Nonresistance In An Era Of Church Shootings

June 17, 2015 a young White man named Dylan Roof opened fire at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charlestown, South Carolina. Roof killed 9 black parishioners and was clearly motivated by a desire to ignite racial violence.

September 22, 2017 a Sundanese immigrant Emanuel Kidega Samson opened fire at the Burnette Chapel Church of Christ in Antioch, Tennessee. One person was killed and a number of other people were wounded

November 5, 2017, Devin Kelley, a dishonorably discharged Air Force veteran and militant atheist, enters the First Baptist Church of Sutherland Springs, Texas, killing over two dozen people, including a number of small children.

These are three examples of mass shootings that have occurred at churches over the last two years. I am sure there are others but these are the ones that come to mind.

Now more than ever I am seeing a lot of American Christians asking the question “Is it time for me to arm myself when gathering with the church?” and it is a perfectly understandable question and one that needs more than a simplistic response. My viewpoint on this has been maturing, I hope, over the last year.

First things first, we need to start with some definitions. There are three categories of legally legitimate lethal violence as I see it.

1. Violence in the cause of a nation or state, typically as a member of the military or law enforcement, although I would stipulate that the police often would fall into the second or third categories below.

2. Violence in the defense of one’s self, as an act of self-defense against an aggressor.

3. Violence in the defense of another, such as the shooting of Devin Kelley by a neighbor, an act which likely prevented Kelley from killing even more people.

I have been an absolutist when it comes to nonresistance, in large part as a response to the unquestioning acceptance of violence, including lethal violence, on the part of the church. The church in America has a serious issue where it comes to our love affair with the American military and that is deeply unhealthy.

In practice this means that I have generally treated all three types of lethal violence above in the same way. If it is wrong to kill as a soldier it is wrong to kill in self-defense and it is wrong to kill to defend someone else. It is simpler to look at it that way because it helps neuter some of the “Oh yeah, what about...” gotcha questions.

Looking at each in turn and treating them as distinct although closely related issues gives us a slightly different view.

State Sanctioned Violence, Especially The Military

The first category is, in my opinion, the easiest to reject from a Scriptural and practical sense. It is also one of the hardest to address in the church in America because of our unhealthy love affair with the flag and the military. While war is a reality of human existence, one that will not go away in my lifetime or prior to the return of the Lord, and while Scripture teaches that the sword is placed in the hand of the government as represented by Caesar, that doesn't mean that war is inherently noble or something Christians should engage in.

Very few wars would qualify as a truly justifiable war in American history. Not Vietnam or Korea or World War I. Not even the Civil War which was absolutely not fought to rid America of slavery but instead was fought to keep the Union together. Our wars are generally not defensive in any sense and usually were fought over territory, empire or some sense of misplaced national pride.

Even in the case of World War II, the United States both engaged in atrocities like the firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo in addition to the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki that were all designed to strike terror into the civilian population and sap the will of the government to continue the fight, as well as the complicity of the United States in allying ourselves with the brutal totalitarian government of the Soviet Union, whose forces engaged in all sorts of inhumane behavior and who enslaved and murdered millions upon millions of people in Russia and Eastern Europe for decades after Adolf Hitler was dead. Our “good war” which serves as the trump card for pro-military Christians was hardly a flawless war and was arguably the extension of our foolish intervention in World War I.

In summary, Christians should not be involved as participants nor should we support wars of aggression, wars where you are being sent at the command of Caesar to kill either fellow Christians or the people you are supposed to evangelize. While I can make a weak case for Christian involvement of a sort in defensive wars, there have been very few of those (the war of 1812?) and in general soldiers don't get to pick and choose which wars they get to fight in. The soundest policy for Christians is to not serve as soldiers for Caesar.

Violence In Self-Defense

The second category is a little harder but still for me ultimately is an area Christians should adopt a nonresistance/nonviolence position and that is using violence to defend yourself, specifically defending your life.

