Why You Needn’t Be a Pacifist to Oppose the Military

Every year Americans celebrate the Fourth of July, our national day of independence, and a few weeks before that Memorial Day, set aside for the recognition of American servicemen who lost their lives on behalf of the American government, was also recognized. Both of these holidays focus on olden patriotic values, of American identity, exceptionalism, and, most typically, American militarism. This point need not be belabored, for the overlap between the American civic religion and its military cultus is obvious, as these holidays and their associated imagery and symbolism demonstrate. Often, from social media to news media to even pulpits, the messages on days that come close to these holidays will reflect these themes and try to apply some element of the Gospel to them, most commonly, “Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends” (Jn. 15:13), and notions of “making the ultimate sacrifice.”

Now, among Christian libertarians and anti-statists there is a noticeable overlap with Christian pacifism. Accordingly, celebrations such as these, which Laurence Vance has labeled “high holy days” of the American civic religion, can be grating on the minds and spirits of anti-statist Christians in the pews or at the cookouts. It makes sense why this would be the case. Primarily, as Murray Rothbard defined it, the State “arrogates to itself a virtual monopoly of violence and of ultimate decision-making in society” and thus its very lifeblood is violence, because there is no hope or respite should you find yourself opposing the will of the State: “If we don’t like the decisions of the State courts, for example, there are no other agencies of protection to which we may turn” (For a New Liberty, p. 58). There is nothing more fundamental to the State’s power than violence, which, again, can be best demonstrated in challenging said power. So, if one’s a pacifist, it quite easily follows that the intrinsic violence of the State would compel them to oppose it categorically (such was the argumentation of several Christian theologians, such as David Lipscomb, Leo Tolstoy, and Jacques Ellul). More so, such an inclination would foster categorical resentment of the primary organ of the State’s violent tendencies: military force.

Now, as a pacifist myself, I have no issue with this, and it tracks with my own logic rather well. However, I’m always interested in and supportive of efforts to reach out of my own comfort zone and see how others who may be in an entirely different camp from mine can be convinced that I haven’t lost it, and that what beliefs we do share actually ought to move them closer to my stance. As it concerns such anti-statist rhetoric as outlined above, most Christians still aren’t pacifists, and even more so many Christians who are American are likely to have a serviceman in their extended family, which makes such rhetoric a tad bit personal to them. What can I say to such people who might feel a comment such as, “America is a bloodthirsty empire,” is a personal attack on the character and service of a relative (perhaps a child) of theirs?

First, I’d establish the middle ground, what we do share, which are the same verses that convince some Christians to be pacifists. As I’ve written, several verses, most notably Matthew 5:39 (“But I say to you, do not resist the evildoer”), are strongly indicative of a nonviolent lifestyle. However, even if one doesn’t accept this, it cannot be accepted that the New Testament’s ethical logic endorses any sort of organized, professional pursuit of violence. Paul instructing the Romans to “[if] possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all people” (Rom. 12:18) and Isaiah prophesying that on the Day of the LORD the peoples “shall beat their swords into plowshares” (Isa. 2:4), among many other verses and passages, make it clear that the Christian’s lifestyle is one of peace. As Glen Harold Stassen, who wasn’t a pacifist, astutely observes (Holy War in the Bible, p. 243):

Think of that vision [of peace] being spiritual not in the sense that it is empty of historical reference but in the sense of being well informed about the prophetic tradition from Moses to Jesus and well informed about the injustices practiced by the Slork government in Burma, of the Al Shabbab forces in Somalia, of the dictatorial Assad government in Syria, and of the United States with all its power biases and recent war-making in addition to its historical commitment to human rights for all. Our vision of a church really committed to making a difference for Jesus’ call to peacemaking will include our sense that our nation could be more committed to peacemaking. Jesus’ call to peacemaking will not be marginalized into some Platonic otherworldly realm but will lead us to ask whether our government is doing what it could be doing for avoiding the terrible destruction of war.

War is enormously different (as should be obvious to both pacifist and non-pacifist) from the use of force required in, say, defending oneself from a nighttime intruder. Scripture consistently lambastes warfare as a horrid, diabolical affair that leaves behind suffering and oppression, but the prophets also consistently speak of the coming peace of God: “He makes wars to cease unto the end of the earth; He breaks the bow, and cuts the spear in sunder; He burns the chariots in the fire” (Ps. 46:9).

