Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Evangelical
History and Religion
Just War, Non-Violence, and Pete Hegseth

Just War, Non-Violence, and Pete Hegseth

Last updated on: April 21, 2026 at 2:00 am by Adam Renberg

0 Comments

Just War, Non-Violence, and Pete Hegseth 2026-04-21T00:52:59-04:00 Adam Renberg

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

In a homily on Palm Sunday, Pope Leo XIV condemned violence and war and those who perpetuate it: “This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war.” He goes on to cite Isaiah 1:15, “[God] does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them, saying: “Even though you make many prayers, I will not listen: your hands are full of blood” (Leo XIV, Homily). This has garnered much attention by those actively engaging in warfare, most notably by members of the Trump administration. So, JD Vance has responded to this homily by claiming that just war theory means that God is sometimes “on the side” of those who wield the sword and thus the pope must be careful when he “talks about matters of theology”. Further, Pete Hegseth has offered a sort of ‘counter-liturgy’ which support Vance’s statements in the form of prayer meetings where he asks for God’s favor upon US military action, even quoting Scripture (some real, some fake). Setting aside the fake Scriptures used by Hegseth, quotations from the Bible perhaps feel like they offer conflicting perspectives– and the claims being made right now certainly do. So, which is it? Does God support those who go to war or not? Perhaps we might learn from Early Christians on this question.

Non-Violence in Early Christianity

The Sermon on the Mount seems to call for total non-violence: an ‘eye for an eye’ (Leviticus 24:20) is replaced by ‘turn the other cheek’ (Matthew 5:39). That is not to say this call was always heeded though, as Jesus’ apostles even turned towards violence at times, with Peter pulling a sword and cutting of the ear of one who sought to capture Christ (John 18:10). Though, Christ rebuked him for it! The following generations of the church seem to mostly obey Christ’s call, living lives oriented towards peace and non-violence. So, Athenagoras (115-190) echoes Christ, asserting that Christians have learned not “to return blow for blow nor to go to law with those who plunder and rob us, but to those who smite us on one side of the face, to offer the other side also, and to those who take away our coat to give likewise our cloak” (Athenagoras, Plea for Christians 1). This new covenant theology, which prioritizes Christ’s commands over the Old Testament allowances for violence and retribution, meant that military service was often condemned. Hippolytus (165-235), for instance, is explicit in the church’s stance towards military service: “If a catechumen or a believer wishes to become a soldier they shall be rejected, because they have despised God” (On the Apostolic Tradition, 16.10).

Julius the Veteran (255-304) was a Christian who served in the military his whole career. He was martyred for refusing to sacrifice to the Roman gods.

Recently, a number of scholars have pointed out examples which seem to destabilize a portrait of unanimous pacifism in early Christianity though (ex. Larry Hurtado, Destroyer of the Gods; John F. Shean, Soldiering for God). For instance, there are several examples of Christian soldiers in the late second century and many more in the third. Further, even the most vocal opponents of violence—such as Tertullian (155-220) and Origen (185-253)—support governmental military action for the sake of peace. So Daryl Charles writes, “While some in the early church were opposed to soldiering and war on the basis of ideological pacifism, this was not universally the case” (Charles, “Pacifists, Patriots, or Both?,” 43).

So how do we interpret this apparent inconsistency between the condemnation of violence and the acceptance of governmental military action, even the occasional participation in it? A popular way to explain this is to specify what exactly Christians are condemning: perhaps it is not military service nor violence itself, but the idolatry that is implicit in the life of a Roman soldier. And indeed, soldiers were expected to worship the emperor and Roman gods in this time (see: Knut Ruyter, “Pacifism and Military Service in the Early Church,” 59). That is to say, military service is condemned not on the grounds of ‘turn the other cheek’ (Matthew 5:39) but on ‘you shall have no other gods before me’ (Exodus 20:3). Another explanation, which seems to consider the evidence more holistically, has been offered up recently by Daniel Weiss. “Through a Levite-like dual-ethic approach, [early Christians] can endorse the emperor’s military battles while simultaneously holding that Christians cannot legitimately engage in military bloodshed and killing” (Weiss, “Christians As Levites,” 493). In other words, Christians were committed to non-violence themselves but thought that God might employ violence through non-Christian governments to maintain order.

