Thoughts on Non-Violence Part 12: The Early Church
November 13th, 2006 | by Scott |It is undeniable that the early church was unswervingly nonviolent. Their initial interpretation of the words and life of Jesus was such that they bore the brunt of the sword without retaliation.
They were less concerned with the practicality of nonviolence and much more concerned with their faithfulness to The Way. To live and respond as the early church did to the oppression and terrorism that they experienced was not rational.
It was faith. It’s what prompted the reformed Christian killer to write in Ephesians 2:14
For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility
Christ was peace among them. He had reshaped, re-created and transformed them into people of peace: people who lived the way of the cross and not the sword. They knew that Jesus had not saved them from physical death, but had rescued them from eternal death redeeming them from the spectre of fear.
And this message of hope and reconciliation was intended for all people. No longer were the children of God to be defined by nationality, ethnicity or belief. ALL were invited to come. The gentile was no longer the enemy, he was the co-heir of God’s eternal promise.
As Paul wrote in Colossians 1:19–20: For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.
The early Christians were renowned for being peaceful. The second century letter to Diognetus had this to say about those early disciples (emphasis mine):
They pass their days on earth, but they are citizens of heaven. They obey the prescribed laws, and at the same time surpass the laws by their lives. They love all men, and are persecuted by all. They are unknown and condemned; they are put to death, and restored to life. They are poor, yet make many rich; they are in lack of all things, and yet abound in all; they are dishonoured, and yet in their very dishonour are glorified. They are evil spoken of, and yet are justified; they are reviled, and bless; they are insulted, and repay the insult with honour; they do good, yet are punished as evil-doers. When punished, they rejoice as if quickened into life; they are assailed by the Jews as foreigners, and are persecuted by the Greeks; yet those who hate them are unable to assign any reason for their hatred.
That’s who they were. They were marked not by the nations of this world but by a Kingdom that was not from this world. They were less concerned with “reality” and “practicality” and more concerned with faithful witness. They endured persecution and martyrdom for the sake of the cross.
Will Durant wrote:
There is no greater drama in human record than the sight of a few Christians, scorned and oppressed by a succession of emperors, bearing all trials with a fierce tenacity, multiplying quietly, building order while their enemies generated chaos, fighting the sword with the word, brutality with hope, and at last defeating the strongest state that history has known. Caesar and Christ had met in the arena, and Christ had won.
Do you see that? The message of Christ was propagated not by the sword, but by the cross. They were not trying to Christianize the world. They were offering a different world altogether. They were not seeking for a Christian nation-state. They were living the Kingdom come.
The agenda for the church today is to do just that: not to Christianize the world but to offer a different world, where there is no Jew or Greek, slave or free, American or Iranian.
But if we make the Kingdom a political objective then the Kingdom is lost. It is not of this world and was never meant to be.
If we truly long to be a restoration movement then we have to take into account the life of the early church. Origen, who lived in the late second and early third centuries, wrote “for we no longer take up sword against nation, nor do we learn war any more, having become children of peace, for the sake of Jesus.”
For almost 285 years the early church resisted war and violence. Ignatius called for warfare to be abolished. The only way that could be done, he stated, was to embrace the teachings of Christ. There were exceptions as some Christians “behaved like Gentiles.” But the way of the early church was that of peace.
Read this stirring passage by Lawrence Apsey:
The Roman Empire during the first three centuries of Christianity equaled modern dictatorships in ruthlessness, paganism and violence. Nevertheless, during this period, Christianity, by its witness of love and sacrifice, grew from a tiny Jewish sect to become a religion professed by the majority in the most populous areas of mankind. In the words of K.S. Latourette, a leading historian of the period, ‘Never in so short a time has any other religious faith or, for that matter, any other set of ideas, religious, political or economic, without the aid of physical force or of social or cultural prestige, achieved so commanding a position in such an important culture.’
