of religious identity, fortify the borders of the religious community, and create viable alternatives to secular [and thus, fallen] institutions and behaviors,” (17). While not being militant as religious fundamentalists are, the Church of the Brethren can learn from this attitude, even if not applying it entirely. Brethren have become too acculturated to be able to totally withdrawal from society, but the cultural aims of fundamentalism may still be viable to consider. If this means separating of the churches from the world into near enclaves (32) for a time, focusing more of their energy towards coming alive as “the emerging church¼formed in homes around kitchen tables” (Grout, 19), and prayerfully studying scripture and tradition rather than being shaped by “the value systems of contemporary culture” (16), the price will be worth it, and the community of the faithful just may triumph in the end.

WORKS CITED

Almond, Gabriel A., Appleby, Scott R., Sivan, Emanuel. Strong Religion: The Rise of Fundamentalisms around the World. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2003.

Bowman, Rufus. The Church of the Brethren and War: 1708-1941. Elgin, IL: Brethren Publishing House, 1944.

Brown, Dale W. Biblical Pacifism. Second Edition. Elgin, IL: Brethren Press, 2003

Dictionary.com/pacifism. Quoted from: The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000. November 11, 2003. <http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pacifism>.

General Boards of the General Conference Mennonite Church and the Mennonite Church. Confession of Faith in a Mennonite Perspective. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1995.

Grout, Paul. “Into the Future Unafraid: Remedies for a church that has stopped being alive.” Messenger. May, 2001. 16-19.

The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version. Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America.1989.

Myers, Craig Alan. “Fundamentalist or Fundamental?” The BRF Witness. November/December, 1993. Volume 28, Number 6. Brethren Revival Fellowship. Ephrata, PA. November 11, 2003. <http://www.brfwitness.org/Articles/1993v28n6.htm>.

Ray, Mark A. “From Biblical Nonresistance to ‘Peace.” The BRF Witness. March/April, 1999. Volume 34, Number 2. Brethren Revival Fellowship. Ephrata, PA. November 11, 2003. <http://www.brfwitness.org/Articles/1999v34n2.htm>.

Statement, 1967 Annual Conference. The Church, the State and Christian Citizenship.Church of the Brethren Policy Statements. October 23, 2003. <http://www.brethren.org/ac/ac_statements/index.htm>.

Statement, 1998 Annual Conference. The New Testament as Our Rule of Faith and Practice. Church of the Brethren Policy Statements. October 23, 2003. <http://www.brethren.org/ac/ac_statements/index.htm>.

Wink, Walter. The Powers That Be: Theology for a New Millennium. New York: Doubleday, 1998.

by Travis E. Poling

604 E. College Ave, Box 415

North Manchester, IN 46962

Email: TEPoling(AT)manchester.edu

November, 2003