Anyone who has been following my blog knows that I’ve been studying and working through the dual-questions of “war and politics” in Christian life. My study of this subject intensified in 2019 when, while living in close proximity to Hong Kong, the Hong Kong protests broke out and entangled many Christians in that city in civil-conflict. Christians in my own city divided, both in support and opposition to the protests. Then in 2020 when we returned to the States in the midst of a pandemic with radical political tensions, these questions only intensified as I was forced to find my place in a nation where Christians had political voice. And now, I can now see, as I’m writing this in 2024, how these dual-questions could become all the more relevant for Christians in America as we face very complex political tensions in an election year.
So, we need solid answers to the dual-questions of “war and politics” in Christian life.
Tweet
Presently, there are two broad approaches to answer these questions: Just-war theory and pacifism. I was raised in a conservative Just-War view, but have moved away from this view almost entirely. As I studied the history of its development, I found its inception to be not only rooted in political compromise, but its self-stated aims (i.e. to prevent and minimize war) having completely failed. No historian that I’m aware of has proposed a single war that was prevented by, or even opposed by Christians because of the Just-War theory. Quite the opposite, the ultimate effect is that Christians in every nation have used the Just-War theory to justify their wars. From Christians in Germany who supported Hitler to those in America who supported dropping the atomic bomb on civilians, there’s no evidence that the Just War theory has ever constrained the use of force in any conflict. The Just-War theory has, therefore, no credibility since it has utterly failed its own stated aim. As a result, I eventually settled down in the pacifist camp. However, pacifism, while consistently opposing Christian involvement in war, has struggled to both find and accept Biblical answers to war (in-historic and in-theological contexts), and to propose an active and coherent strategy for dealing with evil. Pacifists are, therefore, often left with a feeling of helplessness in face of rising darkness.
So I am proposing a novel theory that I hope to work out in the coming months here: a “witness theology“. The name comes from a phrase out of a book I’m reading, entitled “It Is Not Lawful For Me To Fight” by Jean-Michel Hornus. In summarizing Jerome’s view on contemporary wars, Hornus wrote, “Nevertheless, amidst the unleashing of all this violence the Christian remained a passive agent. He was a witness, not a warrior. He accepted the wrath of God upon himself; he discerned it in the history of others. He warned and admonished. He did not himself administer the punishment.” Jerome simultaneous recognized God’s active work in judging the nations, including via war, while calling Christians to remain outside the administration of this judgment. Christians function as God’s witnesses in the midst of such conflicts. We are, essentially, God’s agents for peace working alongside his judgment, which is carried by the agents of his wrath (i.e. human government).
We must, like Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in Nebuchadnezzar’s fiery furnace, bear the heart of these trials as those who proclaim God’s justice and call people to his graceI
Tweet
I intend to detail this “witness theology” because I believe the deficiency of our present thinking about these issues drives the Church towards one of two catastrophic ends: on the one hand, Just-War drives the Church into spiritual-harlotry, while on the other hand, Pacifism to irrelevance. I believe our answer to these questions must be founded on the essential premise of what it means to be learners of Christ. Our answers must reflect an embrace of the cross, the sacrifice of self-denial, and the pursuit of Christ (See Luke 9:23). We must give answers that reflect Jesus’ manner of life and employ personal sacrifice as our answer to evil. We must propose solutions to evil that call people to the cross. If we fail in this, then we fail to bear witness to God’s will in Christ.
So, here’s what I’m asking my readers to do: imagine your country is embroiled in some kind of civil chaos. For Americans, imagine the 2024 presidential election is contended and the peaceful transfer of power fails for the first time in American history (I don’t believe it will, but I admit there’s a real possibility it could). Our cities are ablaze with political and civil tension, and open conflict begins to break out. What is your place in such a scenario as a Christian? Is your place at the end of a gun-barrel (Just War)? Is your place offering the hand of friendship to everyone (Pacifism)? Or is your place to be the voice of God’s justice and grace, calling people to repent and be reconciled to God (Witness Theology)? Would it better serve God’s Kingdom to kill your enemies (Just War), to love them (Pacifism), or to sacrifice yourself for the testimony of Jesus’ good news (Witness theology)? Take time to reflect on your answers to these questions and then see if the solutions I propose in the coming months help resolve any of the tensions you discover in your answers to these questions.
