Christarchy!

Micael

Early Christian Pacifism and Nonviolence

We serve the God of life and we are supposed to bring the Gospel of life to all nations, and then we can’t kill those who we give life to. We shall love them and give them the best we have. That’s why the early Christians didn’t use violence. With the power of the Holy Spirit they rather died themselves than killing someone that God had died for. The first church was a church of martyrs where the holy ones gave their lives as sacrifices for God, and they refused to kill. (But how many Christians that support violence have become martyrs?) They were forbidden to be soldiers and judges (who committed death penalty).

There were of course people in the church who did not follow the right teaching of the church, even the letters of the NT witness about church members who do not agree with the apostles. But the majority of early Christians, and the first Christian leaders, who were filled with the Spirit and who suffered and died for Christ, were against the philosophy of killing people.

“Love your enemies” was literally interpreted in the early church – it was the Bible verse that was the most quoted – and the message of enemy love was preached from the beginning of the church throughout the first four centuries, until Constantine. Although Christians continued to preach it then too, mainstream Christianity implied the “just war”-theory, which was founded in the late fourth century. But in the early church, there was no just war. There was only just peace. There is no church father in the first three centuries of the church that talks about Christians killing in war. They only taught enemy love, grace, peace, and lying down your life for others. This is what they wrote:

Justin Martyr wrote in 160 AD:
“We ourselves were well conversant with war, murder, and everything evil, but all of us throughout the whole wide earth have traded in our weapons of war. We have exchanged our swords for ploughshares, our spears for farm tools. Now we cultivate the fear of God, justice, kindness to men, faith, and the expectation of the future given to us by the Father himself through the Crucified One.” (Dialogue with Trypho 110.3.4)

Tatian, (dead c. 185), Justin’s disciple, wrote:
“I do not wish to be king, I don’t want to be rich, I reject military service. I hate adultery”(The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Vol. II, reprint 1979, p. 69)

Athenagoras (133-190) wrote:
"What, then, are these teachings in which we are reared? ‘I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven, who makes his sun to shine on the evil and on the good, and sends his rain on the just and on the unjust . . . Who [of the pagan philosophers] have so purified their own hearts as to love their enemies instead of hating them; instead of upbraiding those who first insult them (which is certainly more usual), to bless them; and to pray for those who plot against them? . . . With us, on the contrary, you will find unlettered people, tradesmen and old women, who, though unable to express in words the advantages of our teaching, demonstrate by acts the value of their principles. For they do not rehearse speeches, but evidence good deeds. When struck, they do not strike back; when robbed, they do not sue; to those who ask, they give, and they love their neighbours as themselves . . . We . . . cannot endure to see a man being put to death even justly." (Legatio 11, 34-35 (Athens, 175))

Minucius Felix wrote in the late second or the early third century: "It is not right for us either to see or hear of a man being slain; and so careful are we (to abstain) from human blood, that we do not even touch the blood of eatable animals in (our) food. . . . Even though we refuse your official honours and purple, yet we do not consist of the lowest dregs of the population." (Minuc xxx. 6, xxxi. 6)

Irenaeus of Lyon (c. 130-202) wrote:
“But the law of liberty, that is, the word of God, preached by the apostles (who went forth from Jerusalem) throughout all the earth, caused such a change in the state of things, that these [nations] did form the swords and war-lances into ploughshares, and changed them into pruning-hooks for reaping the corn, [that is], into instruments used for peaceful purposes, and that they are now unaccustomed to fighting, but when smitten, offer also the other cheek.” (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, reprinted 1977, p. 512)

Hippolytos wrote in c. 200:
“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 who wears the purple must resign or be rejected. If an applicant or a believer seeks to become a soldier, he must be rejected, for he has despised God.” (Hippolytos, Apostolic Tradition 16:17-19)

Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215) wrote:
“If a loud trumpet summons soldiers to war, shall not Christ with a strain of peace issued to the ends of the earth gather up his soldiers of peace? By his own blood and by his word he has assembled an army which sheds no blood in order to give them the Kingdom of Heaven. The trumpet of Christ is his Gospel. He has sounded it and we have heard it. Let us then put on the armour of peace. … The Church is an army of peace which sheds no blood.” (Protrepticus XI, 116)

