Lesson video

Hello, and welcome to today's lesson.

I'm so pleased that you're going to join me.

My name's Mrs. Rawbone, and I'm going to be your RE teacher today.

In today's lesson, you will be able to explain Christian teachings on pacifism, and the reasons why Christians may or may not be pacifists.

Key terms will be using today are Just War, pacifism, peace, and violence.

Just War is a set of rules for fighting a war in a way believed to be justified and acceptable to God.

Pacifism is a belief that all violence is wrong, which then affects all behaviours.

Peace is the opposite of war, harmony between all in society.

Violence is behaviour involving physical force which intends to hurt, kill, or cause damage.

In today's lesson, we will be looking at two things at Christian teaching on pacifism and at Christian responses to pacifism.

So let's get started looking at Christian teaching on pacifism.

Christian attitudes to pacifism are informed by different sources of authority, including: the Bible, church teachings, the example of other Christians, Christian ethical theories such as Natural Law and Situation Ethics, their conscience and ability to reason.

They might interpret the sources differently, or emphasise one more than another.

Christianity began as a pacifist religious movement, but developed into a religion where most believers accept the use of violence in certain circumstances.

In the first to third century CE, Christianity was a persecuted minority movement.

Jesus taught peace and love of enemies, and early Christians refused military service.

So Christianity was a pacifist religion.

However, from 313 CE, Christianity became the state religion and views began to change.

Christian thinkers began to argue that violence could be justified, and many Christians began serving in the military, and the church itself developed the Just War tradition.

At the same time, there were Christians who continued to be pacifists, so others argued that Jesus's command to love enemies and reject violence remained absolute.

Groups like the Desert Fathers and Mothers withdrew from society and rejected all forms of violence.

Later movements, such as the Anabaptists and Quakers, continued this tradition.

So pacifism is still a worldview within Christianity, but, on the whole, Christianity formally supports Just War over pacifism.

There are similarities and differences between Just War theory and pacifism.

Pacifism is the belief that all violence is wrong, and it rejects war as a means of resolving conflict.

Just War theory argues that war can sometimes be justified, and it sets conditions to limit the violence, and ensure that justice is achieved.

They do, however, both have something in common: both of them aim for peace.

So what major change occurred after Christianity became the state religion in 313 CE? Was it A, Christians stopped believing in loving their enemies.

B, all Christians became absolute pacifists.

C, Christian thinkers began to justify violence, and developed the Just War tradition.

Or D, the Church banned all forms of military service.

Take a moment, pause if you need to.

Come back when you're ready to check.

So well done if you put C, Christian thinkers began to justify violence, and developed the Just War tradition with still the aim of peace in mind.

The Bible is a source of wisdom and authority for Christians on pacifism.

Matthew 5:39 says, "But I tell you, do not resist an evil person.

If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also." Jesus teaches non-retaliation even in the face of violence.

This is a central verse for Christian pacifists who believe in responding to aggression with peace rather than violence.

"Put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword." Matthew 26:52.

Spoken by Jesus when a disciple used violence to defend him, this is often seen as a rejection of violent resistance, and a command to pursue peace even in self-defense.

"If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone." Romans 12:18.

Paul, the writer of this passage, encourages believers to strive for peace in all relationships.

This supports the pacifist view that Christians should be active peacemakers, and avoid violence wherever possible.

So which Bible verse best supports the idea that Christians should not retaliate with violence? Is it A, "Put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword." Matthew 26:52.

B, "If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone." Romans 12:18.

Or C, "But I tell you, do not resist an evil person.

If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also." Matthew 5:39.

Pause if you need to.

Come back when you're ready to check.

Well done if you put C, "But I tell you, do not resist an evil person.

If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also." Church teachings on pacifism are varied, and they range from absolute pacifism to Just War with a preference for peace.

An example of absolute pacifists are Quakers.

They reject all violence and war.

Guided by the Peace Testimony and by individual conscience, they believe there is "that of God in everyone" and harming others is always wrong.

They refuse military service, and work actively for peace through non-violent means.

Conditional pacifism.

Anglicans and Methodists are generally conditional pacifists.

They believe peace is the ideal, and support war only as a last resort in line with Just War theory.

