Adin Ballou Addresses Common Arguments Against Christian Pacifism

[Home] [Books] [Links] [Charities] [Free Merchandise] [Store] [Add a Link] [Contact Us]

Adin Ballou Addresses Common Arguments Against Christian Pacifism

The following are several selections from Christian Non-Resistance, written by 19th century minister Adin Ballou.

Argument: "Jesus Only Prohibited 'Vengeful Resistance'"

[The arguer] insists that Christ was only inculcating the importance of executing legal penalties, and of using lawful inflictions of injury against assailants, in a right spirit. "He does not prohibit the act, but only a vindictive, revengeful spirit in performing it. Life ought to be taken for life, and various evils inflicted on evil-doers, as a just punishment; and self-defense ought to be maintained, even to the infliction of death in extreme cases; but all should be done without revenge, without unnecessary cruelty, and in pure love to the offender, as well as with a sacred reverence for the law." In this way Jesus is smoothly construed to have really said nothing at all - practically nothing that Moses and the ancients had not said. Did they authorize personal hate, malice, revenge and wanton cruelty in executing the penalties of the law? Did they not positively prohibit all such feelings and conduct?
In righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbor ... Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbor, and not suffer sin upon him. Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people. [Lev. 19:15, 17-18]
If there be a controversy between men, and they come unto judgment, that the judge may judge them; then they shall justify the righteous, and condemn the wicked. And it shall be, if the wicked man be worthy to be beaten, that the judge shall cause him to lie down, and to be beaten before his face, according to his fault, by a certain number. Forty stripes he may give him, and not exceed: lest if he should exceed, and beat him above these with many stripes, then thy brother should seem vile unto thee. [Deut. 25:1-3. See also Deut. 16:18,20; 17:2-12; 19: 15; Ex. 23:1-8]
From these and other passages in the writings of Moses, it will be seen that, notwithstanding the severity of his code, he did not authorize individual hatred, revenge and wanton cruelty in punishing the wicked. To make Christ prohibit only a personal, spiteful, malicious, cruel spirit in executing the authorized punishments of the law, is to make him the mere echo of Moses and his expounders; whereas he goes absolutely against the deed - the act of inflicting evil on the persons of offending. And by killing the body of the thing, he banishes the spirit of it. Seeming love, only renders the infliction of death or torture on offenders the more abhorrent to Christian sensibility. It is too much like a mother kissing, while at the same time she presses her child to death; or a beautiful damsel, with all her charming airs, embracing, and at the same time slowly thrusting a fine stiletto into the bosom of her admirers. Death is death, torture is torture, injury is injury, howsoever gently and politely inflicted. And there is a kind of fitness in having stern-hearted, severe-natured persons to execute such sentences.

Argument: "Jesus' Teachings do not Apply to Government"

Another pleads that Jesus was inculcating the duty of referring all punishments to magistracy and the government; that he prohibited a resort to private revenges; and only meant to teach his disciples to seek redress for the injuries done them in courts of law. This is a still lamer shift than the other. The connection gives no intimation whatever that this was his design. On the contrary, he enjoins non-resistance alike in respect to personal assault and legal wrong. If a man smite thee on thy right cheek, offer the other. If he sue thee at the law and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. If he make thee a prisoner, and force thee to go with him, resist not. This does not look like teaching them to go to law for redress of grievances, or encouraging them to make magistrates the revengers of their wrongs. He does not say, "Ye have heard that it hath been said, let every man take vengeance on his own offenders, and redress his own grievances; but I say unto you look to the government, complain to the magistrates, carry all your causes into the courts for adjudication." Not a word of this. And not a word of it is to be found in any part of the New Testament. Jesus Christ never sued, or taught his followers to sue men at the law. It would have sunk his divine dignity to contempt, had he exhibited such folly.

Argument: "Jesus Only Taught Non-Resistance for Small Matters"

Another presumes he intended to discountenance all petty vindictiveness, retaliation and litigation, but not to forbid these things in extreme cases, on a great scale, and where important interests are at stake. This is very accommodating, but very fallacious. Who shall draw the line between the great and the small, the frivolous and the important, in these matters? The injured party, of course. It is for him to say whether the wrongs done him are of sufficient moment to justify litigation, retaliation, or personal resistance; and the consequence is, that small offenses, insults and injuries, are rare.
Nearly all are too great to be endured. Jesus gives not the slightest intimation that he is drawing a line of distinction between great and small evils; and that he forbids his followers to resist ordinary personal injuries, whilst great ones are left to the law of resistance and retaliation. Such pleadings are only so many attempts of a worldly mind, to procure itself indulgence under the Christian name in practices on which, root and branch, the Son of God has placed the seal of prohibition.

Argument: "Jesus' Non-Resistance was Just a General Rule"

Another presumes to assert that Jesus never intended the precept "Resist not evil" for a general rule; but it was given to his early followers as their guide, when wronged by the tyrants under whom they lived. To resist then would be of no avail; it was better therefore patiently to endure. What a despicable expediency does this ascribe to the Savior! What a skulking prudence! Resist not evil when unable to do so! Submit to irresistible tyranny and outrage. Offer the other cheek. Crawl like spaniels, when you cannot help yourselves! But fight like dragons when you have a fair prospect of overmatching your enemies! To a mind capable of drawing such a meaning from the words of Christ, I should think the text would furnish a general rule, i.e. "Submit when you must, but resist when you can." If it were not utterly derogatory to the character of Jesus, and utterly unsupported by a single hint in the context, it might be worth while to attempt its sober refutation. As it is, the mere statement sufficiently explodes it.

Argument: "Jesus Only Taught Non-Resistance in Religious Disputes"

Still another argues that Jesus, though he preached strict non-resistance, as to the duty of his followers in all strictly religious matters, nevertheless left them perfectly free in secular matters, to resist, litigate, and make war at discretion. That is, while attending purely to religious duties, and propagating Christianity by divinely appointed means, they must suffer all manner of personal abuse, insult, outrage, persecution. and violence, without offering the least resistance, either by individual force of arms or prosecutions at law. But as men of the world, politicians, merchants, tradesmen, money-getters, &c. they are at full liberty to follow the dictates of worldly expediency, and to resist even unto death all who threaten their lives, liberty or property. This stands on the same sandy foundation with the others, and cannot be sustained by one single decent looking reason. Indeed, its bare statement ought to be its sufficient refutation.