EARLY CHRISTIAN SOLDIERS?

New Evidence: Early Christian Soldiers?

A few months ago, as I was heading into the second Pacifist Fight Club event which was called Round 2 – “The Means War”, I received an  email with links to an article which claimed that my position regarding the non-participation of the early Christian church in the military was inaccurate.

The main piece of evidence supplied to me at that time was the discovery of an historical (second century) document which detailed the actions of several Christians who were part of the army of  Marcus Aurelius. Second to that was a response by Tertullian (a second century church father) who claimed that the prayers of those Christian soldiers were instrumental in the victory of that army.

Since our event was only a few days away, I shared it with fellow presenter Thomas Crisp and we both did mention this evidence briefly during the discussion sessions following the presentations, but until now I've held off sharing a detailed resopnse.

About a month ago another brother in Christ (Herb Montgomery) contacted me because he had come across this same information and, like myself, was a bit crest-fallen to have discovered evidence that suggested the early Christian church actually did participate in military actions much earlier than we had come to believe.

I shared the research I had done up to that point with him and we corresponded a little back and forth. As a result of Herb’s continued research there is much to discuss regarding this apparent contradiction between Christian pacifists and those Christians who hold to redemptive justice.

Here’s a little more background information and a summary of what we found. (And by “we” I mostly mean Herb Montgomery).

 The Rain Soldiers

The event which informs this discussion occurred when Roman General Marcus Aurelius was preparing to go to battle with barbarian forces in what we now call Germany. His men were exhausted and suffering from heat exposure. The forces ahead of them were fresh and they were outnumbered. After praying to his own pagan gods (and finding no help), Marcus summons the Christians in his army and after they pray (“simultaneously”) water began to pour from the sky – refreshing them with cool water which they caught and drank from their shields – and pelting the barbarian horde with giant hailstones. As a result, the Romans won the battle.

When I first read of this account it stunned me. I immediately searched online for the source and found only one (a single book) and was immediately skeptical. Mostly because I’ve been reading about this topic and debating it with people for years and no one has ever (not once) brought up this as evidence that Christians were involved in military service before the time of Constantine.

Keep in mind, the Christian pacifist holds that the early Christian church was anti-war and anti-violence up until the corruption of the church by the Emperor Constantine in the mid 3rd century. How could it be that Christians were engaging in violence so much earlier than this? Well…hang on a minute and you’ll see the whole truth.

I continued to research and I did find an article on Wikipedia (a most reliable source of trust-worthy information, I know), which backed up the claims of the email and of the book that was quoted. Furthermore, there was a quote by Tertullian who not only referenced the “Rain Soldiers” event but also appeared nonplussed by the fact that Christians were serving in this army.

 The quote (taken out of its context, by the way), says:

“You will see this by examining the letters of Marcus Aurelius, that most serious of emperors. For, in his letters, he bears witness that the Germanic drought was removed by the rains obtained through the prayers of the Christians, who happened to be fighting under him.” - (Tertullian, Apology.)

In addition to this, we also have two other quotes by Tertullian referenced which also appear to contradict his many other non-violent, anti-military quotes, for example:

“Looking up to Him (God), we Christians with hands extended…constantly beseech Him on behalf of all Emperors. We ask for them long life, undisturbed power, security at home, brave armies, a faithful senate . . .” - (Tertullian, Apology)

“We (Christians) are sailors along with yourselves; we serve in the army; we engage in farming and trading…” - (Tertullian, Apology)

Now, again, you have to remember that Tertullian is the same guy who famously said:

“When Christ disarmed Peter, He disarmed every soldier." – (Tertullian, Apology; Appendix to Part 9)

So, you can see this appears quite contradictory, especially when added to the many, many other anti-military quotes by Tertullian that many Christian Pacifists hold up as evidence that the early followers of Christ did not stand for violence or condone participation in the military. However, when you peel back the layers and actually read all of the quotes in their entirety what you learn is that, (yes Virginia), the Christian Pacifists were right all along.

For example, when you read Marcus Aurelius’ entire epistle regarding this instance what you see is that those Christians in his army were non-combatants. And he even goes further to explain that the reason why they were non-combatants is due to their faith in Christ. Here’s the full quote with emphasis on the sections left out by our pro-military friends.