Tertullian (160-220) wrote in De Corona Militis:
“To begin with the real ground of the military crown, I think we must first inquire whether warfare is proper at all for Christians. … Shall it be held lawful to make an occupation of the sword, when the Lord proclaims that he who uses the sword shall perish by the sword? And shall the son of peace take part in the battle when it does not become him even to sue at law? … Of course, if faith comes later, and finds any preoccupied with military service, their case is different, as in the instance of those whom John used to receive for baptism, and of those most faithful centurions, I mean the centurion whom Christ approves, and the centurion whom Peter instructs; yet, at the same time, when a man has become a believer, and faith has been sealed, there must be either an immediate abandonment of it, which has been the course with many; or all sorts of quibbling will have to be resorted to in order to avoid offending God, and that is not allowed even outside of military service; or, last of all, for God the fate must be endured which a citizen-faith has been no less ready to accept. Neither does military service hold out escape from punishment of sins, or exemption from martyrdom.” (On the chaplet 11)

About 240, Origen wrote:
“You cannot demand military service of Christians any more than you can of priests. We do not go forth as soldiers.” (Against Celsus VIII.7.3)

Cyprian (200-258) wrote:
“The world is soaked with mutual blood. When individuals commit homicide, it is a crime; it is called a virtue when it is done in the name of the state. Impunity is acquired for crimes not by reason of innocence but by the magnitude of the cruelty.” (To Donatus, chapter 6)

Lactantius (260-339) wrote:
"It is not virtue either to be the enemy of the bad or the defender of the good, because virtue cannot be subject to uncertain chances. What are the interests of our country, but the inconveniences of another state or nation? — that is, to extend the boundaries which are violently taken from others, to increase the power of the state, to improve the revenues, — all which things are not virtues, but the overthrowing of virtues: for, in the first place, the union of human society is taken away, innocence is taken away, the abstaining from the property of another is taken away; lastly, justice itself is taken away, which is unable to bear the tearing asunder of the human race, and wherever arms have glittered, must be banished and exterminated from thence. How can a man be just who injures, hates, despoils and puts to death? Yet they who strive to be serviceable to their country do all these things: for they are ignorant of what this being serviceable is, who think nothing useful, nothing advantageous, but that which can be held by the hand; and this alone cannot be held, because it may be snatched away." (The Divine Institutes, Book 6, Chapter 6) [Lactantius was the tutor of the son of St Constantine the Great.]

Didaskalia, a syric Church order from around 300 A.D., forbids the receipt of monetary help for the church from “any of the magistrates of the Roman Empire, who are polluted by war.” (Didask. IV vi. 4)

Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335-395) wrote:
“ ‘Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.’ Who are these? Those who imitate the Divine love of others, who show forth in their own life the characteristic of the Divine energy. The Lord and Giver of good things completely annihilates anything that is without affinity and foreign to goodness. This work He ordains also for you, namely to cast out hatred and abolish war, to exterminate envy and banish strife, to take away hypocrisy and extinguish from within resentment of injuries smoldering in the heart. Instead, you ought to introduce whatever is contrary to the things that have been removed.” (The Lord’s Prayer and the Beatitudes, Ancient Christian Writers series, Newman Press)

The fantastic preacher John Chrysostom (347-407) said:
“That they may now understand that this is a new kind of warfare and not the usual custom of joining in battle, when He sent them with nothing He said: And so, marching on, show forth the meekness of lambs, although you are to go to wolves... for so will I best show my power, when the wolves are conquered by the lambs.
... For certainly it is a greater work and much more marvellous to change the minds of opponents and to bring about a change of soul than to kill them... We ought to be ashamed, therefore, who act far differently when as wolves we rush upon our adversaries. For as long as we are lambs we conquer; even when a thousand wolves stand about, we overcome and are victors. But if we act like wolves we are conquered, for then the aid of the Good Shepherd departs from us, for He does not foster wolves but sheep.” (Epistle Matt. Hom 34, n.1: - Breviary, June 11th)

(For more peaceful saints and their writings, check out the Pentecostal, Catholic or Orthodox Peace Fellowships: http://www.pcpf.org/ http://www.catholicpeacefellowship.org/ and http://incommunion.org/)

Remember that the church taught this during persecutions. Remember that they taught nonviolence during times when they were violently attacked. They did not just preach “turn the other cheek”, they turned it, they followed Christ in actions. They picked up their crosses and died rather than killed. Many of the fathers above became martyrs.

