The philosophers will then with propriety be taken up in a friendly exposure, … but not in the manner of avenging ourselves on our detractors. Rather, it will be for the purpose of their conversion. For vengeance is far from being the case with those persons who have learned to bless those who curse. (2.347)
The spiritual man never cherishes resentment or harbors a grudge against anyone—even though deserving of hatred for his conduct. (2.450)
Paul does not merely describe the spiritual man as being characterized by suffering wrong, rather than doing wrong. Rather, Paul teaches that a Christian does not keep count of injuries. For Paul does not allow him even to pray against the man who has done wrong to him. For he knows that the Lord expressly commanded us to pray for our enemies. (2.548)
He teaches that the man of God does not remember injuries. Christ does not even allow him to pray against the man who has done wrong to him.... To say, then, that the man who has been injured goes to law before the unrighteous is nothing else than to say that he shows a wish to retaliate, and a desire to injure the other person in return. But this is also to do wrong himself. (2.547, 548)
Christians are not allowed to use violence to correct the delinquencies of sins. (2.581)
Hippias [a Roman] was put to death for laying plots against the state. No Christian ever attempted such a thing on behalf of his brethren, even when perseceution was scattering them abroad with every atrocity.
Note here the parallel Clement draws between the state and the church.
It is not in war, but in peace, that we are trained. (Paedagogus I/12)
We do not train our women like Amazons to manliness in war, for we wish even the men to be peaceable. (2.420)
The Scythians, the Celts, the Iberians, and the Thracians are all warlike races. They are also greatly addicted to intoxication and think that drunkenness is an honorable, happy pursuit to engage in. But we, the people of peace [i.e. Christians], feast for lawful enjoyment, not to wantonness. We drink sober cups of friendship. (2.246)
The one instrument of peace is what we employ: the Word alone, by whom we honor God. We no longer use the ancient psaltery, trumpet, timbrel, and flute. For those who are expert in war and are scorners of the fear of God were accustomed to make use of them. (2.249)
I knew that the early Christians were non-instrumental in their worship, and I knew that it was because the pagan Romans used instruments in their worship that the Christians did not use instruments. Interestingly, Clement here locates the rejection of instruments in worship as a form of resistance against the Roman culture of violence. As with the ancient Israelites, Roman worship and Roman warfare were almost of a piece.
If the loud trumpet summons soldiers to war, shall not Christ with a strain of peace to the ends of the earth gather up his soldiers of peace? A bloodless army he has assembled by blood and by the word, to give to them the Kingdom of Heaven. The trumpet of Christ is his gospel. He has sounded, we have heard. Let us then put on the armor of peace. (Protrepticus XI/116)
For Clement, the warfare of Christians is the proclamation of the gospel.
Let our seals be either a dove, a fish, or a ship scudding before the wind.... If there is anyone fishing, he will remember the apostle, and the children drawn out of the water. We are not to draw an outline of ... a sword or a bow, since we follow peace. Nor should we draw an outline of ... drinking cups, since we are temperate. (2.286)
Clement wisely recognizes the power of symbols to shape the character of the people that adopt them. Christians are not to be known for their violence, but for their peaceableness.
If you enroll as one of God's people, heaven is your country and God your lawgiver. And what are his laws? ... Thou shalt not kill.... Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. To him that strikes thee on the one cheek, turn also the other. (Protrepticus X)
Here Clement speaks to unbelievers about what conversion entails. Part of what it entails, according to Clement, is a transference of allegiance from one country to another, from one lawgiver (and set of laws) to another.
Were you a soldier on campaign when the knowledge of God laid hold on you? Then listen to the Commander [i.e. God] who commands righteousness. (Protrepticus X/100)
According to Clement, soldiers who became Christians while on campaign were expected to take their orders from God, not Rome. This meant that they could not kill. This is an early instance of a widespread rule regarding military converts to Christianity. Christians could be soldiers in peacetime, but could not go to war. If they were at war when they became Christians, they were expected to act like Christians, not like soldiers. There were a wide range of tasks for soldiers to perform in peacetime, which included administrative work, firefighting, and dozens of other nonviolent duties.
