May 15: International Conscientious Objection Day

Today is International Conscientious Objection Day—a good opportunity to lay out a few basics of this philosophy and a related one.  A CO, or Conscientious Objector, is an individual who refuses to participate in the military structure.

Some years ago, I was quick to distinguish Conscientious Objection from Pacifism.  I would say, “I’m a Conscientious Objector but not a pacifist in terms of what I think a government can or can’t do.”  And it’s true that, logically, a person wouldn’t have to be in both the CO and the pacifist camps, identifying with both philosophies.  Consider these possibilities:

A Conscientious Objector might not be a pacifist (governmentally speaking).  He might allow for nations to go to war for certain (or even all) causes, because the CO focuses on individual conscience and ethics.  Conceivably, a CO could even work for the government in a non-fighting role, all the while longing for peace and personally being a pacifist.

The converse is also conceivable:  a pacifist might not be a CO.  He could believe unflinchingly that war is deplorable, praying against it . . . and yet he might agree to serve in the military because of a separate sense of nationalism and duty.

While one might attempt to bifurcate (1) the individual CO conscience and (2) an overall philosophy relating to war, for me, a two-pronged approach doesn’t hold up.  If one relates his individual, deep-seated, nonviolent beliefs to the created world at all, it seems he would add some kind of geopolitical pacifism to his Jesus-oriented Conscientious Objection.

I myself connect pacifism with the cause of Christ, in that it seeks the good of other humans, whether redemptively or not.  Here, I am not attempting to understand or explain the majority of Christians who find no issue at all with war and military participation, nor am I treating the complicated questions of self-defense.  Simply put (and it does seem simple to me, although I know it is not to most), a Christian should not seek to destroy anyone.  One who stands against all war desires the physical protection of all humankind.  Since the fourth century BCE, Christians have historically been all over the map on this question, and that fact rather baffles me.  There is but one reference in our New Testaments to a military person’s being a Jesus-believer, and that one is inconclusive.  Finding no real NT justification for military participation, today’s Christian military people will often appeal to the Hebrew Bible to justify war.  One’s inherited worldview will naturally affect interpretation and philosophy, as well.

A person with military influence in his family will find justification for continued military participation, leaning on notions of patriotism and duty, and perhaps on the love of democratic principles which in turn might be tied to Christ’s way.

On the other hand, a Conscientious Objector will lean in the other direction, finding ample reason to disapprove of, and condemn, militarism as antithetical to Christ’s nonviolent ways and to God’s universal redemptive mission.

Given our limited insight into God’s plans, actions, and will, I assert that the mere occurrence of wars in the scriptures does not mean they are to be celebrated or approved today.  This is one hermeneutic area in which I find distinct discontinuity between (1) the era before Christ and (2) the one He ushered in.  A historic approval of war is part and parcel of the history of the theocratic nation of Israel.  The people’s exploits as they entered and conquered (more or less, eventually) the “promised land” is patently physical, whereas the Way of Christ and the manifestation of God’s reign now are categorically different.  One author¹ has explained OT warfare as “God directing the people of Israel to trust in Him, not in the warring way of the nations, and to seek peace, not coercive power.”

Christian pacifism is well founded, but it is not the only kind of pacifism.  (Secular interests may also lead to pacifism.)  Whether broad pacifism is part of the thinking or not, I see individual Conscientious Objection as the highest choice of the Christian who wishes to serve One Master and cannot reconcile the intentional killing of another person with the life-example and wishes of Jesus.  Yet Christians have not, by and large, discerned the importance of the avoidance of military violence.  The earliest documented example is Maximilianus (295 CE), who was conscripted into service in the Roman army and was executed for refusing.

In our times, the Amish, Mennonites, certain German Baptists, and Church of the Brethren groups are among the historical “peace churches,” and many more individuals who abhor war and refuse military participation may be found in various denominations.  Still, the CO still tends to be the exception rather than the rule among Christians.

So I mark this day—International Conscientious Objection Day—not with a sense of celebration but with gravity.  May more followers of Jesus Christ move toward conscientious objection and pacifism, no matter how these ideals are, or are not, linked.

For further reading:

https://www.warresisters.org/

https://web.archive.org/web/20140625054559/http://wri-irg.org/15May2014

---

¹ See the “Old Testament” section in this article.