What does the Bible say about conscientious objection?

It has always been a vexed question with the children of God, how far the required obedience to the powers that be authorises or excuses taking up the sword in the service of the Government. “Thou shalt not kill” has been, and still is, thank God, quite enough to decide many a simple soul, who is determined, like the apostles, to obey God rather than man. “Love your enemies” is evidently incompatible with slaying them. The principle to be followed is clear, but difficulties always arise as to the way in which one is to put the principle into practice, as to when and where one is to refuse to handle the sword or the gun, particularly in those countries where every able man is de facto a soldier.

Some have thought to excuse military service on the ground of what God allowed, and even commanded, in Old Testament times. Such persons, therefore, put forward the old at the expense of the new Testament, and in their souls consequently lose the power of both. Others, again, have sought to prove that a soldier is not responsible for his acts when he obeys his commanding officer. God will judge every one justly; but any Christian who weighs the words of the Lord Jesus can surely not hesitate for a moment as to what is his Lord’s mind upon the matter. “My kingdom is not of this world; if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews.” (John 18:36.) Never was there a more worthy, a more just cause to fight for than at that moment; but the Lord refuses it entirely on the ground of strangership to this world. If a Christian fights now it is to uphold the glory of the world that crucified his Lord; and it is a virtual denial of that word which tells us that our citizenship is in heaven. (Phil. 3:20.)

It has always been a vexed question with the children of God, how far the required obedience to the powers that be authorises or excuses taking up the sword in the service of the Government. “Thou shalt not kill” has been, and still is, thank God, quite enough to decide many a simple soul, who is determined, like the apostles, to obey God rather than man. “Love your enemies” is evidently incompatible with slaying them. The principle to be followed is clear, but difficulties always arise as to the way in which one is to put the principle into practice, as to when and where one is to refuse to handle the sword or the gun, particularly in those countries where every able man is de facto a soldier.

Some have thought to excuse military service on the ground of what God allowed, and even commanded, in Old Testament times. Such persons, therefore, put forward the old at the expense of the new Testament, and in their souls consequently lose the power of both. Others, again, have sought to prove that a soldier is not responsible for his acts when he obeys his commanding officer. God will judge every one justly; but any Christian who weighs the words of the Lord Jesus can surely not hesitate for a moment as to what is his Lord’s mind upon the matter. “My kingdom is not of this world; if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews.” (John 18:36.) Never was there a more worthy, a more just cause to fight for than at that moment; but the Lord refuses it entirely on the ground of strangership to this world. If a Christian fights now it is to uphold the glory of the world that crucified his Lord; and it is a virtual denial of that word which tells us that our citizenship is in heaven. (Phil. 3:20.)

“… It is a great joy to me to speak of what our God has done for me, for I have seen His hand as plainly as if with the natural eye. At the time of my first departure for military service, I was deeply exercised with the question as to whether I could, as a Christian, take the life of another. After much research, I was convinced that the obedience due to the authorities was limited by the Word of God, and that one called to proclaim the grace of God could not shed blood in obedience to the ‘powers that be.’

As to military and naval service, Brethren leave the question (as scripture does) to the conscience, intelligence, and devotedness of the individuals concerned. Even among Anglicans, one has rarely heard of a godly youth seeking a commission. But many an officer, naval and military, has been afterwards brought to God. Now while we deprecate all pressure, we cannot but value the grace which leads some to sacrifice their earthly interests by abandoning what true-hearted believers must feel to be unsuitable to Christ and the christian. "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight," etc. One can understand a man in a high position of this sort hesitating as he thought of his large family, perhaps with no other provision; but it is a sorrowful fact that professional teachers of religion, established or dissenting, are generally the most forward in lulling consciences asleep, and encouraging christians to oppose the evident spirit, as well as the plain words, of scripture. Is it not ominous of coming and speedy judgment on Christendom? — of that long-suspended sentence, "Now is the judgment of this world"?

p110 [From the French.] * It is clear to me that a Christian, free to do as he will, could never be a soldier, unless he were at the very bottom of the scale, and ignorant of the christian position. It is another thing when one is forced to it. In such a case the question is this: is the conscience so strongly implicated on the negative side of the question, that one could not be a soldier without violating that which is the rule for conscience - the word of God? In that case we bear the consequences; we must be faithful.