He bids us to "love our enemies, bless them who curse us, and pray for those who despitefully use us." And he says, "If anyone strikes you on the one cheek, turn to him the other also; and if anyone takes away your coat, do not hinder him from taking your cloak also." (2.370)
An enemy must be aided, so that he may not continue as an enemy. For by help, good feeling is compacted and enmity dissolved. (2.370)
Here we see that the early Christian pacifism was not based in political indifference nor in an obsession with personal purity. It was a direct extension of the mandate to “overcome evil with good” and followed the pattern of God, who made friends of his enemies, even at the cost of his own suffering.
Labels: Early Christians, Nonviolence, Pacifism
4 Comments:
this is an amazing collection. Thank you for sharing it.
I do have a question, however. Several writers cite Clement of Alexandria as the originator in the Christian tradition of the "just cause" and "right authority" requirements of Christian just war theory. I believe I've found the reference to "just cause" in his writing about the Hebrews taking loot from Egypt; however, I cannot find the reference to right authority. Any clue? I'm writing a piece to refute the assertion that Clement was a father of the just war tradition...any help would be appreciated.
Hey there.
I've never read that anywhere. Do you remember what sources were saying Clement was the father of just war theory? I mean, clearly it isn't true, as these quotations above indicate: the idea of a Christian killing for any reason was abhorrent to Clement. Nonetheless, I'm sure some just war theorist somewhere found some way to stretch just war theory out of Clement. Similar claims have been made for Origen, also false.
I've read a great deal of primary and secondary literature, and the consensus (even among most just war theorists) is that Ambrose, followed by Augustine, were the Christian innovators of just war theory. Before that, it was Cicero, the pre-Christ Roman politician.
I really would be interested in looking at the source you have for the claim about Clement.
Sorry I can't be of any further help. The claim is new to me.
I've found a few references online, one referring to James Turner Johnson, a "leading authority on just war theory," who is cited in a piece located here.
which says, in part: "The first major attempt to think through this problem came from Clement of Alexandria (AD c.150-c.215), whom Johnson regards as ambiguous at times, but who could also be seen as the first Christian just war thinker introducing two elements of what would later become standard just war theory, arguing for the defence of the Empire (just cause), on the authority of the emperor (right authority)."
Also, Darrell Cole, asserts as such in "Good Wars," here.
"Nor did Jesus’ refusal prevent some early Church Fathers from defending the use of force. Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius, Ambrose, and Augustine, to name just four, defended the just use of force unequivocally. Their various “defenses”-especially Augustine’s-were the genesis of the Christian Just War doctrine, a doctrine which insists that war can be the sort of thing Christians ought to support. "
I'm guessing that the "just cause" piece comes from running away with the following quote from Clement on the Hebrews leaving Egypt: "Whether, then, as may be alleged is done in war, they thought it proper, in the exercise of the rights of conquerors, to take away the property of their enemies, as those who have gained the day do from those who are worsted (and there was just cause of hostilities. The Hebrews came as suppliants to the Egyptians on account of famine; and they, reducing their guests to slavery, compelled them to serve them after the manner of captives, giving them no recompense)"
But, frustratingly, these articles are very sloppy in their sourcing.
Here are the statements of Clement of Alexandria I've found that are used by just war theorists to support the idea that Clement was an early Christian proponent of just-war theory:
Clement of Alexandria, Protrepticus, X/100:
Were you a soldier on campaign when the knowledge of God laid hold on you? Then listen to the commander, who commands righteousness.
Just war theorists take this out of context and use it to say that Clement commands Christians to obey their military commanders. In context:
Practice husbandry, we say, if you are a husbandman; but while you till your fields, know God. Sail the sea, you who are devoted to navigation, yet call the whilst on the Heavenly Pilot. Has knowledge taken hold of you while engaged in military service? Listen to the Commander [i.e. God] who orders what is right.