The Epistle of Marcus Aurelius to the Roman Senate reads:

 “Having then examined my own position, and my host, with respect to the vast mass of barbarians and of the enemy, I quickly betook myself to prayer to the gods of my country. But being disregarded by them, I summoned those who among us go by the name of Christians. And having made inquiry, I discovered a great number and vast host of them, and raged against them, which was by no means becoming; for afterwards I learned their power. Wherefore they began the battle, not by preparing weapons, nor arms, nor bugles; for such preparation is hateful to them, on account of the God they bear about in their conscience. Therefore it is probable that those whom we suppose to be atheists, have God as their ruling power entrenched in their conscience. For having cast themselves on the ground, they prayed not only for me, but also for the whole army as it stood, that they might be delivered from the present thirst and famine. For during five days we had got no water, because there was none; for we were in the heart of Germany, and in the enemy’s territory. And simultaneously with their casting themselves on the ground, and praying to God (a God of whom I am ignorant), water poured from heaven, upon us most refreshingly cool, but upon the enemies of Rome a withering hail. And immediately we recognized the presence of God following on the prayer —a God unconquerable and indestructible.”

The quote continues by arguing for the end to Christian oppression and the punishment of those who persecute them.

If we examine the Tertullian quote in its entirety (without removing all the annoying pacifist bits) we find out that he (believe it or not) was consistently non-violent in his theology.

For context, Tertullian was writing to show the Emperor that Christians were no threat to the Roman government and that they actually prayed for their Emperor as Christ commanded all Christians to do:

"Thither we lift our eyes, with hands outstretched, because free from sin; with head uncovered, for we have nothing whereof to be ashamed; finally, without a monitor, because it is from the heart we supplicate. Without ceasing, for all our emperors we offer prayer. We pray for life prolonged; for security to the empire; for protection to the imperial house; for brave armies, a faithful senate, a virtuous people, the world at rest, whatever, as man or Cæsar, an emperor would wish. These things I cannot ask from any but the God from whom I know I shall obtain them, both because He alone bestows them and because I have claims upon Him for their gift, as being a servant of His, rendering homage to Him alone, persecuted for His doctrine, offering to Him, at His own requirement, that costly and noble sacrifice of prayer dispatched from the chaste body, an unstained soul, a sanctified spirit, not the few grains of incense a farthing buys — tears of an Arabian tree,— not a few drops of wine,— not the blood of some worthless ox to which death is a relief, and, in addition to other offensive things, a polluted conscience, so that one wonders, when your victims are examined by these vile priests, why the examination is not rather of the sacrificers than the sacrifices. With our hands thus stretched out and up to God, rend us with your iron claws, hang us up on crosses, wrap us in flames, take our heads from us with the sword, let loose the wild beasts on us, - the very attitude of a Christian praying is one of preparation for all punishment. Let this, good rulers be your work: wring from us the soul, beseeching God on the emperor's behalf." – (Tertullian, Apology, Chapter 30)

See that? Tertullian is saying that Christians are praying for God to bless their Emperor even while they are being tortured and killed for their faith. This sounds more like the Tertullian that Christian Pacifists know and love.

Many have tried to say that Tertullian and Origen were not against military involvement because of any non-violent Christian pacifism but mainly because of the participation in pagan rituals and swearing allegiance to the Roman Emperor as a Deity. However, the following quote from Tertullian demolishes that argument soundly:

“I think we must first inquire whether warfare is proper at all for Christians. What sense is there in discussing the merely accidental, when that on which it rests is to be condemned? Do we believe it lawful for a human oath to be superadded to one divine, for a man to come under promise to another master after Christ, and to abjure father, mother, and all nearest kinsfolk, whom even the law has commanded us to honour and love next to God Himself, to whom the Gospel, too, holding them only of less account than Christ, has in like manner rendered honour? 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? And shall he apply the chain, and the prison, and the torture, and the punishment, who is not the avenger even of his own wrongs?” …”Touching this primary aspect of the question, as to the unlawfulness even of a military life itself, I shall not add more, that the secondary question may be restored to its place. Indeed, if, putting my strength to the question, I banish from us the military life..." - (Tertullian, The Chaplet or De Corona; chapter 11)

So, it’s fairly clear that Tertullian did not want any follower of Christ to engage in military action or warfare and that his reasons were directly related to obedience towards Christ’s commands against using violence. In this same work, he also argues that:

 “Of course, if faith comes later, and finds any preoccupied with military service….when a man [already in the military] has become a believer, and faith has been sealed, there must be either an immediate abandonment of it (military service), 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;”

In this document, Tertullian urges those who are already serving in the military to cease involvement and, if necessary, suffer a martyrs death (as was often the case).