The pacifism of the church wasn’t something that sneaked inside of it after a while and infected the early church leaders. It was there from the beginning, and as I mentioned, NONE of the early church fathers said that Christians could go to war before Constantine. Nonviolence is the true meaning of the cross, and if you look in your Bible, you will find Christian pacifism everywhere. The peace of God was central to the apostles.

“Every warrior's boot used in battle and every garment rolled in blood will be destined for burning, will be fuel for the fire. For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” (Is. 9:5-6)

“Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited. Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay,"says the Lord. On the contrary: "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head."Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” (Romans 12:14-21)

Many Christians do not accept this foolish (1 Cor. 1) teaching of the cross and point at Romans 13 and the wars in the Old Testament as arguments for Christians going to war. But Romans 13 doesn’t talk about war (the “sword” mentioned there (Greek: machaira) wasn’t used in war, it was a short dagger used when Roman soldiers accompanied tax collectors, the symbol of local policing) but it is a text that shows that we shall “overcome evil with good” (Rom. 12:21) even when it is the state that is evil. Rom. 13 is a text where Paul tries to stop Christians who want to overthrow the government! Christians are never supposed to use violence, not even in revolutions against Caesar. Instead, we shall submit to the authorities (which isn’t the same as obey, for Christians should not sacrifice to the emperor and kill Jews in concentration camps) and spread the Jesus-revolution inside peoples’ hearts. There are two types of peace: the negative peace when people cannot fight, although they want to, because a foreign military or a strong police force is hindering them and the positive peace when people do not fight because they do not want to. It is the second peace that we must search.

And on the contrary to the mission to the Old Testament Jews, Paul says that we shall not take revenge, for the avengement is the Lord’s. We shall not judge (Matt. 7:1). When the Law came, the children of Israel tried to follow it, and they punished the ones that didn’t. And the wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23). Israel brought God’s wrath upon the nations, and waged war against them. The OT wars weren’t just wars in our meaning; they were extermination wars, where everyone were put to death (Joshua 10:29-42). And in the end of the historical books, even Israel itself is punished by war. No one is sinless.
But while the law came through Moses, the grace and truth came through Jesus Christ (John 1:17). He did not come to condemn the world but to save it (John 3:17). Jesus came to free us from the curse of the Law, to free us from the death penalty which is upon us all (because we will all die, won’t we?). He who was sinless took the punishment of sin, the death penalty, upon Himself. And after He had defeated death He said to us to go out and to bring the news of this freedom from death to everyone. We are free from the Law, and we shall not judge, therefore we don’t have to circumcise, sacrifice animals nor wage war. We shall love our enemies. We are to through the power of the Spirit bring life to everyone. And life doesn’t harmonize with death. It is hard to bring a gospel of love to someone that you’re shooting at.

But what if shooting is the only alternative? Well, there is always another alternative. God wants us to spread the Gospel; therefore, He will help us to do that. If He can heal the sick, He can stop people from killing each other without shedding blood. Instead of killing evildoers, we can in the name of Jesus drive out the evil spirits inside them. Instead of stopping terror and oppressing in foreign countries with bombs and tanks, we can stop it by bringing love and grace to those countries. There are always alternatives to war, and those are available because we have a God whom nothing is impossible for (Matt. 19:26). We are not going to be passive and refuse to solve international problems at all. But we can with the help of God’s grace solve them in a better way than to kill people. When Jesus says “Do not resist an evil person” (Matt. 5:39) He doesn’t mean that we shall not resist evil at all, for the Greek word used here for resist (antistenai) means resist violently, not resist generally. Rather we shall resist evil, but not by using evil ourselves. We shall overcome it with good. We shall defeat violence but not by using it. War is namely a horrible thing, and few people enjoy it (although there are some folks who do). But many believe it is a necessary evil. Wouldn’t it be fantastic if it wasn’t necessary, if we didn’t have to use violence to feel safe and to free the oppressed? Well, the Bible says that we don’t have to fear anything, because God has saved us from evil – even from death. And Jesus insures us that he will help us spread the Gospel to everyone and overcome evil with good. Christian organizations like Christian Peacemaker Teams (www.cpt.org/) don’t ignore the needs of our world but go out to war zones to spread peace instead of war and love instead of hatred. Their slogan is “Getting in the way” and they say “What would happen if Christians devoted the same discipline and self-sacrifice to nonviolent peacemaking that armies devote to war?” They don’t just try to stop war, they embody the alternative to it.

