Swords into Ploughshares? Ante‐Nicene Christianity and the Ethics of Political Violence

Abstract

Christian attitudes to power, politics, and violence have been complex and multifaceted for over two thousand years. On the one hand, the idea that all warfare is unjust might well originate with Christianity and its teachings; on the other hand, it is true that the Church's policies have been sufficiently flexible for Christianity to become the great crusader religion. In this context there is a contrast in thinking between what Christianity was once presumed to be and what it became but perhaps ought not to be. It is traditionally accepted that during the Ante-Nicene Period (approximately its first three centuries) the Church was essentially pacifist before it was 'militarised' by Constantine's unification of temporal and spiritual power in the early fourth century. The basic purpose of this review is to give a sense of the beliefs of Ante-Nicene Christianity, to test the historical validity of exemplary but competing claims, and by so doing expose and unpack the quintessential normative character of the debate.

Ploughshares into Swords? St. Augustine’s Ethics of Political Violence

“…He set out to expose heresies, counter anti‐Christian prejudice, and transform erroneous teachings that threatened the establishment of ‘sound doctrine.’ Previous to his period, as shown elsewhere (e.g. Gorry n.d. 2011), the attitude of Christians to political violence was mixed. The idealism and quasi‐pacifism of Ante‐Nicene Fathers such as Tertullian, Origen and Lactantius were not explicit heresies but rather tenaciously maintained positions which orthodox Christianity could support with ample New Testament authority (c.f.…”

“…This is a contentious definition but the essential thrust of his argument stands (see e.g. Gorry n.d. 2011).…”