For Part Four of this “Versus” article series, I am going to share some of my own thoughts and opinions based on my time studying the arguments presented by both Leo Tolstoy and C.S. Lewis. To gain some context for this article, it would be helpful for you to go back and read Parts 1 through 3 of this series if you haven’t done so already.
To start, I had never really given the idea of pacifism and the doctrine of non-resistance much thought prior to reading the later works of Leo Tolstoy. The more I read, the more I felt persuaded by his arguments and his passion for non-resistance. I can see why pacifism is so appealing to many, including Tolstoy. For one, it seems less morally ambiguous than all of the other options out there. If Jesus meant for His words to be understood with a simple and literal interpretation, things become black and white. Never resist, no matter what, case closed. We don’t have to wrestle with the moral gray areas. Not only that but looking at the life of Jesus, He himself seemed to have lived out this non-resistant lifestyle. As Tolstoy pointed out, throughout the Gospels, Jesus can be seen responding to conflict and persecution in a non-violent and peaceful manner. Overall, I can say that Tolstoy’s ideas have indeed shifted my views on non-resistance. Yet, I am not convinced that I or anyone else should become a pacifist. I will spend the rest of this article explaining why.
Authority
One important question I posed at the beginning of this series was, “What or who is your authority on the matter of pacifism?” I agree with both Tolstoy and Lewis that the authority we choose to look to in answering the question of pacifism is crucial. It would seem that the three of us agree that the best authority to look to for this matter is Jesus and the Bible. Although, Tolstoy does not seem to hold to the infallibility of Scripture in the same way that Lewis and I do.
Once we have answered the “what or who” question on authority, we must ask, where does that authority lead us? That being said, when looking at the Bible, I tend to agree with Lewis’ exegesis of Matthew 5:38-39 over Tolstoy’s. Tolstoy never seems to give any solid reasoning as to why one should interpret this passage in the Sermon on the Mount in the same way that he does. In the end, he makes many grand statements that are not justified with enough evidence. There are many examples in the New Testament in which Jesus’ words are not meant to be taken in a simple literal way without qualifications. I agree with Lewis that Jesus’ original audience would have understood the passage as, “If you are angered due to violence against you, control yourself and do not strike back.” Yet, I do not believe that Jesus’ words negate the act of protecting oneself or others from harm. Expressly, Jesus was referring to instances of personal revenge as opposed to criminal offenses or military force. Again, if the crucial factors are an injury caused to me by my neighbor and my desire to retaliate, then Jesus would say to denounce that desire. Once other factors are brought into the equation, the problem is altered. This means that in every situation where there is potential for violence, we have to use wisdom and discernment in order to question our own motivations. One such question we should ask is, “Am I responding out of a desire for revenge or am I trying to protect myself and others from harm?” The answer to this question might elicit different responses depending on the motivation discovered.
When it comes to authority, it seems that many pacifists tend to focus on Jesus’ words found in the Sermon on The Mount almost exclusively to support their position. Having said that, they also tend to avoid the Epistles in the New Testament as well as other sections of the Gospels. Tolstoy is often guilty of disregarding or ignoring Scripture passages that seem to disagree with his position. When reading Tolstoy, it also seems that he is looking for some historical Jesus that is in some ways distinct from the Jesus found in the Biblical narrative. You see this not only in his understanding of non-resistance but in his understanding of other theological doctrines as well. For example, as I have mentioned, he did not believe in the Trinity, The Holy Spirit being necessary for sanctification, God/Jesus coming incarnate for redemption, the hope of eternal life, and many other core doctrines of the historical Christian Faith.[1] [2] Throughout the Bible, there are many passages to support these historical Christian doctrines. If we are using the Bible as an authority, we should not only use passages that are convenient for our ideological presuppositions, but we should also use those that potentially challenge them as well.
Some passages that I believe need to be brought into the pacifist conversation are as Lewis mentions, Romans 13:4, and 1 Peter 2:15. Again, in these two passages we see the Apostle Paul and Apostle Peter approve of the magistrate’s use of force. If these two early Christian documents approve of the use of force, it cannot be inherently wrong.
One story that Tolstoy and other pacifists point to in their defense of pacifism is the account of Simon Peter drawing a sword and striking the high priest’s servant. (John 18:3–11; Matthew 26:47–56; Mark 14:43–50; Luke 22:47–53) In Matthew’s account, we find Jesus’ response to Peter, “Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword.” (Matthew 26:52 NASB 1995) Although Jesus warns Peter that there are consequences to such actions of violence, I actually see this story as supporting the non-pacifist position. If Jesus were really a staunch pacifist, why would he allow Peter to be carrying a sword around with him? It would seem that if Jesus was against violence in all circumstances, including defense, he would have noticed that his closest followers were carrying around swords with them. It would also seem that if non-resistance in all circumstances was a core of His teaching, the disciples would have been aware of it. So why was Peter carrying a sword at the ready, for defense?
