Welcome back to the 4th Ray podcast. We are going to look at another rebuttal to Christian Nonviolence today, and we are specifically going to look at early examples of soldiers in the Roman Army. The argument goes something like this: the early church identified that there were indeed soldiers who were Christians in the Roman army. And we see this as early as the the, like, middle of the second century, so the 100 AD. And if it's the case that we see soldiers, Christian soldiers, in the Roman army, then that seems to directly fly in the face of the the nonviolent assertion.

And specifically, if we're going to look at the early church writings and their, unanimity when it comes to, non violence, then that's going to seem to undercut that early argument. So, what does the nonviolent position have to say in response to this argument? First, the early church problem with soldiers was not necessarily the fact that someone was a soldier per se, but it had more to do with the actions of soldiers. And we see this in in John the Baptist, in the Bible, before we even have to, to utilize any early church texts, we see John the Baptist saying, not telling soldiers to get out of the army, but saying, hey, don't extort people and don't do violence to people. Pretty simple.

Being a soldier isn't an inherent problem, but what you do as a soldier is. Now, you might say, well, well, isn't a soldier, according to pacifist, isn't being a soldier inherently problematic like being a prostitute would be inherently problematic? No. And we'll get to that in in point number 3. But also, we see that some of the early church documents declare that, the actions of soldiers are problematic.

So, in the apostolic tradition, for example, it says that, if you're a soldier, don't kill. So they don't they don't have a problem saying, you can be a soldier so long as you don't kill, which might be hard for us to imagine today. Although, maybe it's not that hard for us to imagine because there are many individuals, most people who are in the armed forces today do not kill and may not even be directly responsible for killing actions. You know, if you're, if you're doing some sort of logistics work, or if you're building an army base, or, I don't know, some some other sort of stuff. You're a National Guard and you're helping hurricane victims.

There are lots of things that you can do that don't either have you directly or indirectly leading to the death of somebody, or doing violence. And so that's what the apostolic tradition said. It said, hey, if you're a soldier, don't kill. So, the problem was not being a soldier, the problem was the actions that soldiers tended to do. 2nd, the early church even did have a problem with people as soldiers.

But the problem was not with individuals remaining soldiers, the problem was with individuals becoming soldiers. We see we see this in several early church documents. Canon 12 in the Council of Nicaea is is one example where I think it kind of highlights what what the early church's issue was. They said, in that document it says that anyone who returns to the army, should they should have some sort of sanctions against them. So you had, at this time, a lot of people in the army, and you had a lot of people who were becoming Christians while in the army.

And, kinda like the mafia, or at least what I imagine the mafia is from movies or gangs, you can't really get out once you're in. That's just not feasible. And so, if you became, a Christian while in the army, go ahead, finish out your term. That's great. But if your time is up and you get out and you try to go back in, that's a problem.

You like that a little bit too much, and you shouldn't really want to be a soldier. So if you're a soldier, that's great. Finish your term. But once you're out, get out, stay out. And if you can get out, get out.

And if you're not in, don't go in. That's what the church had a problem with, people pursuing, the army, not people who remained in the army. So long as they were remaining in the army without performing particular actions, like killing, doing violence to people. And why wouldn't they want people to become soldiers if we know from point number 1 that it's possible to be a soldier without compromising actions? And my guess is that, it's probably like some of the other professions that were, reprimanded, that that, some individuals said you can't do this as a Christian.

Actors was 1, sculptors, and there were other forbidden practices. But let's just take sculptors as an example. You know, to sculpt something is not bad. Like, why why would you not be able to be a sculptor? Because you could be a sculptor and not do anything bad.

But my guess is that in the Roman world, to be a sculptor essentially meant you were going to sculpt idols. You were going to be asked to sculpt idols. And so they said, don't do it. Don't don't become a sculptor. And probably because of the association.

You know what sculptors do. If you're a Christian and a sculptor, people are gonna look at you and you're gonna lose your distinctiveness. And that's a problem. We don't want you to do that, so don't be a sculptor. It could also be because maybe there would be some, some requirement if the Roman government said, hey.

We need all sculptors to come and work here, and and sculpt some deities for us. Maybe you'd be obligated to do that, and so they recognized that, the state had too much control over your life if you were a sculptor. I don't know. I'm not a historian, to that extent. And so, but but we see that you have these professions that we know don't have inherent problems in them, where the church said, you shouldn't really do that.