During this period, Christians refused service in the army; and there is no direct evidence that they ever used force against the bloodthirsty persecutions to which they were subjected. While paying lip servie to the mythology of the ancients, most people in the Empire at the time of Jesus recognized no responsibility to a divine power beyond themselves, and their rulers spared no cruelty in the ten major persecutions which were launched against the Christians. Under Nero, Christians were torn by dogs or nailed to crosses and set on fire to serve at night as living torches. Under Valerian, the death penalty was enforced for meeting in church and entering cemetaries. Christian leaders were exiled for not doing homage to the pagan gods. Clerics were put to death, others deprived of property, enslaved or burned at the stake. Christians were happy, without resistance by force, to share the martyrdom of Jesus; and this had a tremendous effect in converting those who witnessed their suffering.
If we have any claims or interest in being a part of a restoration movement, then the legacy of nonviolence that the early church left behind cannot be dismissed out of hand. No matter how distasteful or untenable we might find nonviolence to be, the example is there.
Those who were just a few short years removed from the life, words, teachings and example of Jesus interpreted that life as a prescription for a nonviolent life.
It wasn’t until Christianity was co-opted that that changed.
21 Responses to “Thoughts on Non-Violence Part 12: The Early Church”
By jasonk on Nov 13, 2006 | Reply
But what if someone attacks my family?!
Okay, just kidding you, Scott.
Great post. I love reading about these early Christians, and the ease with which some of them laid their lives down. The Passion of Perpetua and Felicity is required reading for my Humanities students. The tender sisterhood they shared, and the grace they displayed by laying down their lives is a beautiful thing.
I doubt anyone who knows Christ would disagree that our lives should be marked by nonviolence, avoiding violent conflict whenever possible. However, our message will surely be overshadowed by a wide spread propogation of this belief to a lost world. What are your thoughts on that? That the average person in America will never get to the point of listening to the good news, because he is turned off by a pacifist ideology talked about by Apsey, where people refuse to enlist in the army to defend freedom and democracy. Just curious as to how you would respond to that.
By Scott on Nov 13, 2006 | Reply
I guess my response would be that faithfulness comes first. Ultimately, we will be known by our fruit. If you reduce all that I have said in these 12 posts as being just a do-nothing “pacifist ideology” then you have missed everything.
But if we go back and look at the pro-active way in which Jesus teaches us to turn the other cheek, go the second mile, etc then you will see that this is more than doing nothing. It is showing the love of Christ through our own love.
By jasonk on Nov 13, 2006 | Reply
I surely agree, Scott. I was merely referring to the quote you cited from Apsey, who seems to advocate an ideology where the Christian becomes a CO, which has never been a popular position in this country. Not that popularity is the most important factor here, it certainly is not. However, if we follow Apsey’s suggestion to be a CO, we will likely lose the right to share the Gospel at all.
I know you have not advocated a “do nothing” attitude, and I feel like you’re frustrated with me for my question regarding Apsey’s quote. But as a “not-completely-convinced” observer to your twelve part series on non-violence, that quote jumps out to me. You spend all this time building a case for non-violence, state clearly throughout that you do not advocate a “do nothing” ideology, but then quote Apsey saying that early Christians refused to serve in the army. Does he also object to the pledge of allegience? Do you see where I am going?
By Scott on Nov 13, 2006 | Reply
Jason, it’s a great point you raise. Don’t misunderstand me, I see the quibble with Apsey’s point. And our involvement in the affairs of state will surely arise as we progress.
I don’t know what Apsey’s conclusion would be on modern-day military involvement. Or the pledge.
All I have from him are two short essays: one on early Christians and non-violence, the other on nonviolence in America during the time of MLK.
I disagree that being a CO automatically negates your witness. It might to some, but not most. We have a strong history of COs in our country including prominent members of my own restoration movement.
By GKB on Nov 13, 2006 | Reply
Read this poem.
Be careful, I’ve lost a lot of time already browsing through the archives there…
By Scott on Nov 13, 2006 | Reply
GKB, that’s a classic poem. Let me recommend to you a series of writings entitled “Nonviolence in Theory and Practice.” It’s edited by Robert L. Holmes and Barry L. Gan.
It includes the poem that you linked to plus a lot of great essays. Tremendous stuff.
By justin on Nov 13, 2006 | Reply
Jason,
I’m sure that Roman citizens looked down on folks that refused to serve in the Army or who didn’t consider Caesar to be Lord. Yet, Christianity spread like wildfire.
