Marcus Borg

Marcus Borg

Former president, Anglican Association of Biblical Scholars

Marcus J. Borg holds the Hundere Chair in Religion and Culture in the Philosophy Department at Oregon State University. A fellow of the Jesus Seminar, he has served as national chair of the Historical Jesus Section of the Society of Biblical Literature and co-chair of its International New Testament Program Committee, and is past president of the Anglican Association of Biblical Scholars. The “On Faith” panelist is the author of 14 books, including Jesus: A New Vision, The God We Never Knew, God at 2000, The Heart of Christianity and the best-selling Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time. Borg also is a regular columnist for www.beliefnet.com. His work has been translated into nine languages. His latest book, Jesus: The Relevance of a Religious Revolutionary, was published in November, 2006. Close.

Marcus Borg

Former president, Anglican Association of Biblical Scholars

Marcus J. Borg holds the Hundere Chair in Religion and Culture in the Philosophy Department at Oregon State University. A fellow of the Jesus Seminar, he has served as national chair of the Historical Jesus Section of the Society of Biblical Literature and co-chair of its International New Testament Program Committee, and is past president of the Anglican Association of Biblical Scholars. more »

Main Page | Marcus Borg Archives | On Faith Archives


American Christians Must Recover Faith's Early Emphasis on Non-violence

As a Christian who seeks to take Jesus seriously, I have an ultimate commitment to non-violence and a reluctant acceptance of the notion of a “just war.”

The reason for the ultimate commitment: I am convinced that Jesus taught non-violence as a way of responding to evil, and that early Christianity for the first three centuries was committed to non-violence. Only near the end of the 300s, when Christianity had become the dominant religion of the Roman Empire, did Christian theologians begin to affirm that there could be a “just war,” meaning both a justifiable war and rules for the conduct of a just war.

A justifiable war must be a war of self-defense as a last resort, after all other means of settling the conflict have failed. The rules for the conduct of a just war include non-combatant immunity (civilians may not be targeted) means proportionate to the ends, the goal. That is, the means must not be more destructive than the good that could be accomplished.

I reluctantly accept that Christian participation in war may sometimes be necessary. The reluctance is grounded to a considerable degree in the realization that the notion of “just war” has most often been used in Christian history to legitimate all wars. For over a thousand years, wars in Europe were fought between Christian nations, with all sides seeing their cause as justified and invoking the blessing of God upon their cause. The notion of a “just war” historically has consistently been subject to manipulation and rationalization.

So it is in the United States in our time. The majority of Christians have been supporters of our war in Iraq. The demographic group with the largest percentage of support for going to war in Iraq in early 2003 was white evangelical Christians, 84% of whom supported it. Perhaps many of them (and perhaps our born-again President) were unaware that Christian teaching about “just war” explicitly prohibits preemptive war, that is, starting a war. But my hunch is that even if they had been aware of this teaching, they would have found reasons for setting the prohibition aside.

Is our war in Iraq unjust? As I see it, yes. It not only violates Jesus’ teaching about non-violent resistance to evil, but also the history of Christian teaching about what a “just war” is.

And was it a mistake? I know few people now who would say it was a good idea. A greater familiarity with Christian teaching about the justifiable reasons for going war might have led Christians to say, “This war is wrong.”

There is virtue in seeing “just war” as the rare exception rather than seeing it as normal, with non-violence as the exception. Especially for American Christians who are citizens of the empire of our time, it is crucial to recover the early Christian emphasis upon non-violence. Imperial violence is almost always wrong. And perhaps the word “almost” should be omitted.

Please e-mail On Faith if you'd like to receive an email notification when On Faith sends out a new question.

Email Me | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook

Reader Response

ALL COMMENTS (55)

Post a comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.

Top Local Global

On Faith is an interactive conversation on religion moderated by Newsweek Editor Jon Meacham and Sally Quinn of The Washington Post. It is produced jointly by Newsweek and washingtonpost.com, as is PostGlobal, a conversation on international affairs. Please send your comments, questions and suggestions for On Faith to David Waters, its producer.