Some members of both traditions are absolute pacifists, and both churches place strong, practical emphasis on peacemaking and reconciliation.

Just War with a preference for peace.

Officially, the Catholic Church holds a formal, unstructured commitment to Just War theory.

The Catechism paragraph 2,309 states, "The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated." However, recent popes, especially Pope Francis, have increasingly promoted non-violence.

So which Church tradition is most closely associated with absolute pacifism? Is it A, the Anglican Church.

B, the Quakers.

C, Methodists.

Or D, the Roman Catholic Church? Pause if you need to.

Come back when you're ready to check your answer.

Good work if you chose the Quakers.

For part one of our task.

For each of the statements below, I'd like you to decide whether it is taught in the Bible, and suggest what it says about pacifism.

A, Christians should try to live peacefully with everyone as far as it depends on them.

B, if someone harms you, you should not fight back but respond with peace.

C, Jesus used violence to defend the oppressed.

D, using weapons leads to more violence and destruction.

So pause the video, take your time to think about those four ideas, and to link them, if you can, with the Bible teaching, explaining what they say about pacifism.

But remember they might not all be taught in the Bible.

Come back when you are ready to see what you could have written.

You could have said for the first one, Christian should try to live peacefully with everyone as far as it depends on them.

Yes, this is talked in the Bible, because Romans 12:18 says, "If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone," so encouraging peaceful living, supporting pacifist values.

For B, if someone harms you, you should not fight back but respond with peace.

Yes, this is taught in the Bible.

In Matthew 5:39, Jesus says, "If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also," teaching non-retaliation and reinforcing pacifism.

For C, Jesus used violence to defend the oppressed.

No, there is no biblical support for this.

Instead, Jesus taught peace and love even for enemies, and he never used violence to defend others.

D, using weapons leads to more violence and destruction.

Yes, this is taught in the Bible.

Jesus said, "Put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword," Matthew 26:52, suggesting that violence only leads to more violence.

Excellent work if you have managed to recognise where those teachings fit with what the Bible says.

For part two of our task, I'd like you to explain two religious beliefs about pacifism.

To do this, you will need to refer to sacred writings, or another source of religious belief and teaching in your answer.

Now, we've used Christianity in today's lesson, so those two religious beliefs will be two Christian beliefs.

For guidance, you can use point, develop, point, develop.

You will need to link one of those points into a relevant source, and explain what it teaches in relation to the points.

This could be a quotation, it could be a paraphrase, it could be a general belief or teaching.

So pause the video, take your time to think of your two points and develop them, and don't forget to check for that source of wisdom and authority.

Come back when you're ready to see what you could have written.

You could have said some Christians, such as Quakers, believe in absolute pacifism, meaning all violence is always wrong.

They believe following Jesus means never harming others, even in self-defense or war.

Other Christians believe pacifism is ideal but not always practical, especially if others are in danger.

They think it can be right to use limited force to protect the innocent or restore peace.

Just War theory, developed by Christian thinkers, allows for violence as a last resort when all peaceful options have failed.

So I hope you can see there that I've made two points, and, for my source of authority, I have linked in the Just War theory.

Let's move on to the second part of our lesson: Christian responses to pacifism.

This photograph shows a group from the Friends Ambulance Unit during World War II.

Christian pacifists refused to take part in violence or fighting during war.

However, pacifism does not mean taking the easy option.

Many pacifists, like those in the Friends Ambulance Unit, risk their lives to help others by caring for the wounded and supporting those affected by conflict.

In 1947, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to the Religious Society of Friends, also known as Quakers, for their longstanding commitment to peace and humanitarian service.

The Nobel Peace Prize is one of the world's most respected international honours.

It is given to individuals or groups who have made outstanding efforts to promote peace, prevent conflict, or support victims of war.

The Nobel Committee praised the Quakers for showing through action that peace can be built without violence.

Quakers believe that there is something of God in everyone, and that violence can never be the answer.

Their deep commitment to pacifism, the belief that all violence is wrong, has shaped their actions for over 300 years.

Rather than staying silent during conflict, Quakers have always looked for ways to help that are consistent with their values of compassion, equality, and non-violence.

One powerful example of this is the Friends Ambulance Unit, which was created by British Quakers during the First World War.