If we’re going around flaunting that we don’t serve in war because we’re real christians, then we have a problem. If we show that we are willing to lay down our life to show the evils of violence and injustice, that is probably the strongest witness one could have.
By jasonk on Nov 13, 2006 | Reply
Christianity spread like wildfire because it is true, not because of any action or inaction that we take. I don’t want you to think that I would espouse a certain ideology because it would be the popular opinion. We are each called to be salt and light in the world as best we can, and in the United States, there is a strong correlation between God and country. If it is true that we have to earn the right to share the gospel (and I believe that it is), a commitment to the country that I love is an important first step toward that. Certainly one can serve their country as a non-combatant, as Scott has suggested, and still have credibility with those “God and country” people.
By Scott Freeman on Nov 13, 2006 | Reply
Ahh, JasonK and Justin going at it again. That’s the blog I’ve come to know and love.
I do think that Christianity spread like wildfire because it is true, as Jason said. But that’s not enough. It would still be growing like wildfire everywhere if that was the case. Action is essential.
I think part of our problem here is how much the way of Christ and the American way intersect.
By jasonk on Nov 13, 2006 | Reply
Scott! You are attempting to incite a riot here. I wasn’t going at it with Justin, honest. And I don’t think he was going at it with me either. Just a little brotherly dialogue is all.
Seriously though, if I thought that the spread of Christianity depended on what I do or don’t do, I would be very worried. The Bible says that if we fail to do what we are supposed to do, even the rocks themselves will cry out. Not that we have an out, but certainly the message of the good news will be spread in spite of us, not because of us. We are honored to be allowed a part in it, but make no mistake, this news is spread as a result of the divine move of a sovereign God, and if you think that our action is essential to its spread, you have overestimated your value in all this.
If I thought that one mistake on my part would mean the wholesale destruction of an entire group of people, it would drive me nuts! Like, instead of going to a neighborhood grocery to make a purchase, I went to Wal-Mart to save a few bucks, but I should have gone to the grocery because there I would have met a young man who needed to hear the Gospel, but now will go into eternity lost because of my cheapskate ways…oh, man I would be in a real quandry.
Incidently, the Gospel is still spreading like wildfire. Current estimates are that Christianity is spreading so quickly, that it amounts to the equivalent of a Pentecost EVERY HOUR in our world. 20,000 converts a day in China. 10,000 a day in Africa. 1,000 new church starts each week in South America. It may not be happening that way here in the States, but it is happening.
By justin on Nov 13, 2006 | Reply
The church is flourishing in countries where it is persecuted. It is flourishing where people put Christ above their country and don’t fool with nationalism, but realize that they are of a different kingdom. Its flourishing where people read “turn the other cheek” and they don’t question the validity of it, but just do it.
Its not flourishing in places where its comfortable… its dying. And its dying because while people like what Jesus says, they see his followers who are no different from themselves (and often times more hateful, greedy, materialistic, than their secular humanist fellow countrymen) and so they don’t give it a chance. What we have in america is borderline not Christian. Its civil religion, that is an opiate for the masses (as karl marx would say) we are making sure that we get out of hell for free, forget the fact that we ignore the poor and that we don’t mind dropping bombs on innocent civilians to protect our way of life.
Its sickening.
By jasonk on Nov 13, 2006 | Reply
Fifteen years ago, I spent a week in a conference with Leith Anderson. He had been with leaders of the underground church in China, one of whom said that if a person was not, or had not, endured persecution, that person was not truly saved. Anderson commented to him, “you just wrote off half the people I know.” The Chinese pastor replied that in China, they endure physical persecution for their faith. In the West, we endure persecution of a different nature. Mental persecution. Emotional persecution. We are ostracized from certain communities for our faith. It is persecution of a different nature, but persecution just the same. I have been the victim of such persecution.
By Scott on Nov 13, 2006 | Reply
Jason, of course it is God that gives the increase but He uses us. I think that Justin is right Christianity is not growing as rapidly here as in other places. We are somewhat content.
But the point is that the early church was decidedly non-violent. For those of us who pride ourselves in being a part of the American Restoration Movement we have to take that seriously.
By Doug Freeman on Nov 13, 2006 | Reply
I don’t think I will attempt to suss anything this go round. Its too hard on my cabasticating cathrods.