Whether one is persuaded by Weiss or other interpretations of the evidence, it is important to not lose the forest for the trees. Yes, there early Christians who joined the military and those who condemned military service. Yes, there are ancient Christians who denounced violence while praying for the military to maintain peace through violent action. But it is not as if those received equal emphasis: the overwhelming evidence is towards non-violence as the normative position in early Christianity, no matter the circumstances. In sum: God might be “on the side” of those (governments) who use the sword, but Christians are not on the side of the sword—they are not to encourage or participate in war.

Warring against Non-Violence? Augustine and Just War Theory

While most of the early Christians seemed oriented towards non-violence in their actions and teachings, there is one who seems to provide the intellectual teeth to justify it: Augustine of Hippo (354-430), the supposed founder of ‘just war theory’. Just war theory essentially adjudicates when it might be morally permissible to enter into war (jus ad bellum) and how to conduct yourself when at war (jus in bello). Importantly, Augustine only hints at how to answer these specific questions—it is the later development of his thought in medieval scholasticism that provides systematic clarity, here. But he does grapple more than any Christian before him on how to think about warfare, which might give the impression that he is finds violence acceptable (See: John Mark Mattox, Saint Augustine and the Theory of Just War). Is Augustine breaking from those before him?

Augustine of Hippo, one of the most influential theologians in western Christianity, is often referred to as the founder of just war theory.

Importantly, the foundation of Augustine’s meditations on this topic are in basic continuity with other ancient Christian thinkers—he is, like most of the others, committed to non-violence. So, Robert Holmes summarizes: “That Augustine was almost certainly a personal pacifist may be granted. He denies that private individuals may kill even in self-defense. Short of assuming the duties of an official of the state or an agent thereof (as he understands soldiers to be), one not only need not but may not, on Augustine’s view, engage in killing” (Holmes, “St. Augustine and the Just War Theory, 429). Essentially, he employs the same sort of framework as those who came before (if Weiss is correct): Christians may not use violence personally, but the government might be able to use it for peace.

Of course, there is a massive difference between the world that Augustine was living in from those before—the Roman empire was now a Christian one. In this, he was forced to answer a question that Athenagoras didn’t even have to pose: how might a Christian government use violence? Augustine recognizes the differences himself, claiming that the different periods in salvation history demand different ethical responses, even if the abiding principles remain. So, while “God commanded the prophets in old times to make war,” he “forbade the apostles” (Against Faustus, 23.77). This command was binding “until the prophetic predictions about the faith of kinds and nations were fulfilled” (Letter 185.23), and now the new reality of a Christian government created space for specific uses of force. In other words, the principles of peace and non-violence remains for Augustine, but a nation ruled by Christians cannot always avoid wartime violence, hence his reflection on this question.

While I could examine Augustine’s various teachings on just war, perhaps it is more important to point out what undergirds his entire system: Augustine’s reflections about the acceptable forms of violence are all steeped in a Christian theology of peace, a theology which is shared with those who preceded him. While he was forced to grapple with new questions about warfare, the foundations of Augustine’s just war theory are predicated on assumptions of non-violence and peace.

Just War does not Justify War

The early church clearly has a variety of perspectives on violence and soldiering—with some rejecting all warfare and others accepting Christian military service. And while most all Christians were willing to pray for the military, only a few thought that Christians might participate in war. This is because there was a common assumption that peace and personal non-violence are normative for the Christian, and so military service was at best morally complicated. So how might these early Christians respond to this debate?

With the Pope, they would condemn war mongering and those who call for violence. Even then, they would pray for peace and for the military that is to uphold it (see, for example, Origen’s Against Celsus 8.73), noting that if God is ruler and king over all, he uses governments to his end. With the Trump administration, they might note that just war theory (especially of Augustine) might allow for specific uses of violence in wartime. But, they would have serious critiques to offer to this latter group, especially in their rhetoric around the war in Iran.