Examples of Pacifisms Impracticality
There are many events throughout history in which practicing pacifism would have seemed impractical. One such example that comes to mind is the Holocaust and the rise of Nazi Germany during WWII. Throughout the Holocaust, six million European Jews and at least five million prisoners of war were systematically tortured, starved, beaten, and or murdered. It is hard to imagine what atrocities Hitler and his Nazi party could have accomplished if given more time with little to no resistance. One of the reasons I enjoy the great writers of the 1940s is because they had to write against the backdrop of Nazi Germany. C.S. Lewis, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and Viktor Frankl have a sense of realness to their thinking that cuts through the idealism that seems to dominate many pre-WWII thinkers. These men had to grapple with real evil at a time when it simply could not be ignored. Any moral conclusion we come to on the topic of non-resistance has to stand up to the test of these men’s lived experiences as well.
As a Christian Pastor and Theologian, Dietrich Bonhoeffer had to wrestle with whether or not force should be used to assassinate Adolf Hitler. He then had to decide whether or not he would be a part of the conspiracy himself. As Eric Metaxas states in his biography Bonhoeffer, “Bonhoeffer never arrived at decisions easily, but once he saw things clearly, he moved forward.”[3] For Bonhoeffer, the use of force to assassinate Hitler seemed like the only option for the greater good. Would it have been wrong to assassinate Hitler? I do not believe so. It seems that assassinating Hitler would have been the right thing to do.
Another example where non-resistance seems impractical is within the context of our own civil society. If we were to live out the ideology of absolute pacifism, we would have to abolish any and all local police forces. Ultimately, the pacifist ideology would lead toward some sort of anarchy, as can be seen in Tolstoy’s outworking of non-resistance. If police are permitted to use force to protect others, it would seem on a moral level, that everyone should be permitted to do the same.
These examples bring up another challenge posed by Tolstoy and other pacifists. This challenge comes in the form of what I believe to be a misconception. That misconception being, that they equate violence with evil. Romans 12:21 states, “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” (NASB) It would be a stretch to take this passage and correlate it to all forms of violence. It seems like there are numerous occurrences of justified violence in the Old Testament. If violence has ever been justified by God, then it cannot be inherently evil. This would point us toward the conclusion that there is such a thing as, “just war” as well as, “just violence.” One such example I would point toward is the Allied forces in WWII. That is not to say that all of the tactics used by these countries were just, but that their fight as a whole was just.
Pursuing Peace
One of the things I appreciate about many pacifists, including Tolstoy, is their passion and commitment to pursuing peace. Although I am not against the use of force in any and all situations, I do believe that we are called to pursue peace. Jesus’ words in Matthew 5 and his actions throughout His life speak to this reality. The Apostle Paul stated, “If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men.” (Romans 12:18 NASB) We are called to go as far as we can go to create peace in our relationships. This means showing grace and kindness to those who do not deserve it. This also means we should never take revenge into our own hands. If violence is used, it should only be used with the goal of peace in mind. If force is needed, one should use as little force as possible to accomplish the goal of ending or preventing harm. One way of saying it is, “Use force as a last resort.”
I like to think of violence in the context of a surgeon who is performing surgery on a cancer patient. There may be a scenario in which a surgeon has to cut or cause damage to someone in order to remove a tumor. The goal of the operation is not to cause damage to or harm the person but to save them. Yet, the byproduct of surgery is some harm or damage done. It is the same with violence against someone. The primary goal is never to harm that person but it may be a byproduct of striving for a greater good. That good could be as simple as stepping in to protect a child from the harm of another. That good could also be protecting one’s country from the force of another.
Overall, it seems that Tolstoy has been led astray by unjustified assumptions and an abundance of passion. Lewis spoke concerning the idea that some people have a hard time seeing self-evident inferences, not because they couldn’t see them, but due to “…a refusal to see, resulting either from some passion, which wants not to see the truth in question or else from sloth which does not want to think at all.”[4] I do not believe Tolstoy could be charged with not wanting to think, but there is a chance that his passion did not allow him to see the truth.
Conclusion
So, should I become a pacifist? I do not believe Christ’s words command it. I do not believe history makes sense of it. There may be instances where force should be used for the protection of oneself or others. Yet, I do believe that Christians are called to never take revenge and to strive for peace in their relationships.
FOOTNOTES
[1] Tolstoy, Leo. My Religion (p.55, p.21, p.46, p.127-134). True Sign Publishing House. Kindle Edition.
[2] Tolstoy, Leo. The Kingdom of God is Within You (p. 15). Neeland Media LLC. Kindle Edition.
[3] Metaxas, Eric. Bonhoeffer (p. 370). Thomas Nelson. Kindle Edition.
[4] Lewis, C. S. (Clive Staples), 1898-1963., The Weight of Glory and Other Addresses (p.67). Harper SanFrancisco, 2001.
Speaking Your Lingo 
Leave a comment