Is it ever moral to enact violence? Two thousand years of Christians, including some of the most serious disciples who've ever lived, haven't agreed on the answer.

So, before I tell you where I land, I want to take you on a little tour. Because the people on the other side of this question aren't lazy thinkers or compromised believers. Some of them paid for their convictions with their lives. I personally have been inspired to greater levels of holiness and convictions because of their movement.

Let me introduce you to the Anabaptists.

The Anabaptist movement began in the 1520s in Zürich, in the wake of the Reformation. They looked at what Luther and Zwingli were doing and said, in effect, "You haven't gone far enough." If Scripture alone is our authority, they argued, then a lot of inherited church practice has to go. Infant baptism. The cozy relationship between church and state. And the church's willingness to use violence to enforce its will.

That last one is the part I want to focus on.

The Anabaptists watched the church of their day work hand in glove with princes and armies. 

Their solution was radical. Total non-violence. Pacifism. No exceptions.

Menno Simons, their most influential leader, argued that the church becomes corrupted the moment it picks up the sword. The Schleitheim Confession of 1527, the first formal Anabaptist statement of faith, put it plainly: "The sword is an ordering of God outside the perfection of Christ." Christians, the confession argued, belong to a different kingdom and play by different rules.

Their reasoning came down to four points:

1. Jesus' personal example forbids retaliation.
2. Jesus rejected civil judgment.
3. Jesus refused political rule.
4. Christians are citizens of a different kingdom.

And they pointed to the Sermon on the Mount as Exhibit A. "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). "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" (Matthew 5:44).

Take Jesus seriously, they said. Don't soften His words. Live what He said.

Why I Take Them Seriously

I find the Anabaptists deeply compelling, even where I disagree with them. Here's why.

• They took the Bible at its word. They didn't try to explain away Jesus' hardest teachings. When Jesus said love your enemies, they loved their enemies. When He said turn the other cheek, they turned the other cheek. There's an integrity to that I genuinely admire.
• They cared about how Christians actually live, not just what they believe. They weren't satisfied with right doctrine. They wanted right practice to match it. Head, heart, and hands aligned. That's a high bar, and it's a biblical one. "Faith without deeds is dead" (James 2:26).
• They paid for their convictions. Many were tortured and killed for their beliefs. They didn't just argue for non-violence. They embodied it as their persecutors came for them.

Where I Think They Got It Wrong

But I do disagree. Here's why.

The Anabaptist position, taken to its conclusion, says a Christian can never use force. Not in the military. Not as a police officer. Not even to physically protect a child being attacked in front of them.

And I just don't think Scripture supports that.

The same Bible that tells us to turn the other cheek also tells us this:

"Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter" (Proverbs 24:11).

"Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow"(Isaiah 1:17).

And in Romans 13, Paul calls the governing authorities "God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer" (Romans 13:4). He says the authority "does not bear the sword for no reason."

So, we have to hold these together. Yes, Jesus tells His followers not to retaliate when they're personally wronged. But Scripture also tells us to defend the vulnerable and recognizes that God ordains governing authorities to restrain evil, sometimes by force.

What do you do when those two things meet in real life? 

The Anabaptist approach is to reject violence and place trust in God for the outcome. I find this admirable and biblically sound in many, if not most, personal situations. However, when considering larger scopes like municipal, provincial, national, or global levels, this approach quickly becomes problematic.

Just War

Long before the Anabaptists, the church wrestled with the same question. And in the fourth and fifth centuries, Augustine offered a different framework called just war.

The idea wasn't to bless every war a Christian might fight in. The opposite, actually. Augustine wanted to put strict limits on when violence could ever be justified. He laid out something like five conditions:

1. The war must be waged for the sake of peace.
2. There must be a just cause.
3. Those fighting must do so with an inward attitude of love, not hatred.
4. The war must be authorized by legitimate authority.
5. The conduct of the war must be just.

Augustine wasn't celebrating war. He was grieving its necessity in a fallen world. And he was saying that, sometimes, refusing to fight is itself a moral failure, because evil left unchecked devours the innocent.

Where Does That Leave Us?

I land on the side of just war, not pacifism. But I want to land there with humility, because I don't think this is a question with a tidy answer.

Here's how I'd summarize it:

• Personal violence is almost never the answer. Jesus' command to turn the other cheek isn't a metaphor. When you're personally insulted, attacked, or wronged, the Christian default is to absorb it, forgive, and refuse to retaliate. The Anabaptists are right about that.
• Defending the innocent is sometimes the answer. When a third party is being harmed and you have the means to stop it, the biblical call to defend the vulnerable is real, and sometimes it requires force.
• Christians can serve in the military and in policing with a clean but careful consciencel. Not every war is just. Not every use of force is righteous. Christians in those professions have a higher bar, not a lower one, because they bear the sword in a way the rest of us don't. So, pray for those in those positions, it is a vital and tough position.