Attitudes to Pacifism

Pacifism: rejecting violence, not ignoring injustice

Pacifism is the belief that war and violence are wrong and that conflict should be settled peacefully. A pacifist rejects fighting even when a war is presented as necessary or justified. This does not mean accepting injustice: pacifists can campaign for human rights, negotiate between opponents and help people harmed by conflict.

Christians agree that peace matters, but disagree about whether violence can ever be justified. The central question is whether following Jesus requires refusing all violence, or whether protecting others can sometimes require force.

Why some Christians are pacifists

Christian pacifists look to Jesus’ teaching and example. ‘Blessed are the peacemakers’ (Matthew 5:9) gives peace-making religious importance. His teaching to ‘turn the other cheek’ (Matthew 5:39) is understood as rejecting retaliation rather than answering harm with further harm.

Jesus also rebuked the use of a sword at his arrest (Matthew 26:52–54). He accepted suffering and crucifixion rather than violently attacking his opponents. Pacifists argue that Christians should follow this example: they may be willing to suffer or die for their beliefs, but not to kill for them. Prayer and an inner sense of peace can help them resist anger and revenge.

Pacifism has a long Christian history. Many early Christians refused violence and retaliation against persecutors; writers such as Tertullian and Origen emphasised peace and love of enemies. This was not simply a modern response to destructive weapons.

During the First and Second World Wars, some Christian conscientious objectors refused to fight because killing conflicted with their faith. Some faced punishment or imprisonment. Others served in non-combat roles, including medical and relief work. Such service could still be dangerous: refusing to kill did not necessarily mean refusing to help or avoiding personal risk.

Quakers and the peace testimony

Quakers, also called the Religious Society of Friends, have a longstanding commitment to peace. Their peace testimony is a commitment expressed through how they live, not merely a statement that peace is desirable.

Christian Quakers connect this commitment with Jesus’ teachings about love, forgiveness and justice. The belief that every person is created in God’s image gives each person value, including an enemy. From this perspective, nationality or religion cannot make another person’s life expendable.

Quakers argue that violence tends to produce further violence rather than lasting reconciliation. Their response is to work through dialogue, negotiation, humanitarian aid and non-violent protest. Peace means more than the absence of fighting: it also involves addressing injustice and restoring relationships. This explains why opposition to war can go alongside active campaigns for social change.

Why other Christians reject absolute pacifism

Some Christians argue that love of neighbour includes defending people from aggression. If peaceful methods fail, refusing all force might leave innocent people exposed to violence or oppression. They therefore accept that force can sometimes be justified, while still treating peace as the goal.

They may point to biblical accounts of warfare or interpret Romans 13:1–7 as recognising the state’s responsibility to maintain order and restrain wrongdoing. Some also cite Jesus overturning the money changers’ tables in the Temple (Matthew 21:12) as evidence that confronting injustice need not always be gentle. Pacifists can reply that this action does not establish permission to kill or wage war.

The disagreement concerns how to protect human life. Pacifists argue that Christians must not use the violence they condemn; other Christians argue that an absolute refusal of force can fail those who need protection. Some consequently support war only under strict moral conditions, rather than supporting warfare generally.

Passive resistance: peaceful action against injustice

Passive resistance means opposing injustice without violence. Despite its name, it is not simply doing nothing. A boycott withdraws cooperation; a peaceful march makes opposition visible; civil disobedience challenges an unjust law by deliberately refusing to obey it.

Christian supporters see these methods as a way to combine love of enemies with resistance to wrongdoing. They can oppose an unjust system without treating the people responsible as enemies to be harmed. A Christian may support passive resistance in a particular campaign without being an absolute pacifist about every possible war.

Other Christians question whether peaceful resistance will always work. An opponent might ignore protests or respond with violence. They may argue that stronger intervention is needed to protect victims. Supporters reply that violent retaliation can deepen hatred, whereas disciplined non-violence can expose injustice and win wider support.

John 14:22–31: peace, obedience and courage

In John 14:22–31, Jesus prepares his disciples for his departure. Judas—not Judas Iscariot—asks why Jesus will reveal himself to the disciples rather than the world. Jesus answers by linking love for him with obedience to his teaching. He promises that the Holy Spirit, called the Advocate, will teach the disciples and remind them of his words.

The central promise is: ‘Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you’ (John 14:27). Jesus distinguishes his peace from what the world gives and tells the disciples not to be troubled or afraid. He speaks of going to the Father and of remaining obedient despite the approaching threat.

Christians who support passive resistance interpret this as encouragement to act from faith rather than fear or revenge. Peace is not dependent on having no enemies or facing no danger. Obedience to Jesus can therefore require courage when peaceful action brings suffering.

However, the passage does not explicitly settle whether all force is forbidden. Other Christians understand it primarily as a promise of spiritual peace and God’s presence. They can accept its teaching while arguing that protecting others may sometimes require force. The different conclusions depend on how Christians connect this passage with the wider teaching and example of Jesus.

Martin Luther King and the Montgomery bus boycott

Martin Luther King Jr was a Baptist minister and an American civil rights leader. He challenged racial segregation through non-violent action, connecting Christian love with methods influenced by Gandhi. His aim was to change unjust treatment, not to take revenge on white Americans.

A clear example is the Montgomery bus boycott in Alabama. After Rosa Parks was arrested on 1 December 1955 for challenging bus segregation, a boycott began on 5 December. Black residents refused to use the buses, putting pressure on the bus system by withdrawing their custom. King became president of the Montgomery Improvement Association, which coordinated the campaign.

The boycott depended on collective effort, not King alone. Women’s organisations helped organise it, residents walked instead of riding, and volunteers developed a carpool system. Participants sustained the protest despite intimidation and legal action. King’s home was bombed, but he urged the crowd that gathered to remain calm rather than retaliate.

The boycott ended on 20 December 1956, after the US Supreme Court upheld a ruling that bus segregation was unconstitutional. King and other leaders boarded an integrated bus the next morning. Sustained non-violent pressure worked alongside legal action to secure this change.

Judging the value of passive resistance

Montgomery shows that passive resistance can challenge injustice effectively. It mobilised a community, attracted wider support and pursued change without making violent retaliation its method. For Christian supporters, this joined the pursuit of justice with Jesus’ teaching about peace and love.

Its limitations also matter. The campaign lasted over a year, imposed hardship on participants and did not protect them from attacks. Its success depended on organisation, persistence and a legal system capable of enforcing change. One successful campaign does not prove that every violent oppressor will respond similarly.

A justified conclusion might therefore support passive resistance as a powerful Christian response to injustice while recognising that its effectiveness depends on circumstances. An absolute pacifist would add that refusing violence remains morally right even when success is uncertain; a non-pacifist Christian might argue that force becomes necessary if peaceful methods cannot protect the innocent.