Likewise, while theories are often tested under extremes, such as proposed above, they must also function under norms. So, we must also ask another series of questions: imagine a contested election season that results in the peaceful transfer of power where various political sects are vying for control; what is your place in such circumstances? Is your place seeking political dominance over your ideological rivals (Just War), leaving those aside in favor of simply being a good citizen (Pacifism), or advocating in your specific spheres of life for God’s justice and grace (Witness Theology)? Would it better serve God’s Kingdom for Christians to use worldly means to seize control of government power to form a specifically Christian Nation (Just War), to leave government entirely in the hands of pagans in order to focus exclusively on spiritual quests (Pacifism), or to uncompromisingly advocate in the sphere’s that God places us for his justice and grace (Witness Theology)? I believe a study of Christian martyrs, both past and present, reveals a coherent set of principles that has yet to be clearly articulated in a consistent worldview, an endeavor I hope to advance in some meaningful way here. Maybe someone of greater intellect and standing than myself can read this and take it farther than I can.
So, what are your thoughts?
Share below!
A Dedicated Faith 
I’m curious, are you familiar with the classic Anabaptist doctrine known as “nonresistance”? The view holds that Christians should do no violence and that returning good for evil is a powerful and transformative weapon. Furthermore, since God has allowed violence for the non-Christian state, that means Christians shouldn’t get too involved in earthly government, politics, or patriotism.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, brother, I’m at least superficially familiar with the position. I am more familiar with Bonhoeffer’s, Tolstoy’s, and Lassarre’s views on pacifism. But, from your description, it sounds like they intersect in significant ways.
What are your thoughts on this?
LikeLike
The biggest difference between nonresistance and other forms of pacifism is that nonresistance typically holds that God allows the government to do violence (Romans 13) and that Christians should not be part of the world’s system. Pacifism is often a political position.
There’s a strong current within nonresistant thought that sees self-sacrificial love and responding to evil in purity of heart as powerful weapons against evil. Historically, in the early church and in the persecuted Anabaptist movement, their willingness to die without taking anyone’s life was what made the movements grow so quickly.
Tertullian, for example, wrote that “the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church.” My understanding is that some of the Anabaptists’ persecutors in Europe in the Reformation had to stop publicly executing Anabaptists because their willingness to die was drawing many others to embrace their faith.
Origen, when challenged as to why the Christians wouldn’t go to war, wrote that by their prayers, they were accomplishing more than the military could accomplish. He said that the pagan nations exempted their priests from going to war, and that Christianity was a religion of priests, who had God’s ear and who helped their earthly country to flourish.
When a person defends themselves with an earthly weapon or by teaming up with an earthly system, they are severely hampering themselves. That’s why I, as well as other Anabaptists, don’t fight or take part in politics. We have powerful weapons, such as love, service, self-sacrifice, and prayer. To try to protect ourselves and our families with other weapons too would be like trying to fight with a gun in one hand and a table fork in the other. It would just be so much more effective to stop using the weaker weapons and use the stronger ones alone.
So that’s why I see there as being some intersections between what you’ve termed witness theology and nonresistance.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, okay, that seems to be my understanding of non-resistance as well. I can’t think of the name of the author right now (maybe Oden?), but one author I studied who advocated for non-resistance very much framed “self-sacrificing love” as our primary weapon, and I very much embrace that.
I think where I might differ is in the hard line rejection of any participation in political spheres. I do not believe Christians are permitted to disobey Jesus’ directives, but, I believe that Jesus has the divine prerogative to place them in places of power and call upon them to suffer for him in those places. I am looking at Daniel for much of my thoughts on this, which I will try to detail in the months to come. So I think this is perhaps one of the points of difference.
I’m not sure about this point, but, one of the points I’ve drawn from studying Dietrich Bonhoeffer and his correspondence, especially with Lassarre and Barth (although I don’t like Barth) is the moral duty a Christian has to combat evil with good. In other words, we can’t only run to seek safety, but we must also look for ways to actively do good. I don’t know what non-resistance thinks of this for sure, but I don’t know that I saw much in way of advocating for this moral responsibility.
LikeLike
In the scenario you pose of civil unrest it would depend on what circumstance I’m facing. On one hand if threatened I’m going to protect myself and my family. I don’t think it’s wise to get in the middle of the fray if things are out of control. Given a chance to reach out to people in peace, then of course I would do so and encourage it.
LikeLiked by 1 person