When conscription was introduced in 1916, military service became a legal requirement for most men of fighting age.

Quaker pacifists faced a serious moral and legal challenge.

They could not take up arms, but they still wanted to serve.

The Friends Ambulance Unit gave them a way to do this.

Volunteers refused to carry weapons or wear military uniforms. Instead, they worked on the front lines as ambulance drivers, stretcher bearers, and medics risking their lives to care for the wounded.

Their work was dangerous, exhausting, and often carried out under fire, yet the remained committed to non-violence throughout.

The courage and compassion shown by the Friends Ambulance Unit helped build a reputation for peace and service that led to the Nobel Peace Prize.

This kind of humanitarian work continued during the Second World War when Quakers once again stepped in to help the victims of conflict.

Through organisations like the Friends Service Council in Britain and the American Friends Service Committee, they gave food, shelter, and medical care to refugees and civilians in war-affected countries without taking sides.

They offered support in Europe, Asia, and to Japanese Americans in the United States who were unjustly interned during the war.

They worked not to convert others to their faith, but simply to relieve suffering.

The Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to these two Quaker organisations to honour the spirit in which they served, offering hope, help, and dignity to people on all sides of the conflict.

They showed that peace is not passive, it requires action, courage, and the belief that, even in the worst times, love is stronger than hate.

The Quakers received 171,000 Norwegian kroner as part of the prize.

True to their values, they did not keep money for themselves.

Instead, they use it to continue their humanitarian work.

The fund supported post-war relief efforts, especially in Europe and Asia, where many people were still suffering from hunger, homelessness, and destruction caused by war.

The money helped provide food, shelter, and medical care, and support the projects that aimed to rebuild lives and communities with dignity and compassion.

John is a Quaker and has been asked about his views on the use of violence.

John says, "As a Quaker, I believe there is a light in everyone.

I am a pacifist and I believe peace begins with how we live and act.

I help run workshops in schools about non-violence, and take part in peaceful protests.

I recently joined a protest outside the Ministry of Defence against plans to increase spending on nuclear weapons.

I also take part in silent vigils, and write to MPs to call for peaceful solutions.

Pacifism is not passive, it means taking action." So, according to John, why does pacifism involve more than just refusing to fight? Pause the video, have a read of what John has said again, turn and talk to someone nearby if you can, or you can talk to me.

Come back when you're ready to move on.

Louise is a Methodist, and she's been asked her views on the use of violence.

Louise says, "Jesus taught us to love our enemies and turn the other cheek, which is why I believe peace is a way of life.

I'm a member of the Fellowship of Reconciliation, a Christian pacifist organisation that promotes non-violence through education, protests, and practical support.

We organise peace vigils, help conscientious objectors, and campaign for peaceful alternatives to war.

Being a pacifist is not about staying silent.

It's about following Jesus by standing up for peace." So in what way is Louisa's pacifism active? Pause the video, have a good look at what she said, turn and talk to someone nearby if you can, or talk to me.

Come back when you're ready to move on.

Fergus is an Anglican, and has been asked about his views on the use of violence.

Fergus says, "As a Christian, I try to love my neighbour, which can mean resisting evil.

I used to think pacifism was always right, but then I learned about Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a German pastor during World War II.

He was initially a pacifist, but joined a plot to assassinate Hitler when he decided that doing nothing would be worse.

That showed me refusing to fight is not always the most loving choice." So how has Fergus's view changed? Pause the video, have a look at what he said, turn and talk to someone nearby if you can, or talk to me, again.

Come back when you're ready to move on.

Let's check your understanding.

Is this statement true or false? Pacifism is passive, and means doing nothing in response to violence.

Take a moment, think about the answer, and also think about why, and come back when you're ready to check.

Well done if you spotted it's false.

But why is it false? Well, it's false because most pacifists take active steps for peace through protest, education, and campaigning.

As well as looking at biblical and Church teachings, Christians might apply ethical theories when working out how to respond to the statement, "All Christians should be pacifists." Natural Law is often used in Catholic teaching.

Moral rules are found by using reason to identify the natural purposes built into nature by God.

Natural Law might disagree that all Christians should be pacifists.