First, early Christians would condemn military aggression, calling military powers to reorient themselves towards peace. Even if there is space for governmental military action and even if Christians are allowed to fight as soldiers, the goal and emphasis throughout early Christianity is on love, peace, and security. In this, we can learn from Augustine in particular: the assumptions of just war theory are fundamentally pacifistic, as this theory severely limits when to go to war and how to conduct themselves. Thus, actions which are cruel and inhumane are explicitly condemned, like bombing schools or water treatment plants. One cannot reach a just end through unjust means. Second, if our orientation is towards peace, they would also condemn rhetoric that intentionally praises violence and death. There has been a concerning fetishization of warfare and militant language by Pete Hegseth and others that is idolatrous in nature, which is completely foreign to those early Christians who allowed for military action. Even a ‘just war’ is something to be mourned, as precious human life is disrupted, displaced, and lost.

During Eastertide, it is especially important to reflect on Lordship of Christ, with the early church: we serve a risen savior who rules and reigns over all things—and his name is ‘prince of peace’ (Isaiah 9:6). Pope Leo has reminded us of what the earliest Christians believed: that we too, are people of peace. This means that the existence of just war theory does not justify war and violence. Rather, just war theory seeks to cultivate peace in a messy world, restricting force to a very specific set of circumstances. Perhaps, then, we should be asking ourselves an additional question: Are we, in our actions and rhetoric, following the God who abhors war?

History and Religion

Previous Post

April 16, 2026

Is This Your Son, My Lord?

Next Post

April 23, 2026 All The Epics We Have Lost

Recent Comments

0 | Leave a Comment

"The TV sitcom BEWITCHED was an old favorite of mine"

philipjenkins

How Scotland Gave Us Our Modern ..."

"From now on whenever I see a clipper ship, see a certain brand of Scottish ..."

Terry

How Scotland Gave Us Our Modern ..."

"There are no such things as witches. They were just unmarried or elderly women with ..."

Dot Newkirk

How Scotland Gave Us Our Modern ..."

"The book of THE KEEP is wonderful, but I was not such a fan of ..."

philipjenkins

Fairies, Witches, Folk Horror, and the ..."