Finally, let’s end with a look at how Tertullian handles the common objection we often hear from pro-military Christians regarding the Old Testament use and acceptance of warfare as an argument for why Christians should be free to go to war today:

“But now inquiry is made about this point, whether a believer may turn himself unto military service, and whether the military may be admitted unto the faith, even the rank and file, or each inferior grade, to whom there is no necessity for taking part in sacrifices or capital punishments [Note: he’s talking about an exception whereby a Christian in the military might not have to take the offensive oaths to Caesar as “Lord and Savior”, etc.]. There is no agreement between the divine and the human sacrament, the standard of Christ and the standard of the devil, the camp of light and the camp of darkness. One soul cannot be due to two masters—God and Cæsar. And yet Moses carried a rod, and Aaron wore a buckle, and John (Baptist) is girt with leather and Joshua the son of Nun leads a line of march; and the People warred: if it pleases you to sport with the subject. [Sound familiar?] But how will a Christian man war, nay, how will he serve even in peace, without a sword, which the Lord has taken away? For albeit soldiers had come unto John, and had received the formula of their rule; albeit, likewise, a centurion had believed; still the Lord afterward, in disarming Peter, disarmed every soldier.” – (Tertullian, Apology, Chapter 19)

So, in spite of so-called “evidence” that appears to contradict the claim that the early Church was peaceful and non-violent, the truth is still evident: The followers of Jesus did not approve of warfare nor engage in violence until the time of Constantine in the mid third century.

For those of us who desire to follow Christ with all our hearts, we cannot appeal to the Old Testament to support a belief in redemptive violence. At the very heart of this issue is one single fact: Our Lord Jesus commanded us to love our enemies, do good to those who hate us, and bless those who curse us. He disarmed Peter and he forbid His disciples to work violence against others. We cannot serve both God and Caesar. Our Lord Jesus has given us our marching orders. We cannot do less than obey His every word.

-kg

*SPECIAL THANKS to Herb Montgomery for his diligent research in this area. You can read his extensive treatment of this subject (with longer quotes and a discussion of Origen’s position) here>

NEW EBOOK: WAR IS NOT CHRISTIAN

About the book:

Jesus is the Prince of Peace, and if He commanded His followers to love their enemies, turn the other cheek and not to live by the sword, then why do so many Christians today support wars, torture and nationalism?

With an introduction by New Testament scholar Jon Zens, this book is a collection of articles and essays by author, blogger and teacher Keith Giles on the subject of Jesus and Non-Violence.

Giles is also the founder of Pacifist Fight Club, a quarterly gathering of Christians in Orange County, California who meet to discuss issues surrounding Christian non-violence.

This book explores typical arguments regarding the meaning of Jesus' statements against violence, as well as common objections related to the turning over of the tables of the money changers in the Temple, the command to "go and buy a sword", and various appeals to Old Testament scriptures where God leads the nation of Israel into battle.

Whether you agree or disagree with the author on this controversial topic, you will be challenged and inspired to return again to the words of Jesus and to investigate your own heart and motives when it comes to obeying the radical call to love as Jesus loves.

Download here>

SHANE CLAIBORNE INTERVIEW EXCERPT

A few months ago I interviewed Shane Claiborne over the phone. This is a short excerpt of that conversation. The full interview will be published in an updated version of my book, [Subversive Interviews].
**


Keith: What were the experiences that God used in your life to open your eyes to the needs of others and what it means to follow Jesus into solidarity with the poor?

Shane: There’s certainly a ton of those kinds of experiences for me. But the one’s that most poignantly stirred things up in me have been personal relationships with folks that are hurting in different ways.

I’d have to say that being in India and seeing Mother Teresa and the sisters engaging the poor in Calcutta was very transformative for me also.

My time in Iraq was also quite significant. Being face-to-face with the collateral damage and seeing the myth of redemptive violence; witnessing some of the most horrific things I’ve ever seen in my life. That had an impact on me, as you might expect.

Being in Iraq during Advent and the week of Easter was powerful.