By Jon on Nov 14, 2006 | Reply
I agree that the church seems to have slowed tremedously in America. Part of the problem I think is that we don’t want to evangelize to those around us. We don’t ‘really’ want to live out our Christianity everyday everywhere. We will gladly raise $1,200 hundred dollars here in Huntsville to fly to the BAJA to minister to people there(which is an honorable work) but we won’t bother to spend $2.13 for a gallon of gas to go to the inner city and work with the poor and mistreated here in our own community.
As far as the non violence goes these past 12 posts have caused me to view romans 13 another way. Instead of taking Paul’s command to live at peace as much as it depends to mean that when pressed hard enough it is beyond my control and I can retaliate but rather I will affect what I can around me to reflect the teachings of Christ by ‘turning the other cheek’ and ‘going the second mile’ - this is what I can affect, this is what I can do that depends on me to do it.
Thanks you for these posts, while I still don’t have the protection vs action for family worked out and might never will because Lord willing I won’t be in that situation physically, I have come away with a clearer view of how I should think and act and not judge looking throught the lens of living a non-violent lifestyle
By Scott on Nov 14, 2006 | Reply
Jon, thanks for that comment. I think that Romans 13 is a problematic passage and we have taken it as license to behave violently. However, if we apply it consistently then what would that say about the revolutionary war? Our founders would have been sinning to go against the British, right?
And what about the passages in Revelation that give another understanding to opposing the nation-state?
But, I’m ahead of myself.
I think you are right, we deal a whole lot better with “mission” work than being missional in our own communities.
By JTB on Nov 14, 2006 | Reply
Although my experience in China is not, I freely admit, long or deep enough to give me any status as expert, I would guess that the Chinese pastor was being somewhat diplomatic for the sake of his American friends. There is nothing that we experience as Christians in America that compares with the experience of being Christian in China. Ostracized from certain communities for our faith? Well, I know that there was a certain amount of intellectual snobbery in the philosophy classes I’ve taken at Princeton University, but that doesn’t compare to, say, being afraid to admit to your father that you’re a Christian, or harboring constant guilt for “forsaking the assembly” on Sundays because you can’t tell your boss for fear of being fired…things that people I personally know dealt with every day. If we stretch “persecution” to mean that certain people consider you stupid or gullible for being Christian, then I guess I’ve experienced that. But I’ve never been made to feel fear on account of it, and this seems to me to be a real difference.
Scott, you didn’t mention Tertullian in your post…military service is on his list of unacceptable occupations for Christians. (Of course, to be fair, so is teaching.)
By Scott on Nov 14, 2006 | Reply
JTB, I’m with you. I really don’t believe that we, as Americans, have progressed very far on the persecution scale. I received an F once in college for writing a paper on Jesus as a historical figure.
But I bounced back.
I omitted Tertullian, and a story about Maximillian, because I’m not quite ready to discuss military participation.
By Jason Bybee on Nov 15, 2006 | Reply
Scott,
I’ve been catching up on the discussion when I can (in between grad classes), but I haven’t weighed in much because this isn’t really plowing new ground for me. I agree with everything you’ve posted. Sorry for not being more participatory. But I’m still here.
With regard to this post, I find Diognetus’ words especially haunting. The Spirit of Christ seems to have permeated those early believers to the point that the “practicality” of retaliatory response to persecution gave way to faithful witness in the face of persecution. What a powerful testimony for those of us who would also follow in the way of Christ.
I’d have to agree with JTB & Scott on persecution in America. Pretty hard for me to square mental or emotional persecution with some of the things our brothers elsewhere have to deal with.
The Apsey quote is an interesting one. Are we to surmise, then, that proponents of Christian non-violence should necessarily object to serving in the military or the police force? Like several others here, I’m ready to get to that part of the discussion…
By Scott on Nov 15, 2006 | Reply
Jason, all I’ve read, all I’ve studied, all I’ve posted and no new ground has been plowed? Dude.
As far as our participation in areas that might dictate our use of violence? I’m getting there. I just have to psych myself up for it.
By Jason Bybee on Nov 15, 2006 | Reply
You know what I mean about plowing new ground. I am with you, bro.