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category abolitionism Abortion Abraham Joshua Heschel Abraham Kuyper Abraham Lincoln Academia Activism Adam Renberg Advent Adventist africa African American Religion Agnes Howard Albert Camus American History American Religious History American Revolution American West Anabaptists Ancient History Andrea Turpin Andrei Tarkovsky Anglicanism Annales Ansley Lillian Quiros anti-Catholicism Antisemitism Anxious Bench apologetics Apparitions Arash Azizi Archaeology archives art Artificial Intelligence Asia Asian Americans Augustine Authors Bad Bunny Baptism Baptists Barack Obama Battle of Hastings Benjamin Franklin Bernard-Henri Levy Beth Allison Barr Beth Moore Bethany Mannon Bible Bill Cunningham Billy Graham Black Music Bob Dylan Body Boenhoffer Books Breastfeeding Bruce Springsteen C.S. Lewis Calvinism Cancel Culture Capitalism Carmelites Catholicism Cedric Robinson Cesar Chavez Charismaticism charity Charles Dickens Charles Lindbergh Che Guevara Chicago Children Chinese Christianity Chris Gehrz Christ Christian death Christian Higher Education Christian life Christian Nation Christian Nationalism Christianity Today Christmas Church life Church Practice cinema Civil Religion Civil Rights Movement Civil War civility Classics Climate Change Cold War Colonial Mexico colonialism Comer Communism community complementarianism Conference on Faith and History Congregationalism Conspiracies Conspiracy Conversion Narratives Coronavirus Costa Rica Council of Nicaea Covid-19 Creation Critical Race Theory Crusades Culture culture wars Daniel K. Williams David Barton David Swartz Death Ways death with dignity DEI democracy Democratic Party Devotion Digital Age Diplomacy discipleship diversity Donald Trump Drama Dua Lipa Early Church early modern Early modern Catholicism Easter Eastern Christianity economic exploitation Education elections Elie Wiesel Elizabeth II Elizabeth Taylor emotions Empire Engineering England enslavement Entertainment Episcopal Church Erica Ramirez eschatology Eurocentrism Evangelicalism Evangelicals Exegesis Family Feminism Film Flannery O'Connor folk music Food Foreign Policy founding fathers Franciscans Franciscus Junius fundamentalism Funerals G.K. Chesterton Gender Genocide genre geography George W. Bush George Washington George Whitefield Global Christianity Global church Grief Guadalupe guest post Guest Post gun control gun violence Gustavo Gutierrez Hamid Dabashi Harold John Ockenga Harvest Hate Hawaiian Christianity Healing health care Heather Cox Richardson Hell Heresy Hermeneutics Higher Education Hinduism Hippocratic oath Historical Fiction Historical Methodology Historical Profession Historical Profession Historical Theology Historical Thinking historiography Holidays Holocaust horror movies Human rights Humanitarian Work humanities Hummingbirds Hungary hymns Imago Dei Immigration Injustice Interviews Iran Islam Islamophobia Israel Ivan's Childhood Jacob Randolph James Bratt Janine Giordano Drake Japanese history Japanese Literature Jean Paul Sartre Jesse Miranda Jesus Jesus Christ Jimmy Carter Joan Baez Joan Didion Joanne Freeman João B. Chaves Joao Chaves Joey Cochran John Calvin John Fea John Tillotson John Turner Johnny Cash Jonathan Edwards Jonathan Tran Joseph Smith Josh Howerton Journalism Jr. Judaism Jürgen Moltmann Just War Justice Justin Brierley Karl Barth Katelyn Beaty koi ponds Kris Kristofferson Kristin Kobes Du Mez Latin American Religious History Latino Americans Lectio Divina Leisure Lent Leonard Cohen liberal arts liberalism Liberation Theology Linda Ronstadt Lisa Clark Diller Literature Lou Reed Lynchings Lynneth Miller Renberg Mainline Protestantism Malcolm Foley Marilyn Monroe Maritime history Mark Noll Marriage Martin Luther Martin Luther King Martyrdom Marxism Mary Masih Alinejad mass shootings material culture medieval Christianity Medieval Ethiopia Melissa Borja memory Mennonites Mental Health Mental Illness Methodism Mexican Americans Mexicans Mike Madrid Miles Mullin Min Jin Lee Miscarriage Missionaries Mister Rogers Mitt Romney modernity Monasticism Mormonism Motherhood Mothers of the Church Moving Music Musicals Nadya Williams Nahua Christianity Native Americans Natsume Sōseki New Contributor New England New Year New York Nico Non-Violent Protest Orthodoxy pacifism Paleo Evangelicals Palestinians Parenting Patti Smith Paul Kingsnorth Pedro Calderón de la Barca Pentecostalism Philip Jenkins Phillis Wheatley physician-assisted suicide pilgrimage Pilgrims pluralism Plutocracy Poetry Politics Pope Francis Pope Leo XIV post-modernism prayer preaching Presbyterians prosperity gospel Protest Public history Publishing Puritans purity culture Quakers race Race Massacres Racial Capitalism racial reconciliation racialization Racism Raha Bahloulipour Re-Enchantment reading Reformation Refugees religion and the university religion and war Religious Freedom Religious Nones Religious Pluralism Religious Symbols religious violence Republican Party Revival Rita Coolidge Ritual Roger Williams Roman Catholic church Royalty Russell Moore same-sex marriage Sarah Irving-Stonebraker Scandinavia Science Science and Technology Scopes trial Scriptural Interpretation secularism Selena Quintanilla seminary Seventh-Day Adventists sexual morality Sexuality Sikhs Silence slaveholders theology Slavery Slavoj Zizek social justice Social Media Southern Baptist Convention Southern Religion Spain Spiritual Autobiography Spiritual but not religious Spiritual Discipline Sports Stanley Hauerwas Suffering Summer Camps Sunday Night Odds and Ends Supernatural Supreme Court Syriac Christianity Tal Howard Taylor Swift Teaching Technology Television Thanksgiving The Beatles The Mission theater TheoBros Theology Thomas Dixon Thomas Jefferson Thomas Kidd Thomas Merton Tim Gloege Tim Walz Tom Holland Tourism tradition Tragedy Translation Transnationalism Travel Trump Ukraine Uncategorized Unitarians United Methodist Church US History Vanessa Chan Velvet Underground Verónica A. Gutiérrez Veronica Gutierrez Vikings Violence Virgin Mary Virtue Virtue ethics Visions Voting War WCTU Wendell Berry Westminster Assembly White Evangelicalism Wildfires Winnie the Pooh Witches women Women in Ministry Women's and Gender Studies Work Worship writing Yasunari Kawabata Zena Hitz

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Which book comes last in the New Testament?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Acts Revelation Jude 2 Peter