Likewise, while Israel was called to war at times by God this only fell into two categories: one, the conquest of Canaan, more so about the Israelites reclaiming their ancestral homeland than reflecting a quasi-Spartan warrior culture; two, wars of defense against encroaching imperial or military powers (Israel rarely, if never, instigated a war herself). Hebrew wisdom literature makes it clear that a king’s conduct should, as much as possible, seek out peace, calling on kings to reign in justice and wisdom, and identifying such a life as peaceful (Pss. 34:12-14; 72:1-7; 99:4; Prov. 12:20; 16:7, 12, 13; 20:8; 21:1; 29:4; Ecc. 9:18; etc.; consider the peace and prosperity enjoyed under King Solomon, the wise king). Likewise, Israel was commanded to seek her strength in the Lord and thus to forsake any alliances with foreign nations or the stockpiling of military materiel. This was both to instruct the Israelites to trust in and depend on God in all things, not just for “religious stuff” but even for the vicissitudes of earthly life, to do as the LORD wills rather than man, His will very often being peace (on God’s intent for peace, despite man’s interference, see Greg Boyd, The Crucifixion of the Warrior God, 2 vols., esp. pp. 961-1002; also read Nick Gausling’s extended review of this book in our academic journal). Accordingly, we can say that Israel was instructed by God to seek out a non-interventionist foreign policy for herself.

Considering all this, which pacifist and non-pacifist Christians should agree on, we need only evaluate the performance and constitution of the American military apparatus so see how it conducts itself. Such an evaluation must horrendously and starkly fail. What has nearly a century of American interventionism to show for itself, especially in the last thirty years? Nothing but misery and wanton desolation. From tens of thousands of deaths (and thus countless grieving families), overlooked economic destitution, humanitarian devastation affecting millions of lives including the impoverished and the young (think of Schwarzkopf’s “Highway of Death”), many suffering veterans thrashed by an incompetent system, needless cruelty, even environmental destruction, the costs of America’s wars are simply unconscionable. America has been a Grim Reaper more than a Holy Savior to millions of people around the world. (You can find a harrowing decades-long archive of America’s imperialistic track record over at Antiwar.com.) It is simply gut-wrenching to contemplate all the ill conduct that can be laid at the hands of America’s military regime, and harrowing to go through all that has been set down concerning it (such as by Scott, Denson, Bacevich, Turse, Gareau, Brecher, etc.). Unfortunately, we can’t even seek solace in the bygone era of America’s “good” wars, like World War II, such perceptions often the result of deeply-ingrained propaganda (see here). Given all this, the famous statement by Ron Paul given years ago rings ever true: “If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem.”

We’ve said all this and we haven’t even addressed all America has done to “acquire many horses for himself” (Deut. 17:16), which may be best captured in two simple statistics: the massive growth in the military’s budget and enlistment over the past 50 years. King Solomon, who’s recognized as Israel’s good king, amassed several hundred talents of gold and thousands of chariots and for this was condemned by God of idolatry (1 Kgs. 10, 11); what judgment would billions of talents and millions of chariots have brought? It’s a great demonstration, in addition, of just how far America has fallen from a liberal constitutional republic to a dictatorial police state, in that the Founders, owing to their classical liberal vision, were well-read in a tradition that scorned standing armies that were seen as a surefire path to tyranny, instead preferring small private militias that would be assembled at a moment’s notice, their training and arming supplied by the general public (such as the famous minutemen). What would they think of a permanent, state-ran military with 1.3 million full-time soldiers backed by a bureaucracy of nearly one million apparatchiks?

Is opposition to wanton militarism and barbarous imperialism a pacifistic stance? Absolutely not. While I will personally regard it as the most consistent, it is far more a matter of basic virtue and human empathy to take an honest look at the state of American politics and militarism and be thoroughly revolted. As Laurence Vance passionately writes,

The U.S. military is a force for evil in the world. It fights unjust and unnecessary wars. It boldly goes where it has no business going. It fights undeclared wars. It bombs, invades, and occupies countries that pose no threat to the United States. It carries out an interventionist, reckless, and belligerent U.S. foreign policy. It acts as the world’s policeman. It makes widows and orphans. It fights wars of offense instead of defense. It functions as the president’s personal attack force. It destroys foreign industry, infrastructure, and culture. It fights senseless and immoral wars.

A Christian, then, through our most basic call to peacemaking and charity, cannot rightly demonstrate zeal for such heinous institutions as these. How could we live with ourselves when cheering on those who go to rape, pillage, and burn, or in raising our children to think it’s a badge of honor to join their ranks? They will most assuredly fall under the condemnation of the prophet Amos (6:3-4, 7):

O you who put far away the day of disaster and bring near the seat of violence? “Woe to those who lie on beds of ivory and stretch themselves out on their couches… Therefore they shall now be the first of those who go into exile, and the revelry of those who stretch themselves out shall pass away.”