So, do you want to join all the saints that through the centuries have worked for peace instead of war? Do you want to be a “peacemaker”? (Matt. 5:9). It may be tough and hard – making peace is as costly as waging war – but you won’t be alone. Millions of people have walked the way of the cross before you. And most importantly, God will help you and care for you. He bore the heaviest cross. His death is the ultimate sign of enemy love, forgiveness and grace. When He was struck, He turned the other cheek (John 18:22-23). He was slaughtered as a lamb. But His death lead to life, His cross lead to resurrection and His humiliation lead to glory. Nonviolence leads to victory. And together, we, His disciples, can with His help give this world the grace that it has hardly ever seen, and another sort of peace than the peace when people can’t kill each other although they want to. Preach His peace no matter where you will end up or how people will treat you. Love them until they kill you, and then love them more, just as the saints did before us. Amen.

For further reading:

http://www.ecapc.org/

http://www.centerforchristiannonviolence.org/index.php

http://christianpeacewitness.org/

Share  Twitter

Comment

You need to be a member of Christarchy! to add comments!

Join this Ning Network

Micael Comment by Micael on January 21, 2009 at 2:00pm
Oh, Jonas! I'm a friend of him too! We will meet now in february and discuss an Anabaptist Network in Sweden.

I will check out those sites. Thank you.
dlw Comment by dlw on January 21, 2009 at 1:37pm
good to hear.

I'm friends with Jonas Lundstrom, whom I met at the Missionsskola.

I hope you can consider and maybe share some of my ideas for a church community network and a house church model for voting (oops I switched my links) that asks us to lay our individuality/political prefs at the altar and vote in packs of say 30 or less based on 3-4 issues monitored by a steward for a community, while the others focus more on local community ministry.

dlw
Micael Comment by Micael on January 21, 2009 at 1:30pm
Don't worry, I'm to busy to become a martyr. And I still belong to a congregation like that, Korskyrkan in Karlstad (they have relations to Örebro Missionsskola). Our values and views are as differents as the Pharisees', tax collectors' and zealots' in the time of Jesus.

God bless you.
dlw Comment by dlw on January 21, 2009 at 1:25pm
Well, hopefully, we both learned a little about each other's view in the process.

Don't be in a hurry to become a martyr, dude. That's the sort of thing one doesn't want to do more than once.

Be sure to be part of a good community of faith, including people who see the world diff than you, to get more povs. Jesus's 12 disciples were said to include 6 "radicals" and 6 "conservatives, in a community totally unlike anything that ever existed before. So let us value the views of others we disagree with and make dialogue not polemic with each other.

dlw
Micael Comment by Micael on January 21, 2009 at 1:19pm
It seems like we agree and disagree at the same time, and my fingers are getting tired, so maybe this post should be the end of our conversation, if you don't mind? It was nice to talk with you. Good luck with the studies. And may we both serve Christ with our lives.

Peace!
dlw Comment by dlw on January 21, 2009 at 11:47am
Well that may be our critical diff: I see love ethic taught in the sermon of the mount as inherently eschatological. We are to practice it amongst each other and trust that, in doing so, it will spill over piecemeal into the rest of life. So long as we are in community, we can basically manage the tensions. If our community/faith goes stale, we disgrace the faith.

I agree that we shd not lord it over each other as the world does(Romans 12). But Lord Acton's famous dictum is that power tends to corrupt, it does not necessarily lead us to corruption. The key thing here is once again having a community that holds us accountable and keeps us from treating power as an idol. I also am an advocate for "A New Kind of Third Party" in the US. (google that phrase and you'll find my blog). I believe followers of Christ should prefer to locate their political activism/involvement within local third parties focused on contesting local elections and limit themselves to voting strategically in all other elections so they can focus on other more community-oriented forms of ministry. This seeks a modicum of power and significantly more influence over policy changes being made.