Although it rejects the use of violence in most cases, because our natural purpose is to preserve life, using force might also be necessary to preserve life.

Jason is a Catholic priest.

Along with using the Bible and Church teachings, he also uses Natural Law when making moral decisions.

Jason says, "As a Catholic, I believe peace is a sacred goal, but Natural Law teaches that we have a duty to protect life and uphold justice.

If innocent people are under threat, using force may be necessary to preserve life and defend the common good.

That's why I don't support absolute pacifism, sometimes action is needed to fulfil the moral purpose God has given us." Christians might also apply an ethical theory like Situation Ethics.

This is often linked to liberal Protestant ethics.

Moral decisions should be made choosing the most loving action, agape, in each unique situation.

Situation Ethics might not agree that all Christians should be pacifists, because, although non-violence might usually be the most loving response, there could be times when violence prevents greater harm and best serves love.

Ji-eun is a Methodist minister.

Along with using the Bible and looking for guidance from her Church, she also uses Situation Ethics when making moral decisions.

Ji-eun says, "I try to follow the example of Jesus by choosing the most loving action in each situation.

I believe peace is always the goal, but if using limited force would protect the vulnerable and prevent greater suffering, it might be the most loving thing to do.

That's why I can't say I'm an absolute pacifist.

It depends on what love demands in the moment." So we can see here how different ethical theories can inform Christians differently, and it would be possible to use both Natural Law and Situation Ethics to argue in favour of absolute pacifism.

Here are two arguments for and two arguments against the statement, "All Christians should be pacifists." Arguments for.

Jesus taught peace and non-violence.

Pacifism promotes justice through peaceful means.

Arguments against.

The Just War tradition allows for limited violence.

Resisting evil may sometimes require force.

So what influences might lead someone to believe that the arguments for are stronger than the arguments against? Pause the video.

This is a good opportunity to turn and talk to someone nearby if you can, or to talk to me.

Come back when you're ready to move on.

Which of the following is an argument against Christian pacifism? A, Jesus said to turn the other cheek.

B, peaceful protest can achieve justice.

C, sometimes force is needed to protect the innocent.

Take a moment, pause if you need to.

Come back when you're ready to check.

Good work if you chose C, sometimes force is needed to protect the innocent.

For our task, I'd like you to consider the statement, "Absolute pacifism is unrealistic in today's world." Complete the table below showing whether these points could be used to argue for or against the statement, and explaining how they could be used.

The points are: some conflicts involve extreme violence against civilians, modern terrorists and aggressors often refuse to negotiate, peacekeeping forces may need weapons to protect civilians, Jesus taught "love your enemies" and "turn the other cheek".

So pause the video, take your time to think about each of those individually, and to make up your mind about whether they're for or against and why.

Come back when you're ready to see what you could have written.

You could have said for the first point, some conflicts involve extreme violence against civilians.

This is an argument for the statement, because it says refusing all violence may allow greater evil to continue, so absolute pacifism could be harmful.

For the second point, modern terrorists and aggressors often refuse negotiate.

This is also an argument for.

Peaceful methods alone may not stop threats, making absolute pacifism impractical.

For the third point, peacekeeping forces may need weapons to protect civilians.

This is also an argument for, because it suggests that the use, or at least the threat of force, may be necessary to restore peace and protect the vulnerable.

And for the final point, Jesus taught "love your enemies" and "turn the other cheek".

These teachings are clearly against, and they're suggesting that absolute pacifism is a possible option.

Christian teachings support responding peacefully even when provoked.

So well done if you managed to identify the arguments for and the argument against, and also if you managed to explain how those arguments work.

In today's lesson, we have learned that Christian views on pacifism vary.

Some Christians are absolute pacifists, while others accept violence in limited cases, often guided by Just War theory.

Teachings such as "turn the other cheek" and "live at peace with everyone" are key sources for Christian pacifists.

Quakers are absolute pacifists, while Anglicans, Methodists, and Catholics generally accept conditional or Just War approaches.

Natural Law and Situation Ethics could suggest that violence is wrong, or that force may be justified to protect life.

Pacifists often take on active roles in peacebuilding, protest, and supporting victims of conflict, showing that pacifism is not passive.

Well done.

Thank you for working so hard with me in today's lesson.