the harvard ichthus

How not to argue for Christian pacifism

By Cameron D. Kirk-Giannini

Our most recent issue contains at least three arguments for pacifism from Christian premises.  After reading all three, I remain unconvinced of the truth of the pacifist thesis.[1] Perhaps this fact reflects callousness on my part; I am more inclined to think it reflects some deficiency in the arguments presented.  In fact, I can put my finger on at least one such deficiency.  I hope that it will be constructive for me to articulate it here in order to invite further discussion on the topic or even (if it is indeed possible) challenge entrenched viewpoints.

It is tempting whenever we attempt to draw practical conclusions from the Bible to cite some event in the life of Jesus, abstract from it a universal normative judgment, and then apply that judgment to the practical situations in question.  When the topic of discussion is pacifism, this strategy usually involves indicating some instance of Jesus choosing not to perpetrate violence or commanding another person not to perpetrate violence, concluding that Jesus viewed violence as impermissible in all circumstances, and finally asserting that the Christian may never kill.  The important part of the argument seems to be something like:

1.  If Jesus thought that violent act x was impermissible, then he thought that violent acts are impermissible.

2.  Jesus thought that violent act x was impermissible.

3.  Therefore, Jesus thought that violent acts are impermissible.

The first premise of this argument is false.  It is false because there isn’t the proper logical connection between Jesus’ thoughts about any particular violent act and Jesus’ thoughts about violence in general.  We can imagine that Jesus was not a pacifist and, at the same time, that he regarded certain acts of violence as impermissible.  For example, it is clear that Jesus regarded his nonresistance during the events surrounding his crucifixion as a necessary part of fulfilling God’s plan.  But it is not clear that we can draw any practical conclusions about killing from God’s plan for Jesus.  It is conceivable (and, it seems to me, probable) that Jesus’ absolute pacifism was necessitated by his role as Israel’s messiah.  Since no one else has ever shared that role, it seems unlikely that He would have regarded pacifism as a universal constraint on moral action.

Reconstructing Jesus’ views concerning issues about which we have no unambiguous scriptural statement is a tremendously complicated project.  Anyone who wants to make a claim about what Jesus thought must be prepared to provide a thorough exegesis of relevant passages in all four gospels.  To jump haphazardly to any conclusion about Jesus’ views on pacifism is essentially to fail to provide an argument concerning pacifism, for once we have decided what Jesus thought about the pacifist thesis the question of what we should think has already been answered (we should think whatever Jesus thought).

I am receptive to the pacifist thesis.  I think pacifists have many compelling intuitions about the value of peace.  But I do not see any good arguments for the pacifist thesis, and I will not accept it until I do.

---

[1] For our purposes, the pacifist thesis is the thesis that killing a person is in all circumstances impermissible.