No one's saying that when you participate in the administration of the sword of the state in a professional manner that you belong to the State. That's the fallacy. When you render unto Caesar what is Caesar's you do not give up anything. It's like jujitsu, you give only a modicum, and in doing so you make it hard for them to take everything from you.

Peace is peace. The negative peace of the Roman Empire allowed Christianity to grow a lot in its initial years, without the use of the sword as unfortunately happened too often later on. One could argue the same existed for the Cold Peace in the past century, which enabled missions to pick up so that now about 3/4s of devoted followers of Christ are in the 2/3rds world.

We need to be as wise as serpents to remain as innocent as lambs. It's not an either/or, but a both/and/but. We need to "wage" both positive and negative peace but trust that it's only going to be thru changing hearts that real progress can be made. It's like with "The Departed" or "The Dark Knight", tragedy happens when we think we can overcome evil w. the use of force. It's more like we need enuf cover-fire to secure enuf negative peace that most of us can focus ourselves on spreading positive peace.

I don't say War is necessary, it is a byproduct of human fallenness. I say Peace/Order is necessary for Followers of Christ to spread the good news. I'm of the opinion that War always hurts our ability to point to the Cross and that we European/USAmerican Christians have been especially hindered by the long-standing after-effects of the 30 years war.

When we keep our eyes on the cross, we can make the hard calls to participate in trying to keep the peace, not unlike the choice Robert De Niro's character made at the end of "The Mission". We can do this in a way that points away from violence to higher ground as the way out of our blood-soaked pasts.

dlw
Micael Comment by Micael on January 21, 2009 at 8:03am
I believe that Christians should follow the Sermon of the Mount in all periods of life. Adn doing that can be tough when you're in the government. The state has a role to play, and Paul shows clearly in Romans 13 that we shouldn't use as you say zealos violence to overthrow Caesar and build up a Christian Empire. And I think that Christians shouldn't try to be Caeser even when using nonviolent methods to get there. The reason: power is polluting us. The power belongs to God, and there is a great risk when we use power that we make the power our idol. Of course if there was a kingdom which was rules by the Sermon of the Mount, that would be great, but the qoustion is wether the Kindom of God, which is such a kingdom, can transform to an earthly kingdom. Jesus said "My kingdom is not of this world" to the politician Pilate. Any effort of making such a kingdom will fail, because the World will kill it anyway. Although we should build God's Kingdom on earth, but not with borders and governments. God's kingdom is manifested in the Church. I think you agree with this. Now, should we work in the government? I would say no, because it is a great risk. When Paul speaks about athority in Rom 13, they are a clear "they", there is nothing there who says that we should belong to Caesar.

Now, there are two types of peace, the negative peace and the positiva peace. The negative peace is when people do not kill each other because they cannot, while for example a foreign army is hindering them. The positive peace is when people don't want to kill. War cannot create positive peace, but God can. God has given us an alternative to war to stop horrors like in Sudan, namely to spread the Gospel of love. Nothing is impossible for God, therefor war is never necissary. We can with God's help throw out demons from evil persons instead of killing them. War can never be waged without great human sufferings and deaths, therefor it is a true gospel that God has given us a new form of getting peace. It is exactly as dangerous as waging war, the cross is not easier to bear than the sword. But it is right and loving.
dlw Comment by dlw on January 20, 2009 at 2:25pm
Christian Pacifism is correct in what it affirms, but incorrect in what it denies...

And so it's a little bit more complicated...

Yes, followers of Christ did not fight back when they were persecuted and many did become martyrs. That is besides the point that I am raising. The Roman Empire was all about expanding itself indefinitely thru war. Clearly this is wrong, as is trying to rebel against the Empire and get our own people into power.

Can we oppose imperialism and serve in the administration and governance of the State? Could not the latter be a way to check the imperialistic tendencies of our gov'ts? Does it matter when the Roman Empire's reigning paradigm that deified its ruler was subverted so that Christians did not need to call its leader God in order to serve within the state?

One can hold to the love ethic within Communities of Followers of Christ and give tentative support to the need to use violence to check human fallenness. This includes the ability of a country to keep the peace and possibly serve to help keep the peace elsewhere(I'm thinking Sudan or Zimbabwe right now, and South Korea historically. ). But just because the professional use of force can reduce the extent of violence, doesn't mean that such is sustainable on its own and can push us forward. It is only the self-sacrificial acts of love by followers of Christ that make true "progress" possible.