The New Testament is replete with what appear to be admonitions to not use violence to defend oneself. In Matthew 5:39 Jesus says "Do not resist the one who is evil". We are told to overcome evil by doing good to those who wrong us (Romans 12:21). Jesus Himself stated: "And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell." (Matthew 10:28). Paul saw dying for the sake of the Gospel as far better than remaining in this world:

For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. If I am to live in the flesh, that means fruitful labor for me. Yet which I shall choose I cannot tell. I am hard pressed between the two. My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better. (Philippians 1:21-23)

So killing someone else to preserve my own life seems counter-productive to me. There is an argument to be made that my family needs me for a variety of reasons that would support self-preservation but compared to the commands of Christ and Paul it is a pretty weak argument.

Violence to Protect Others

The third category is where my absolutist convictions waver. Protecting your friends or family or even strangers when they are in danger from an evil person is hard to argue against. It goes against our nature to stand by when someone is being hurt, especially as a man. I understand and have argued on many occasions that there are other options besides pulling a gun or standing meekly by but in some cases there are just not many options.

I have a solemn and sacred obligation to my family which includes providing for them (1 Timothy 5:8) and educating my children. It is hard to not feel that protecting them from evil doers would fall under my obligations as a father and husband. If someone was threatening my wife and kids and I have the means to stop that someone from harming them, whether that means tackling the would-be assailant or punching him in the nose or hitting him with a baseball bat or pulling a trigger, it would seem to be the lesser of two evils to stop an evil man by violence rather than let him hurt my wife and kids. The counter-argument, which again I have used, is that the lesser of two evils is still evil but then again the alternative is also evil and the greater of the two. Sometimes there just isn't a good option. I am not talking about seeking out an opportunity to shoot someone but evil men can and do seek people out, whether in homes or a school or a church.

I wouldn't want to drive people away with an absolutist position that leaves no room for discernment. There is something deeply distasteful about being in a position to protect your family and not doing so. I might be able to craft a fancy theological argument in favor of nonresistance in that situation but in real life if someone was seriously threatening my wife or kids I am pretty confident that those arguments would fly out of the window and I would do anything in my power to keep them from harm. Anything. I am just as sure that even the most dyed in the wool pacifist would do the same thing if push came to shove and claiming otherwise seems sort of dishonest to me. That isn't really a failure to trust God, I have always worked for a living so I could pay for food to feed my kids instead of sitting around the table waiting for God to provide food in a manna in the desert manner. It is the reality of living in a fallen world. Some of my kids have not professed faith in Christ yet (and may never do so). My wife deserves my protection and my kids need their mother. To let someone harm them when it is in my power to prevent that is just not something I am sure I can argue in favor of anymore.

This is not an easy position to come to. I still find myself arguing internally even as I type these words. But I also have to wrestle between an "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" argument and what I prayerfully feel I am obliged to do in the event of a threat to my friends, family or innocent strangers. I also realize this is a largely theoretical discussion as it is extraordinarily unlikely that I or anyone reading this post will ever have to choose between two highly distasteful and disturbing options. Furthermore I am still hashing this question over and I have been for some time but the recent shootings in Texas and the chatter on social media in response prompted me to take this conversation public. So this is where I am right now. I sincerely pray that God will never allow me in a place where I have to put this to the test.

So ought Christians come to the gathering of the church tomorrow armed in case they need to stop an armed assailant bent on murder? I am not going to but I am also not going to condemn those that do. This is not an issue where one can defend the practice by pointing to the two swords conversation in Scripture or by the appeal to the "live by the sword, die by the sword" argument as both sides of that coin have specific redemptive-historical meaning that defies simple pigeon-holing into a marginally related issue. I think this is a serious question to ponder because as we see violence escalating, especially from people who have religious or political reasons to attack Christians, it is not going to diminish. I would not be surprised to see copycat attacks over the rest of this year. So it is a conversation we need to be having in humility and charity toward one another. That is a pretty tall order in this day and age but that is something the church, if nowhere else in our society, should be able to do.