Clement of Alexandria, Pedagogue Book 3, chap. 12, 91:
Also to the soldiers, by John, He commands, "to be content with their wages only."
Just war theorists take this to mean that Clement approved of Christians engaged in warfare. In context:
Further, in respect to forbearance. "If thy brother," it is said, "sin against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him. If he sin against thee seven times in a day, and turn to thee the seventh time, and say, I repent, forgive him." Also to the soldiers, by John, He commands, "to be content with their wages only;" and to the publicans, "to exact no more than is appointed." To the judges He says, "Thou shalt not show partiality in judgment. For girls blind the eyes of those who see, and corrupt just words.
This is perfectly consistent with Clement's and early Christianity's proscription against killing for Christians in the military.
Clement of Alexandria, Pedagogue, Book 3, chap. 11:
For, as in the case of the soldier, the sailor, and the ruler, so also the proper dress of the temperate man is what is plain, becoming, and clean.
Some have taken twisted this to have Clement say that soldiers are "temperate men." In context:
The Instructor permits us, then, to use simple clothing, and of a white colour, as we said before. So that, accommodating ourselves not to variegated art, but to nature as it is produced, and pushing away whatever is deceptive and belies the truth, we may embrace the uniformity and simplicity of the truth.
Sophocles, reproaching a youth, says:- "Decked in women's clothes."
For, as in the case of the soldier, the sailor, and the ruler, so also the proper dress of the temperate man is what is plain, becoming, and clean.
Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata, or Miscellanies, Book 1, chap. 24 (entire chapter):
Our Moses then is a prophet, a legislator, skilled in military tactics and strategy, a politician, a philosopher. And in what sense he was a prophet, shall be by and by told, when we come to treat of prophecy. Tactics belong to military command, and the ability to command an army is among the attributes of kingly rule. Legislation, again, is also one of the functions of the kingly office, as also judicial authority.
Of the kingly office one kind is divine, -- that which is according to God and His holy Son, by whom both the good things which are of the earth, and external and perfect felicity too, are supplied. "For," it is said, "seek what is great, and the little things shall be added." And there is a second kind of royalty, inferior to that administration which is purely rational and divine, which brings to the task of government merely the high mettle of the soul; after which fashion Hercules ruled the Argives, and Alexander the Macedonians. The third kind is what aims after one thing -- merely to conquer and overturn; but to turn conquest either to a good or a bad purpose, belongs not to such rule. Such was the aim of the Persians in their campaign against Greece. For, on the one hand, fondness for strife is solely the result of passion, and acquires power solely for the sake of domination; while, on the other, the love of good is characteristic of a soul which uses its high spirit for noble ends. The fourth, the worst of all, is the sovereignty which acts according to the promptings of the passions, as that of Sardanapalus, and those who propose to themselves as their end the gratification of the passions to the utmost. But the instrument of regal sway -- the instrument at once of that which overcomes by virtue, and that which does so by force -- is the power of managing (or tact). And it, varies according to the nature and the material. In the case of arms and of fighting animals the ordering power is the soul and mind, by means animate and inanimate; and in the case of the passions of the soul, which we master by virtue, reason is the ordering power, by affixing the seal of continence and self-restraint, along with holiness, and sound knowledge with truth, making the result of the whole to terminate in piety towards God. For it is wisdom which regulates in the case of those who so practise virtue; and divine things are ordered by wisdom, and human affairs by politics -- all things by the kingly faculty. He is a king, then, who governs according to the laws, and possesses the skill to sway willing subjects. Such is the Lord, who receives all who believe on Him and by Him. For the Father has delivered and subjected all to Christ our King," that at the name of Jesus every knee may bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.'
Now, generalship involves three ideas: caution, enterprise, and the union of the two. And each of these consists of three things, acting as they do either by word, or by deeds, or by both together. And all this can be accomplished either by persuasion, or by compulsion, or by inflicting harm in the way of taking vengeance on those who ought to be punished; and this either by doing what is right, or by telling what is untrue, or by telling what is true, or by adopting any of these means conjointly at the same time.
