Essay, Research Paper: Is Christianity A Pacifist Religion?

I S C H R I S T I A N I T Y A
P A C I F I S T R E L I G I O N?
_______________________


Christianity is a monotheistic religion, which means that God is identical with Christ, the saviour who redeemed sinful man by his suffering, death and resurrection. Christians follow the teachings of Christ, normally as interpreted by reason, authority and the natural law. Pacifism is the belief that all war is morally unjustified and that all international politics should proceed by arbitration and treaties under international law. Pacifism gives moral grounds for conscientious objection to military service. I believe that Christianity is not a pacifist religion, neither does it support the radical pacifist views.

Pacifists may argue that human history is continually progressing, humans are becoming progressively wiser and we are learning from our mistakes as nations and overall as a world; but although we may be advancing technically, medically and becoming more liberal this does not mean that we are progressing in wisdom or integrity. Both of the main Christian denominations, Catholic and Anglican condemn pacifist views on conscription: Anglican laws state that 'it is lawful for Christian men, at the commandment of the magistrate, to wear weapons and serve in wars'; similarly, the Catholic church contends that 'governments can not be denied the right of lawful self-defence, once all peace efforts have failed.' This evidence in its own proves that pacifists have no case in saying that they are supported by the Catholic or Anglican churches and have a right to think that they should be exempt from conscription because 'the human race has progressed' (incidentally the worst cases of human right violations have occurred in this century- the Gulag, ethnic cleansing and the Holocaust - hardly a progression!)

Many Christian pacifists argue that all wars do more harm than good. They say that, as Christians, we are required to be responsible for the destruction of evil and the creation of peace, and on these grounds, they claim that it is not morally just for us to go to war under conscription or of our own choice. These ideas can only be wrong. We can not say that all wars do more harm than good until they have happened, and this theory can only be total speculation. We simply do not know whether a war will cause or eliminate evil it before it has even occurred. Many wars have been undoubtedly justified: World War II eliminated evil and there has been peace in that area of Europe ever since the end of the war and neither has there been a war on that scale since. War is a question of justice. One can not think of what may happen if one does not go to war, but what must be the immediate response to a threat of evil. The Catholic church tells us that considering consequences is a 'secondary element in moral acts', the primary element must be of a just intention to promote good and demine evil. T.S. Eliot, a Christian poet, said:


'Take no thought of the harvest,
but only of proper sowing.
Make perfect your will.'

Pacifists may argue that many of the people who suffer the effects of war are innocent, and on that note they say that it can't be morally just to take innocent life. This is again a wild generalisation. Most of the people who are killed in war are soldiers, representing their nation or another nation in an alliance. They are, therefore, not dying as innocent citizens but as representatives of a nation. The nation for whom they are fighting must bear the collective responsibility for any deaths incurred. However, it is evident that in any war there will be collateral damage and innocent civilians will die, but all of this is not in vain as they are part of a fight against evil in order to promote justice.

Christian pacifists maintain that war and violence are fundamentally evil and retaliation is in essence fighting evil with evil. War, death and pain are by no means the greatest evil. To fight in a just war is not repaying evil with evil but repaying evil with justice. And, nevertheless how can anyone say that submission is favourable to war. How could anyone say that a savage, totalitarian Nazi or Communist Europe is favourable to war. The answer is that war is preferable to submission to evil.

One of the main pacifist arguments is that the gospels support the pacifist beliefs. They say that Jesus was a pacifist when he said in Matthew 5:38-40 'Do not set yourself against the man who wrongs you. If someone slaps you on the right cheek, turn and offer him the left.' Yet the pacifists take this too literally. What Jesus actually meant was that if someone hits you, keep your rage within you and do not retaliate, but what he did not mean is that if someone is deliberately attempting to injure or kill you, you have no morally just reason to fight back in self-defence. You do have a legitimate reason. The gospels are not to be taken literally, they are meant to be symbolic stories with a moral. It is also extremely unlikely that Jesus was referring to war, seeing as he was speaking to a public audience in a totally disarmed country. St. Peter also put his trust in the authority of the state when he said: 'For the sake of the Lord, accept the authority....of the emperor, as supreme authority, and the governors as commissioned by him to punish criminals and praise those who do good.' Pacifism was evidently not supported in the gospels and the only explanation for the pacifist argument is that they are taking the word of Jesus too literally and not seeing the real meaning.

The final pacifist case is that pacifism has never been tried on a scale with which it would influence enough people to be persuaded to believe in their views. If enough people converted to pacifism then there would be no violence and therefore no war and the true pacifist colours would shine through. This may sound convincing but it is an idealistic theory. Thinking realistically, only liberal societies tolerate pacifists and if somehow the liberal societies of the world are convinced and therefore convert to pacifism then they will be completely vulnerable to attack from illiberal and communist nations or sects. Even if you converted all of the nations of the world to pacifism, it is only in human nature for one radical to become greedy and commit crimes for which he can not be punished, and on a larger scale a group of radicals together could easily conquer the world. A Christian should think more on aiming to remedy immediate and local evils rather than launching into huge schemes for total world peace.
Peace is at the end of the road. There are many milestones to pass yet.

These arguments alone prove that Christianity is not a pacifist religion and neither does it support the radical pacifist views.