Scripture is very careful to press the respect and obedience which are due to authority, but it is not a Christian's work to occupy himself with settling questions of the earth. He has nothing to do with the ways and means whereby kings or other governors have reached their place of authority. There may have been wars, and revolutions, and all sorts of questionable means for them to arrive at such exaltation. What he has to do is to obey, as a matter of fact, those who are in authority. "Let every soul be subject unto higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God." (Rom. 13:1.) Scripture does not demand obedience to the powers that ought to be, but to "the powers that be." No doubt this may expose to danger where a revolutionary leader usurps authority for a season; but God will care for results, and the duty of the Christian remains simple and sure. He obeys the powers that be. Notwithstanding, all obedience in man has its limits. There are cases where the Christian is bound, I do not say to be disobedient, still less to set up his own authority (which is never his duty), but "to obey God rather than men." (Acts 5:29.) Where earthly authority demands sin against God, for instance where a Government interferes with and forbids the stewardship of the believer in proclaiming the name of Christ, it is evident that it is a question of a lower authority setting aside the highest. Consequently the principle of obedience to which the Christian is bound forbids his being swayed by what is of man to abandon what he knows to be the will of God.

Take, again, a peremptory call on a Christian to fight the battles of his country. If he knows his calling, can he join Christ's name with such unholy strife? If right for one side, it is right for another, or the Christian becomes a judge instead of a pilgrim, and the name of the Lord would be thus compromised by brethren on opposite sides, each bound to imbrue their hands in one another's blood, each instruments of hurrying to perdition souls ripening in sins. Is this of Christ? Is it of grace? It may suit the flesh and the world; but it is in vain to plead the Word of God to justify a Christian's finding himself engaged in such work. Will any one dare to call human butchery, at the command of the powers that be, Christ's service? The true reason, why people fail to see here is, either a fleshly mind or an unworthy shrinking from the consequences. They prefer to kill another to please the world, rather than to be killed themselves to please Christ. But they should not ask or expect Christian sympathy with their unbelief or worldly-mindedness. To sympathise, with such is to share their failure in testimony to Christ. To deplore the thing while doing it does not mend matters, but is rather an unwitting testimony of our own lips against our own ways.

That a Christian should hesitate whether he ought to obey or not, I understand: I respect his conscience; but that he should allow himself to be carried away by what is called patriotism - that is what is not of heaven. "My kingdom," said Jesus, "is not of this world; if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight." It is the spirit of the world under an honourable and attractive form, but wars come from "lusts that war in your members."

But some one may say, “The Christian cannot receive rightly the protection of army and navy, unless he joins in the protection of the country.”

We answer that to carry out this argument to the full would involve the Christian taking as full a part in the government of the nation as the unbeliever, whether in times of peace or war, whether in the making of laws in parliaments or in filling the ranks of army and navy. Can such a position as that be maintained in the presence of the Lord’s own words: “They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world”?

If this very simple principle were borne in mind, it would remove a quantity of misunderstanding, and save a vast amount of unintelligent discussion. No doubt it is thoroughly wrong for the church of God to go to war. No one can read the New Testament, with a mind free from bias, and not see this. We are positively commanded to love our enemies, to do good to them that hate us, and to pray for them that despitefully use us. "Put up again thy sword into his place; for all they that take the sword, shall perish with the sword." And again, in another gospel, "Then said Jesus to Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father has given me, shall I not drink it?" Again, our Lord says to Pilate, "My kingdom is not of this world; if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight" — it would be perfectly consistent for them so to do — … "But now is my kingdom not from hence" — and therefore it would be wholly out of character utterly inconsistent, thoroughly wrong for them to fight.

Respect for the authorities set up by God is important (Rom. 13), as is our testimony before the world, which should be a positive one (Phil. 2:15) and, as a general rule, include submission to the authorities and the laws they have enacted (1 Pet. 2:13–17). However, where the two conflict, ‘we ought to obey God rather than men’ (Acts 5:29). Peter’s words are not limited to overt governmental acts aimed at supressing the Christian testimony. Rather, their application is universal. God always comes first.