Non Resistance And MLK

I liked this article from Matt Landis and Mennonite Minute, Some Things You May Not Have Known about Martin Luther King. Matt makes several observations but the one that was pointed out on Facebook (HT: Dwight Gingrich) has to do with the difference between the historic Anabaptist position on non-resistance and the idea of "nonviolence" practiced by King and many "progressive" Christians today:

In “Stride Toward Freedom” [p335] MLK notes “Nonresistance leaves you in a state of stagnant passivity and deadly complacency.” A question for those of us who use the term nonresistance might be: Is our nonresistance actually more passivity than loving the enemy? Is what I call nonresistance  actually a complacent attitude?

As I have thought about the difference between King’s “nonviolence” and conservative Anabaptist “nonresistance” I think the difference is not “action” versus “passivity”. This seems well demonstrated by the stories we tell. The “action” of Dirk Willems actively rescuing his pursuer. Or the “action” of the Mennonite pastor who heard his roof being destroyed in the night by hoodlums and who welcomed the troublemakers in for a good breakfast, thereby “loving them” into appropriate behavior.

Neither is the difference a willingness or unwillingness to be involved in nonviolent civil disobedience. Anabaptists have continually shown themselves willing to “obey God rather than men”. From the subversive act of baptizing only believers in the 1500’s to a willingness to reject portions of the Pennsylvania Child Care Act in the 21st century because it is deemed to inappropriately place the State between brothers & sisters speaking truth to each other and is seen as compromising the structural integrity of an autonomous church, conservative Anabaptist’s are no stranger to “obeying God rather than men”.

The crucial difference between King’s nonviolence and conservative Anabaptist’s nonresistance seems to be who is being demanded to change. The conservative Anabaptist’s “protest for justice” includes demands only of themselves and to others only a offer and call to voluntarily join the Kingdom.

That is really crucial. King and many "social justice" religious types today have no issue with using the coercive power of Caesar to advance their agenda, an agenda which is sometimes well meaning but in my opinion usually way off the mark Biblically and economically. One can be active personally in the pursuit of justice without being unequally yoked with Caesar and unbelievers and when we try to use the coercive force of the state, it inevitably poisons and corrupts our witness. 

Too often non-resistance is reduced to a leftist pacifism coupled with social justice warrior rhetoric. What is taught in the Bible is not a recycled flower child, Vietnam era pacifism but a far deeper and more comprehensive life that seeks to live peaceably with all as far as it is up to us (Romans 12:18) and to esteem others more highly than ourselves (Philippians 2:3). When we adopt the limited understanding of the world when it comes to non-violence/pacifism rather than the broad and robust Biblical surrender of non-resistance, we lose the true meaning of what Christ and the Apostles taught and demonstrated. 

The Bible As A Unified Whole Rather Than A Bunch Of Individual Verses

One of the most concrete rules for the Christian seeking to drink deeply and profitably from the well of Scripture is that every verse needs to be read in context. Reading in context is much more than reading the verse immediately preceding and the verse immediately following the verse you are citing. The Bible as a whole is a unified revelation of God unfolding through the ages His interacting in holiness and glory with the sin deadened world, culminating in the cross of His Son, the heralding of the Kingdom and the inauguration of God's greatest, complete and final covenant with His people. Too often we see the Bible as a whole bunch of moralistic stories, almost as though we never advanced past the children's story book Bible stage, and/or a bunch of verses that we use after sifting through the Bible to find something to support what we have already decided.