There were a lot of changes in praxy going on among Christians from 30 to 300 and so it wasn't by any means a homogenous time. During this time, we see greater hierarchy within the church creeping up, paving the way for the chaos of the 300s and, in my opinion, our tragic treatment of the Assyrian Christians that abetted the rise of Islam that reduced the centers of Christianity from 9 to 2.

My position is simple: We cannot derive a universal principle for how we should relate to the state as followers of Christ, because Jesus's rejection of the way of the zealot does not preclude the importation of Christian disciplines to help professionalize the administration within the state(as occurred with Gregory the Great) nor does it rule out nonviolent forms of resistance to existing state policies or advocacy for reform that ensures greater fairness in whose interests are given some protection by the state.
dlw
Micael Comment by Micael on January 20, 2009 at 2:03am
Of course these fathers should not be the only argument for pacifism. If Christian pacifism didn't had seed in the Bible, it would be herecy. But the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount, the words of Jesus in Mt 26:52, Paul's words in 2 Cor. 10:3 and Eph. 6:12 and many other passages points at Christian pacifism.

It is not only with Justin Martyr the Christian pacifism arrives, it was living in the church from the beginning. Stephen's death shows great enemy love and nonviolence, although he was innocent. When the church is persecuted, they never fight back. Many of the fathers above became martyrs. They taught pacifism and nonviolence while they were violently attacked. The Roman empire wasn't that pacifistic, it was a pretty violent war-state, so where did th pacifism come from if it had not been preached in the church from the beginning? And why would the whole church emply pacifism when it was persecuted?

And as I wrote, no Christian writer said before Augustine that war is OK. The last biblical writing is written around year 90, Jsutin wrote his pacifistic view year 160. Between then, there were a couple of "apostolic fathers", disciples of the apostles or disciples of disciples of apostles who wrote letter to congregations just as the biblical apostles did. No one of them said that Christians could go to war. On the contrary, Polycarp wrote in his letter to the Philippians (chapter 2) "do not repay anyone evil with evil, insult with insult, fist with fist"... that's hard to do being a soldier. Didaché, which was written between 70 and 100, held strongly to the commands of the sermon of the mount and claims that love for neighbours includes love for enemies and turning the other cheek.

The First Church or the Early Church means in dayly speech the Church between year 30 and 300, the pre-Constantine era. I got at least 8 saints from that period qouted. And the thing is that there aren't so many saints left, these are the greatest teachers of the church in their time, Justin developed Christian philosophy, Tertullian developed the Trinity doctrine, Iraeneus fought against the gnosticism and was the leadning part in which books should be in the New Testament etc. And most importantly, they show how the church in their time thought about pacifism and war. If at least one of them said that Christians could go to war, then we could discuss weather pacifism was the teaching of the church. But non of them does.
dlw Comment by dlw on January 19, 2009 at 2:30pm
The first church is probably not the right word choice...

The "Fathers" you quote are from about a century after the time of Jesus.

As I understand it, the book of Acts in the Bible was actually named "Acts of the Apostles" and since the actors in it are primarily not the original 12+Matthias-Judas, it seems reasonable to argue that it implies a far more inclusive notion of apostolicity than the notion that emerged in the 2nd ctry CE that emphed that you had to be in continuity w. one of the above-mentioned fathers.

I'm a neo-huguenot, I refuse to privilege a theological/biblical interpretive stance taken by the state-churches of RCC and EOC.

So by no means am I writing off the "fathers", nor am I embracing the concept of "Just War". I simply am framing the issue as I see it and finding that the answer does not fit with an orthodox pacifist position like your own.

dlw

Badge

Loading…

Sites of Interest

The Jesus Manifesto is a webzine that asks "what does it mean to follow Jesus in the shadow of the Empire?"

The Common Root

Christian Peacemaker Teams

Jesus Radicals

New Monasticism

Relational Tithe

The Catholic Worker Movement

Events

© 2010   Created by Mark Van Steenwyk on Ning.   Create a Ning Network!

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy  |  Terms of Service