The Warrior and The Pacifist: Which Way is Right?

The Thing With Non-Violence... 

Peace Keepers and Piece Takers 

4 min read

A famous messiah once proclaimed, ‘He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword.’ We all know the phrase, along with his calls for peace, like ‘turn the other cheek.’ Yet, paradoxically, his apostles met violent deaths. That outcome is the point of this post. Yes, so it was faith and not the taking up of arms that led to so many brutal endings. The early brand of spiritual pacifism ignited societal persecution against Christianity, but also other similar non-violent ideologies. 

Those scripture-based beliefs and philosophies were not common among the Germanic Pagan tribes, who in contrast, valued loyalty to their warlord, bravery in combat, and vengeance, for example. Piety to them was martial discipline and defending their people. They embraced war and viewed readiness to fight as a deterrent. These people also enjoyed what money could bring instead of denying it. 

It is strange how Christian ideals of forgiveness and martyrdom seemed to invite the worst kind of enemies. Why? Well, admittedly, Christians refused to pay respects to Roman deities especially on the festival of Saturnalia which required participation. Not only were Christians seen as weak for forgiving those who beat them, but also noncompliant sophists (possibly like insincere apologists of today) which was a concern for the ancient authority who saw such things as unnatural and atheistic. In Acts, Stephen prayed for those who stoned him. It wasn't all religiously themed; murder of non-Christian pacifists like the Stoics, Essenes, and Pythagoreans also contribute to this same paradox.

It's the peaceful types with something to share with the world who often attracted violence. However, on a practical level it is right to say that vikings did benefit from plundering gold enriched monasteries. They were guarded by peaceful monks during an era of religious tension! Later, Catholic Crusaders killed thousands of Christian Cathars for Heresy. The Cathars refused to fight back. 'Kill them all; God will know his own,' yelled a leading crusader. 

Quite an Alien Way of Seeing Things. 

The whole 'turn down the sword' mentality seems to be about dying simply to make a point. Let's be real, making a point simply wouldn't work against an over the top global threat like a bizarre monstrous alien fleet, for example. So why should it work against aggressive human oppressors? Can you picture it? Forget Romans. Consider this thought experiment: what would defend us best against a middle ages Avengers-style space invasion — appealing to the aliens sense of human morality with faith, or just fighting as viciously as possible? 

Then again, the formation of the crusader knights undermines their own cheek turning teachings. Take Joan of Arc for example, or even Saint Derfel, the ancient monk/warrior hybrid linked to King Arthur legends! These kind of knights just existing in a pacifist religion is literally as contradictory as waterproof teabags or rainbow coloured camouflage. 

A Harsh Point

Yes, living by the sword could result in death, as Jesus warned, but peaceful submission didn’t spare many either! The Gospels all simply imply we shouldn't kill each other, but does that work? How can we love our enemies if it is so unhealthy to do so? Unless enemy love meant something else altogether; a way of expressing a love of the challenge they hurl at us or to show value or genuine interest in the words of our enemies? 

     A.) Because those very enemies early Christian disciples were expected to 'love' were not interested in Jesus preachings. They all held various cultures and perspectives, often speaking languages unfamiliar to Jewish Aramaic or Hebrew, as we saw with St. Thomas's Kali worshippers who speared him to death in India.

     B.) Non-violence was not exclusively taught by Jesus Christ. It was commonly held by ancient Greek philosophers like Epictetus, Pythagorus and Socrates, as well as the previously mentioned Jewish groups, but also Romans like Cicero and Seneca, all held some similar views.    

I Guess That's It! 

In the end, very few appreciated the early pacifist. Over time, we reverted back to our warrior ideals that dominate to this day. Just turn on the news and see US and UK borders and military posturing shows that our reliance on the sword has not faded (well, it's all machine gun now). But, if none of us had resisted the Hitlers and Napoleons of this world it would have succumbed to cruel monstrous leaders many times over! Compelling champions like Charles Martel, the Hammer of the Moors, the RAF during the battle of Britain or the Ukrainians in their fight for their country: they all make the use of force a valid case!