I ran into this again in a discussion regarding Christians and the sword, something I have written about a lot. The conversation was launched based on a posting of Ron Sider's article, The Early Church And Killing. I am continually amazed and saddened by how eagerly and often angrily people who profess to be Christians knee-jerk react to any suggestion that we as the ambassadors of the Prince of Peace ought not be in the business of heading out to kill our "enemies", who historically have often been other believers, at the command of Caesar. Specifically someone responded to my comment that putting forth Luke 3:14 where Jesus says a single sentence about soldiers, telling them not to abuse their position and nothing else, is making an argument from silence as He neither affirmed nor condemned being a soldier. That leaves us with the necessity of seeking what else Jesus and the apostles taught on the topic. The gist of the reply was that the Bible speaks favorably about men of war in the book of Hebrews so God must be OK with Christians serving as soldiers.

It is not an argument I have never come up against but it is a lot more rare than the "two swords" passage or direct appeals to the Old Testament. The argument goes like this: In the book of Hebrews, specifically Hebrews 11:32-38 and Hebrews 7:1-3, the author of the book praises some of those mentioned in the Bible as mighty warriors. Therefore God is Ok with His people being soldiers. The passages read as follows (I have added emphasis where I presume those who use these verses to argue in favor of Christians engaging in warfare are focused):

For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, and to him Abraham apportioned a tenth part of everything. He is first, by translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then he is also king of Salem, that is, king of peace. He is without father or mother or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest forever. Hebrews 7:1-3

...and....

And what more shall I say? For time would fail me to tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets—who through faith conquered kingdoms, enforced justice, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the power of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, were made strong out of weakness, became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight. Women received back their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, so that they might rise again to a better life. Others suffered mocking and flogging, and even chains and imprisonment. They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were killed with the sword. They went about in skins of sheep and goats, destitute, afflicted, mistreated—of whom the world was not worthy—wandering about in deserts and mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth. Hebrews 11:32-38

First off, what is the point here? Is it the promotion of warfare? Not really. The point being made in the first paragraph is both God's and Abraham's faithfulness. Ironically the writer of Hebrews describes Melchizedek as the "king of Salem...that is the king of peace". It is their faithfulness that lands people in positions of praise in the book of Hebrews. Being valiant for the sake of being valiant is not what the Bible is praising. Erwin Rommel, the Desert Fox, was a valiant warrior and a brilliant general. He also led the armies of Adolf Hitler's Third Reich. Vasily Zaytsev, the Russian sniper immortalized in the movie Enemy At The Gates, was a valiant warrior who reportedly killed hundreds of Nazis single-handedly. He fought on behalf of the Stalinist Soviet Union that matched the genocidal prowess of the Third Reich's Final Solution. Being valiant isn't what God is after. Being faithful is what God is expecting from His people.

Second, and this is pretty critical, the men who were mighty warriors in Hebrews 11 were living in a specific covenant nation made up of believers and unbelievers and part of that covenant was that God commanded them to drive out certain people groups by force and take possession of their lands. Let me repeat that. The heroes of Hebrews 11 lived under a conditional covenant that is now obsolete that demanded as part of that covenant the conquest of other people groups. Although national Israel was made up of both believers and unbelievers, they were all part of God's covenant people. On the other hand the nations they conquered were essentially 100% not God's people. God Himself commanded His-people to war against not-His-people. So how does that compare to now?

Since the dismantling of the nation of Israel, the destruction of the Temple and the inauguration of the New Covenant there has never been a war fought to compare to that situation under the obsolete Old Covenant. God has never commanded His people who are the Bride of Christ, the citizens of the Kingdom rather than the world, to go to war based on which secular nation-state they live in and kill people from another secular nation-state. In every war of Western Europe and America, believers have been sent out by Caesar to kill their enemies who often are their brothers in Christ. To narrow down our focus a bit let me make a succinct, clear statement:

Every single war America has ever fought has included believers killing other believers for no reason other than they wore a different uniform and a different leader told them to do so.

Every. Single. War.