Now, the Greeks had the advantage of receiving from Moses all these, and the knowledge of how to make use of each of them. And, for the sake of example, I shall cite one or two instances of leadership. Moses, on leading the people forth, suspecting that the Egyptians would pursue, left the short and direct route, and turned to the desert, and marched mostly by night. For it was another kind of arrangement by which the Hebrews were trained in the great wilderness, and for a protracted time, to belief in the existence of one God alone, being inured by the wise discipline of endurance to which they were subjected. The strategy of Moses, therefore, shows the necessity of discerning what will be of service before the approach of dangers, and so to encounter them. It turned out precisely as he suspected, for the Egyptians pursued with horses and chariots, but were quickly destroyed by the sea breaking on them and overwhelming them with their horses and chariots, so that not a remnant of them was left. Afterwards the pillar of fire, which accompanied them (for it went before them as a guide), conducted the Hebrews by night through an untrodden region, training and bracing them, by toils and hardships, to manliness and endurance, that after their experience of what appeared formidable difficulties, the benefits of the land, to which from the trackless desert he was conducting them, might become apparent. Furthermore, he put to flight and slew the hostile occupants of the land, falling upon them from a desert and rugged line of march (such was the excellence of his generalship). For the taking of the land of those hostile tribes was a work of skill and strategy.
Perceiving this, Miltiades, the Athenian general, who conquered the Persians in battle at Marathon, imitated it in the following fashion. Marching over a trackless desert, he led on the Athenians by night, and eluded the barbarians that were set to watch him. For Hippias, who had deserted from the Athenians, conducted the barbarians into Attica, and seized and held the points of vantage, in consequence of having a knowledge of the ground. The task was then to elude Hippias. Whence rightly Miltiades, traversing the desert and attacking by night the Persians commanded by Dates, led his soldiers to victory.
But further, when Thrasybulus was bringing back the exiles from Phyla, and wished to elude observation, a pillar became his guide as he marched over a trackless region. To Thrasybulus by night, the sky being moonless and stormy, a fire appeared leading the way, which, having conducted them safely, left them near Munychia, where is now the altar of the light-bringer (Phosphorus).
From such an instance, therefore, let our accounts become credible to the Greeks, namely, that it was possible for the omnipotent God to make the pillar of fire, which was their guide on their march, go before the Hebrews by night. It is said also in a certain oracle,- "A pillar to the Thebans is joy-inspiring Bacchus," from the history of the Hebrews. Also Euripides says, in Antiope,- "In the chambers within, the herdsman, With chaplet of ivy, pillar of the Evoean god."
The pillar indicates that God cannot be portrayed. The pillar of light, too, in addition to its pointing out that God cannot be represented, shows also the stability and the permanent duration of the Deity, and His unchangeable and inexpressible light. Before, then, the invention of the forms of images, the ancients erected pillars, and reverenced them as statues of the Deity.
Accordingly, he who composed the Pharonis writes,- "Callithoe, key-bearer of the Olympian queen: Argive Hera, who first with fillets and with fringes The queen's tall column all around adorned."
Further, the author of Europia relates that the statue of Apollo at Delphi was a pillar in these words: "That to the god first-fruits and tithes we may On sacred pillars and on lofty column hang."
Apollo, interpreted mystically by "privation of many," means the one God. Well, then, that fire like a pillar, and the fire in the desert, is the symbol of the holy light which passed through from earth and returned again to heaven, by the wood [of the cross], by which also the gift of intellectual vision was bestowed on us.
Just war theorists use this to show that Clement approved of military generals. In reality, this is a part of Clement's argument that Moses (though inferior to Christ, who Clement believed commanded the dissolution of war for Christians) was superior in every way to the Greeks. He is showing that the Greek legends about their generals' military campaigns copies the biblical narrative of the Exodus and Conquest.
Post a Comment
<< Home