A Case for Anti-war Pacifism in the Threefold Word Part 1

Does the Bible preach war or pacifism? What about the Writings? What does God want for us when it comes to war and violence? Like many things you can pull examples for both sides, leaving the message sometimes unclear. Ty explores what the threefold Word has to say about war vs. pacifism, and works to untangle what it is that God teaches us is right. -Editor.

The morality surrounding war, both in what justifies it, and what is allowable within the confines of it, has been a controversial issue for thousands of years. In the Christian era, in particular, it has presented a rather difficult problem. On the one hand, it involves the systematic killing of other humans, something which is clearly frowned upon in the Word. On the other hand, isn’t it sometimes necessary to preserve good? Wrestling with these two opposing ideas led to the development of the Just War doctrine, pioneered in the Christian world by Augustine of Hippo. The basic tenet of Just War doctrine, that war is only justifiable as a last resort in self-defense, is one that is given ostensible support in the Writings. However, I want to challenge the Just War Doctrine on two fronts: first, I will emphasize the moral imperative within the threefold Word to engage in pacifism (specifically anti-war pacifism) to achieve desired ends, and for the second part, I will build on that case by piecing together some important, but largely unknown practical considerations regarding the conditions that fulfill the “last resort” principle.

Anti-war pacifism is a form of pacifism that admits that while personal self-defense is justifiable, waging war can never be made so. As narrow as it is, this is still a radical view held by few people at the present time. Yet, most people when speaking of war agree that it is a particularly heinous enterprise. The following statement from Divine Providence 251, then, is not that controversial:

[wars] are accompanied by murders, lootings, acts of violence and savagery, and many other heinous evils which are diametrically contrary to Christian charity. (emphasis mine)

Yet to consider that final phrase, that war is “diametrically contrary to Christian charity,” certainly it begs the question: how could it ever be considered a moral enterprise? How can something that is the very opposite of Christian charity ever be just?

To add further weight to that question, it is important to bring up some important Christian history. First, let us consider the life of the Lord himself. On a purely historical level, when we analyze his life as it is described in the Gospels, one thing stands out: at no point does the Lord take violent action. The closest he ever comes is when he reacts angrily to moneychangers in the temple in Jerusalem. Yet, it is important to note that in only one telling is “rope” or “whip” mentioned (Gospel of John):

So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.

Even in this telling, there is no indication that he harmed the money changers, so at best there is a vague reference to a physical threat. It is somewhat telling, to me, that when discussing the Lord’s pacifism in the New Testament how many fervently allude to this episode. Is it true what John Dear said, that, “Perhaps we want Jesus to have some trace of violence in order to justify our own violence”?

This episode stands in stark contrast to the rest of Jesus’ life as told through the Gospels, and makes attempts to find a Jesus that justifies violence even more dubious. Others have latched on to other ancillary events, such as the Lord’s “render unto Caesar…” or his praising the Roman Centurion in Capernaum. But when these events are weighed against all others, and specifically, the actions of the Lord himself, this essential truth remains: the Lord never engaged in righteous violence, and he regularly made radical claims in support of pacifism. One of the strongest claims is in Matthew when He states,

But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. (Matthew 5, 44-45)

If indeed righteous violence is so necessary a tactic in some circumstances, as many of us believe, why make such strong claims against it? Why not engage in righteous violence directly? He had plenty of opportunities. For example, as he was being apprehended by a crowd led by the high priests and elders, it is said that one of Jesus’ companions unsheathed his sword and struck one of the high priests. In response, the Lord said,

Put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?” (Matthew 26)

If Jesus is a God of infinite wisdom, why wouldn’t he rain down righteous violence? Surely if it were the preferable course of action, that is the behavior that should be modeled. The immediate response is that Scripture would not be fulfilled, but even so, the question remains: why must Scripture be fulfilled without righteous violence?

It should be noted that there are two important caveats here, but I don’t think they change the basic argument in favor of the pacifist interpretation of the New Testament. For one, the Writings make clear that all things done in the New Testament are for spiritual, not natural purposes. The things that the Lord says are indicative of spiritual things, and therefore, ought not to be taken literally. For example, in Apocalypse Revealed 52 it is stated:

Swords are often mentioned in the Word, and they symbolize nothing else than truth combating falsities and destroying them. In an opposite sense they also symbolize falsity combating truths...Therefore the weapons of war symbolize the means by which the combat is carried on in these wars.

Based upon that information, the Lord may be making reference to spiritual combat, which involves truth fighting against falsity, symbolized by the reference to living and dying by the sword. But does that substantially change the totality of the Gospels and the Lord’s actions therein as it relates to his aversion to violence? I don’t think so.