Two men, bought by the shed blood of Jesus Christ, pointing spears or sword or muskets or rifles at each other with the intent to take another life bought by Christ. That is perverse and I would argue blasphemous. Little wonder that in every war America has fought, clergy have been enlisted by Caesar to put their stamp of approval on these wars, from the Revolutionary War to the invasion of Iraq, to convince Christians that God is on "our side" and He is fine with Christians killing other people because He obviously is not on "their side". Of course clergy on the other side are assuring their fellow citizens that God is in fact on "their side". Imagine this. Before many battles in the Civil War, clergy prayed on behalf of their side while fellow American believers were praying a stones throw away on behalf of their side. The hope of each was victory which means killing more of them than they kill of you.

Is that why Jesus redeemed us? So we can kill each other because some leader, often an unbeliever, sends Christian to fight Christian? Perish the thought.

We are supposed to think that God wants His own people to kill for the state because men were commanded to fight under an obsolete covenant? God has placed the sword in the hand of the state (Romans 13:1-5) and immediately before that He has forbidden His people to take up the sword (Romans 12: 16-21). Context.

Viewed in the light of comprehensive Biblical context it is clear that the conditions that existed when God commanded His people to go to war under a now obsolete covenant relationship no longer exist and as a people who are mixed into all the nations, Christians are never commanded and in fact are forbidden from taking up the sword to kill our enemies. The enemies of one state are not automatically our enemies just because we live there. Even if they truly are our enemies, the only response to an enemy we are given in the Bible is to love them. The world overcomes evil by the sword. The Church overcomes evil by the Spirit of God leading His people to overcome evil with good (Romans 12:21). If you want to be a hero, show your faithfulness and devotion with love, not with a sword.

Buy A Gun Or You Don't Love Jesus

That probably seems like a silly and unnecessary title to a post but what inspired this post was an essay by Michael Patton over at Credo House with this humdinger of a title: Why Christians Are Ordered to Have Guns. Not allowed. Not permitted. Not something to be considered. Ordered. So yeah, that is a pretty provocative post title that deserves an equally over the top title in my response. Anyway, someone posted this on Facebook and it stirred up an interesting conversation and because the entire original post was, just being frank, an exegetical train wreck I am going to refute it section by section,

First a comment about the title. Generally your title is an introduction for someone who is going to read your blog post or is an inducement to get them to click on the link, aka "click bait". So if you are going to make a serious claim like every Christian is ordered to have a gun you should probably make that case. Michael does not.

Skipping over the first few paragraphs which talk about why he was writing this post we get to the first argument regarding the importance of education the populace about the 2nd Amendment.

I didn’t quote the 2nd Amendment merely as an introduction to remind people of it, but because I believe a very sad fact: most Americans have never even read it or really thought about it. 

The hearts and minds of America (and American Christians) must be won first through education. Most Americans have very little notion of what America is all about, what Bono, the rock star Irishman, calls “the idea of America.” And the idea of America includes the right to bear arms and, as I will argue, something beyond this.

Ok. I agree that it is troubling that most American don't have a clue what the 2nd Amendment says or any of the rest of the Constitution for that matter. I also agree that very few Americans have any sort of concept about what America means or why it exists or why we have a Constitution in the first place. I am reading Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy In America and it is horrifying how far we have strayed from the grand vision that led to the forming of a limited republican government focused on individual liberty rather than a monarchy. I will go several steps farther and note that I am a gun owner and I am 100% convinced that the 2nd Amendment was intended to and actually does preserve an individual right to own a firearm. None of that has anything to do with whether Christians are "ordered" to have guns or even if they should.

This is an important point. Throughout history the vast majority of Christians had nothing even vaguely resembling a right to arms. The vast majority of Christians right now do not own firearms. So we are left with the idea that God has specially chosen Christian living in America to arm themselves in a manner unknown to most of our brethren over the last 200 years. That is a pretty tough argument to make. Moving on....

It is interesting that Jesus in Luke 22:35ff tells the apostles to get a sword. Now, I, personally, would not claim this is an exact parallel to the idea of the 2nd Amendment, but it does have some bearing on whether citizens can have a sword (an instrument of death).