I think we have a hiccup in our theology or our politics when we encounter real people. Prior to any relationship it’s easy to cling to our ideology or to quote statistics or whatever. But I can remember one of my friends in college telling me he was gay and he said he felt like God had made a mistake when he made him and he just wanted to kill himself. Those experiences really mark us, I think. Because they are real human relationships and to me those are the kinds of things that have created the DNA of what love looks like and what justice looks like to me.

Keith: You’ve hit on something I’ve experienced as well. I think that when these issues become not just talking points or clever arguments but they suddenly have a name and a face and you’re forced to engage with actual human beings who are your friends and they’re struggling with poverty or drugs or their sexual identity, it’s a whole different story. When the people you love and care about are caught in addiction or trapped in poverty, or whatever, it’s not so easy to quote statistics or give easy answers. I mean, it’s one thing to win an argument about these issues on a blog but it’s something else when you’re friend is looking at you with tears in her eyes and she’s asking you for help.

Shane: Right.

Keith: When I spoke to Jim Wallis we touched on something I wanted to ask you about if you don’t mind.

Shane: Sure. Go ahead.

Keith: Sometimes I think Christians in America confuse politics with social justice and they have very little understanding of the Biblical mandate we have as Christians to care for the least and the lost and to follow Jesus into these uncomfortable places, regardless of political affiliation. Do you agree that we politicize social justice? If so, why and how can we break out of that?

Shane: I think it was Cornell West who said that justice is what loves look like in public. I think that’s true in a lot of ways. The language that I use for social justice is the phrase “restorative justice” because I think it gets at the heart of what Biblical Justice is really about. It’s not just getting what we deserve but it’s about restoring what’s been broken and creating space for reconciliation and forgiveness. It’s really the idea of “Shalom” and how righteousness and justice are the same word in the Hebrew. This means it’s about making wrong things right again and repairing what has been broken in the community we live in.

I think it’s ok to be involved with legislation as long as we don’t think that love can be legislated, or that it needs to be legislated. But good laws are not a bad thing either. We just have to remember that good laws can’t change a bad heart.

So, restorative justice is a work of God and the work of the Church.

Keith: It seems that this is what has been working itself out in your community there in Philadelphia. Sometimes the solution may be found in a courtroom, or before a city council, but other times the solution is found in someone’s living room as you pray with them.

Shane: Yeah. That’s like a prayer we have painted on one of our buildings here that says “Come Holy Spirit and repair all that is broken in our homes and in our street and in our world.” I think that’s really beautiful because it recognizes is a personal God who is about the restoration of all things and His Kingdom coming on Earth. I think we need to see justice as encompassing inclusion and immigration and the death penalty and poverty and war and abortion and all these are issues of humanity. We’re called to care about those things. We have to marry all those things together and not allow them to be divorced in our minds. These are all inseparable concerns.

In the recovery community they say “We cannot fully recover until we help the society that made us sick recover.” So, I think that we need an integration of healing for individuals and for our world that has grown very sick.

Keith: You mentioned recently that your community is like an onion. I know that doesn’t that mean you smell bad and you make people cry. So, can you explain that concept and unpack it more for me?

Shane: Really what we’re trying to do is to grow people into an integrated and holistic Christian life. It’s about what we believe but it’s also about how we live. So, the onion was, for years, the way we did spiritual formation essentially. In the monastic order it takes years to grow into that rule of life. So, I think we’re correcting one of the shortcomings of Evangelical Christianity which has been so driven to do evangelism that it’s forgotten discipleship.

Keith: Yes, you’re right.

Shane: So, rather than making members on a Sunday service we’re really talking about what it means to make disciples instead of merely believers. It says we’re called into the world to make disciples and I think that’s where our Christianity today has become really shallow. Our faith has become a set of doctrines on paper and not about our whole life and how we integrate what we believe. I think Christians in the past have been able to say, “If you want to know what I believe then watch how I live.” So, we’re trying to get back to that.

We also recognize that people are on different kinds of journeys and there are different layers within our community so it’s not like you’re either in or out. As we see with Jesus there were many different people at many different places. There are some people who think they’re in but they’re on their way out. (Laughs) Because they’re choosing patterns that are really contrary to what Jesus is about.


NOTE:The rest of this interview will appear in the updated version of my book [Subversive Interviews]. Available soon.

-kg