Now, soldiers, we know, were associated with various sorts of of issues for the early church. Killing was one that we mentioned that people had problems with, and violence. But we also know that there were other things. John the Baptist shows us that theft or extortion was, the soldiers were well known for that. We know that they had lots of, feasts and such.

There's a lot of debauchery involved with being a soldier. And idolatry. We see that there were several Christians in the early church, who were soldiers and, who we know faced, persecution and execution because of their refusal to to to participate in God worship or emperor worship. And being a soldier was really problematic, not just for the violence aspect, but for the idolatry aspect and and whatnot. And so, just the early church, for you to become a soldier, just don't do it.

Like, that's a problem. We know what goes on with soldiers, and it's gonna be really difficult to remain to maintain your distinctiveness, so just avoid it. And don't don't go back into it if you get out. But if you're in, avoid the acts that you know are are wrong, and as soon as you get out, just stay out. Now, you're you're probably still asking yourself, well, yeah.

But the the job of a soldier is to kill people. So how are you gonna avoid this non violence thing? It seems like they'd probably be telling people not to become soldiers strictly for the the god worship. Because if they were okay with people being a soldier, as long as they avoided bad actions and we know that soldiers kill people. Like, like, being a soldier and not killing somebody is is just, like, that's an oxymoron.

But you have to remember that during the early church, from so from 27 BC to 180 AD, that is the official, those are the official dates of the Pax Romana, the the Peace of Rome. And you have to understand that at this time there was a very large peace, era of peace. It doesn't mean that there were no wars, it doesn't mean that there were no capital punishment, no executions, it doesn't mean that there were no skirmishes, but this was an era where there was relatively little fighting, and a lot of the Romans were essentially construction workers. The Roman soldiers were building things, the aqueducts and such. So it's it was quite feasible for an individual at at the time the early church is is writing and dealing with this.

It is quite possible that you could be a Roman soldier and never have to deal, or never have to face doing violence to somebody else. And there is a, there's one one, early church document that makes this seem like it it, or kind of helps to point to this notion, and I believe it's from the Synod of Arles. And what it does is it says, in a time of war, it essentially releases a Christian from the, from being a soldier. And, a lot of people read that and they're like, no, it's gotta mean the opposite. It means, Christians can get out of the army in peacetime, but in time of war, like, they need to stay in because that's when we need them.

But this document actually indicates the opposite, and that would likely be because, you know, if you're a Christian and you're a soldier, then, and you don't have to kill, you can be a Christian and a soldier. That's not antithetical, necessarily. But to be a Christian in a time of war and to be faced with doing violence isn't compatible. And so they they had an allowance to to get out of the army at that point. Point number 4.

And this is kind of a side point. It's something that I would just argue. It doesn't prove, my point on soldiers, but just it gives us some sort of a framework to understand how soldiers could have been viewed. I think Paul gives us a precedent for how soldiers can be nonviolent in the way that he he handles the, the issue of slavery. So, essentially, he tells slaves to, hey, if you can get free, get free.

But, I mean, honestly, it's the position that you're in, you're kinda stuck there, and it's not a big deal. Obey your masters. Don't sin. Right? You submit to to masters, but that doesn't mean that you, they're your ultimate master.

God is your master, and you're not gonna sin. And He essentially calls them to obedience within their position, but to remember what their true image is. Well, that seems to be the same sort of advice that that the early church is giving. Hey, look. If you find yourself in in a position of being a soldier, your image is in God.

Your your value is in God, and that's okay. This is the position that you're in when you became a Christian. If you can get out, great. If you can't, that's okay too, even though it's not ideal. But just in your position, don't sin.

Your your ultimate master is God, not Rome. And I think it's it's really the exact same sort of thing that we see. We're not gonna upend the social structure. We're gonna we're gonna find our value in Jesus Christ, obey Him, and submit to whatever position we're in. In the end then, finding that there are soldiers in the army, in in the early church isn't really a a revolutionary concept that is going to upend the nonviolent case.

I would hope that you would find converts in the army. And knowing what we know of the obligations that people had to the army, what do you expect? That, that people wouldn't remain in the army? No. It just doesn't just doesn't make any sense.

What we do see is that there were indeed people who remained in the army who, when faced with the choice of serving Roman battle, left, sometimes, most of the times, at the cost of their own lives. And so we see that. We see that very thing, and we see other evidence of of this being a problem in the document, the sonata of Arles. So, hopefully that clears some things up for you. And that's all for now.

So peace, and because I'm a pacifist, when I say it, I mean it.