A Warrior is a Blessing to His People  — An Argument Against Christian Pacifism

"Violence is never the answer." It’s a common claim. But is it true? At first glance, it sounds appealing—who wouldn’t want to live in a world where conflicts are resolved through diplomacy and understanding? Yet, the reality of human history tells a different story.

Since the fall, violence has been an inescapable part of the human condition. It took only one generation for the first murder to occur, and ever since, conflict has shaped societies and nations. In such a world, how should Christians respond? Some argue that the proper Christian ethic is absolute pacifism—a commitment to complete nonviolence, refusing participation in war, self-defense, or any form of physical aggression. But is this truly the biblical position, or does Scripture provide a more comprehensive view?

In short, does the Bible allow for the existence of a Christian warrior? 

As a pastor and a personal protection instructor with over 25 years of experience, I have had the unique opportunity to wrestle with the question of Christian pacifism versus self-defense. It is not merely an academic exercise for me but a matter of personal conscience. Many Christians believe that true faith requires absolute pacifism, citing passages like “turn the other cheek” (Matthew 5:39) and “do not repay evil for evil” (Romans 12:17; 1 Peter 3:9). While these scriptures are foundational, I do not believe they demand absolute pacifism. Instead, I advocate for a concept which Lt. Col. Dave Grossman calls Benevolent Violence—a perspective that acknowledges the moral necessity of force in certain situations.

Understanding Benevolent Violence

The word "violence" is often associated with malevolence, yet not all violence originates from an evil intent. 

Recently, I was told that “force” might be a better term than “violence” since violence implies a violation and is therefore always wrong. However, the word "violence" originates from the Middle Latin "vim" (a term still recognized in the phrase "vim and vigor"). It also traces back to the Latin "vis," meaning "strength" or "force," and has Indo-European roots associated with the concept of force.

Violence itself is neither inherently good nor bad; its morality depends on the intention behind it. Malevolent violence—violence used with harmful or malicious intent—is evil and must be rejected. Benevolent violence—violence used for protection, justice, or defense—is a moral good and should be celebrated.

Consider CPR (Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation) a medical intervention that is often physically violent, almost always causing bruising and sometimes even resulting in broken ribs. Yet, its intent is wholly benevolent—it seeks to save life, not destroy it. Similarly, there are instances where the use of violence is not only justified but is a moral obligation.

Augustine is often credited with developing the concept of Just War Theory, which included the use of violence for a righteous cause. A good example is found in this illustration. Imagine coming upon a person being beaten. Would it be righteous to stand idly by in adherence to non-violence, or would love demand intervention? Augustine argued that true love for one’s neighbor necessitates action, even if it involves violence. In such a case, the use of violence is not a “necessary evil” but a moral good. Therefore, violence, when used rightly, is not simply the “lesser of two evils” but an act of virtue.

The Necessity of Benevolent Violence in Protecting Life

Even the most dedicated pacifists recognize the need for law enforcement and military forces. Societies acknowledge that police and soldiers must have the ability to use violence when necessary.

Consider this: pacifists live safely under the protection of those who are ready to exercise violence on their behalf. Romans 13:4 affirms that government authorities “do not bear the sword in vain” but serve as God’s ministers in bringing justice. This is, in itself, a form of benevolent violence—state-sanctioned force used to maintain order and punish evildoers.

Some pacifists argue that Christians should not serve in these roles. Groups such as the Amish and other Christian pacifist traditions hold this view. While I respect their convictions, I do not believe scripture supports this idea. If Christians were to abstain from all roles involving violence, there would be no Christian police officers or soldiers. Yet, in the Gospels, Jesus interacts with many soldiers, and not once does He command them to abandon their profession.

In Luke 3:14, when soldiers asked John the Baptist what they should do, he did not tell them to leave their profession. Instead, he instructed them to act justly: “Do not extort money from anyone by threats or by false accusation, and be content with your wages.” Even Jesus commended a Roman centurion for his great faith (Matthew 8:5–10). If soldiering were inherently sinful, these interactions would have been different.

The Right of Personal Protection

If it is morally right to protect another person’s life through benevolent violence, it naturally follows that one has the right to defend oneself.

Almost all legal systems recognize the inherent right of self-defense. Biblical precedent also supports this principle. Exodus 22:2-3 tells us that if a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there is no guilt for his death indicating that the Law of Moses recognized the lawfulness of protecting one’s own life and property through the use of violence. In Matthew 12:29, Jesus uses the analogy of a strong man protecting his home and this idea is paralleled in Luke 11:21 where He says, “When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are safe.” These passages affirm the natural right of individuals to protect their lives, their families, and their property.

But what about the command to "Turn the Other Cheek”? When Jesus commanded His followers to “turn the other cheek” (Matthew 5:39), He was addressing personal vengeance, not self-defense. The principle here is about refusing to retaliate out of pride or spite. Personal protection, on the other hand, is about safeguarding one’s life and the lives of others. There is a crucial difference between vengeance and protection—one is rooted in anger, the other in love. I love my family, so I will protect them — and they have every right to expect that of me. 

The Warrior as a Blessing to His People

A man who understands how to wield violence righteously is not a menace to society—he is a warrior and a protector. Warriors uphold justice, shielding the innocent from those who use violence malevolently.

A modern example of benevolent violence occurred in a Texas church just a few years ago. A gunman entered the church and began shooting, killing two members. Before he could claim more lives, a church security team member, Jack Wilson, neutralized the attacker with a single shot. His act was violent; he shot a man. His act required skill; he made a head shot at over 10 yards under stress and while moving (no easy feat). His act required courage; it requires intestinal fortitude to draw and fire without hesitation all while experiencing the adrenaline dump of a life and death situation. It was frightening, fast, and ferocious… i.e. it was violent. 

But in the end, his act of benevolent violence saved lives.

Christian morality does not demand absolute pacifism. Rather, it calls for discernment—the ability to know when to stand firm in non-retaliation and when to act decisively in defense of the innocent. A righteous warrior is not an agent of vengeance but a guardian of peace.

Thank God for warriors.