The other caveat is that this ignores the entirety of the Old Testament, which is rife with violence, much of it at the behest of God. What is overtly preached in the Old Testament couldn’t be too much more antithetical to what is overtly preached in the New Testament with regard to war. What is someone, who is an adherent of Christian pacifism to make of the conquest of Joshua, or for that matter the many other examples of violence in the Old Testament? The short, and admittedly weak answer, is that I’m not sure. I will say that the same problem would be presented for anyone who follows the Just War doctrine, as there are many examples where the violence initiated (even with overt support from Jehovah), is beyond what anyone would say is just. Consider, once again, the book of Joshua. God, already having commanded the Israelites to drive out those living in Canaan, and to destroy them entirely (Deuteronomy 7, 1-2), he proceeds to give direct aid in destroying Jericho, wherein the result of the battle is described thusly:

When the trumpets sounded, the army shouted, and at the sound of the trumpet, when the men gave a loud shout, the wall collapsed; so everyone charged straight in, and they took the city. They devoted the city to the LORD and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys. (Joshua 6, 20-21)

I doubt there is anyone who would take up such a moral position on war today.

Using the Writings, one may dismiss these various wars in the Old Testament as metaphors for spiritual warfare, temptation, and the fight of truth against falsity as that case is regularly made throughout the Arcana Coelestia (e.g. nos. 1664, 1788, 8273). While that may be seen as a double standard—”you dismiss the internal sense in the New Testament, but rely on it for the Old Testament”—I believe there is a key difference: in both cases, the internal sense is the same, but it significantly alters the external narrative of the Old Testament, where it does not with the New Testament. Claiming, for example, that the complete destruction of Jericho is symbolic of the necessity of totally “blotting out” a city that "symbolized that which perverted and profaned the truths and goods of the church,” is a quite different lesson than the literal version which advocates a form of genocide. No similar parallel exists in the New Testament that I am aware of. In fact, it may be argued that the internal sense is consistent throughout both texts with the Lord being the living vessel through which that spiritual battle is being fought. As is noted in Arcana Coelestia, the significance of Jehovah in the Old Testament as being a “man of war” is that he is “one who fights against falsities and evils, that is, against the hells, and conquers them, here who protects man against them” (8273). The passage continues and makes the connection to the New Testament:

The Lord is called ‘a man of war’ primarily from the fact that when He was in the world, He alone, that is, from himself, fought against the hells.

And that means of fighting on the natural plane took the form of nonviolence. Surely, that then is at least the ideal means of combating the hells.

The Writings themselves take up the issue of Just War most directly in Divine Providence 252, where it is stated,

Everyone is allowed to defend his country and fellow citizens against invading enemies, even through the agency of evil commanders, but it is not allowable for someone to become himself a foe without cause.

That’s a pretty straightforward defense of Just War doctrine, and try as I might to argue that, for instance, it doesn’t state exactly by what means they are allowed to defend their country, that becomes something of a dead end too, as previous to this passage Swedenborg explains that an evil commander can perform useful services in war because he is “craftier” and “his love of glory takes pleasure in killing and plundering” his enemies. Further, Swedenborg’s treatment of Charity in the Common Soldier (Charity 166) and in the Commander of an army (Charity 164) give just as clear of a defense of Just War, including references to killing and slaughter within the confines of war in self-defense. This, despite the fact that war and all that it entails is considered to be “diametrically contrary to Christian charity.” Not to mention there are references to ideal peoples whether they be the Most Ancients or those spirits from Tartary, both of which “know nothing of war” (Last Judgment 132). Surely that creates some ambiguity. That war is considered a permission may point to the fact that while it is “allowed” and those individuals engaged in such a horrific act aren’t specifically condemned by merely participating in that act, it still is at base an evil enterprise. As always, one’s personal motives are crucial, but as the Writings make clear, good people

are in the continual desire of doing good to others, because this is the delight of their life; and therefore as soon as there is an opportunity, they do good both to foes and to friends; nay, they do not resist evil, for the laws of order defend and protect what is good and true.” (Arcana Coelestia 8223)

Though the Writings don’t go into detail about what conditions must be met to justly unleash the dogs of war, based upon the description of the horrors unleashed in wartime, and the condition that it must be in self-defense, it stands to reason that it would need to be a last resort. Further, I doubt many would challenge the basic tenets of the Just War doctrine as it currently stands (something I will deal more with in Part 2). However, though there are clear passages that say that people are “allowed” to defend their country, it becomes more difficult to get a clear picture of what that means because of contrary claims that cast war as “diametrically contrary to Christian charity.” When coupled with the way the Lord acted while in this world, it presents a compelling case for anti-war pacifism. As we will see in Part 2 of my argument, the moral imperative for anti-war pacifism becomes even stronger when the conditions for engaging war require it to be as a “last resort,” which is fundamental to Just War doctrine.

Ty Klippenstein

Ty received his B.A. in History and Philosophy at Gettysburg College and M.A. in Humanities at Arcadia University. He currently teaches Ancient and U.S. History at the Academy of the New Church. Reading and writing about Pacifism and Nonviolence is an ongoing hobby.