As sure as the sun rising in the east, those who argue in favor of Christians arming themselves and preparing themselves to use those weapons to kill someone else are going to go to Luke 22 and Romans 13 for New Testament support. Just as certainly those same people are going to ignore Luke 22;37 that tells us why Jesus wanted the disciples to have swords (hint, it was not for self-defense or to use at all) and the end of Romans 12 which of course immediately precedes Romans 13 and is the most explicit teaching on non-violence anywhere in the Scriptures. Notice what he does here. He says "I, personally, would not claim this is an exact parallel to the idea of the 2nd Amendment" (emphasis mine). So he uses the argument that the 2nd Amendment is a parallel to Luke 22, just not an exact one. The problems here are two-fold. First, the passage he cites in Luke has nothing to do with Christians arming themselves. It is a specific event for a specific purpose and read in context it has nothing to do with arming ourselves. The second is much more troubling and is a recurring theme in his post. He tosses out there the notion that Luke 22 supports owning weapons by Christian and draws a parallel between the teachings of Jesus and the 2nd amendment and then moves on without even pretending to engage the text and the very obvious problems with using the "numbered with the transgressors" passage to support a Biblical command for Christians to own guns, When you are making an argument about a Kingdom topic, if you turn to Scripture, as you should, you must at least engage the text a little. Otherwise you are just tossing out verses with no thought as to their proper context and usage. That drives me nuts and a published author with a master's in theology like Michael should know better. The fact that he makes no attempt to interact with a portion of Scripture he tosses out as support for his position is a mark of someone who has a weak argument.

In the book of Romans we are told to obey our government. “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities” (Romans 13:1). If we do not obey, we should fear the consequences as the government does not “bear the sword for nothing” (Roman 13:4). 

The government “bearing the sword” does not in any way exclude citizens from having one. In fact, the passage might very well assume that citizens carry swords also. The idea here has to do with whether or not the government should be able to exact penalties for criminal activity, even the penalty of death. Paul’s assumption is that this is an obligation the government bears.

I will grant the first assertion in the second paragraph, nothing in Romans 13 by itself would negate Christians bearing the sword. The next sentence though is inaccurate. Again we see the use of a qualified assertion to plant the notion in the reader's mind that a passage of Scripture implies something when it does nothing of the sort. In this case "the passage might very well assume that citizens carry swords also" is creating from thin air an assumption that the private citizens of the state are assumed to carry swords even though nothing in the passage would imply that. Maybe they did and maybe they didn't but the Scriptures simply don't say and this is little more than making a case from silence, even though the immediately preceding verses in Romans 12 would strongly indicate that even if pagan citizens of the Roman empire carried weapons, Christians did not until several centuries after Paul. Next we turn to the next paragraph and this is where it really goes off the rails...

However, any time the government no longer functions as a legitimate government, the higher law, a natural law, the “Lex Rex” (King Law or “the law is king”) says that people have the right and obligation to overthrow such government. Aren’t we supposed to submit to the government? However, this assumes that the government in question is a legitimate government. It is hard to know where to draw the line from a biblical standpoint (and I have no intention of exploring that question here), but from the standpoint of our government that “we the people” set up and rule over, this is an obligation we carry.

The post jumps from a clumsy attempt at exegesis to a completely extra-biblical principle, "natural law" or "Lex Rex". Note that he even concedes that the Bible makes no distinctions in the New Testament as to what qualifies a "legitimate" secular government. The reason he cannot draw this line is that the Bible never does and just as importantly it never assumes that Christians are to rise up in armed revolt against an "illegitimate" government. The Roman rule over Israel was brutal, as we see in the scourging and crucifying of Jesus Christ and the eventual violent martyring of many of the apostles in Scripture. The Romans would even eventually destroy the temple in Jerusalem. If there was ever an illegitimate government it was Roman rule over Israel but we never, ever find a call to violent revolt from Christ or His disciples. If it was His intent that we rise up, one might think it would be mentioned by Him. He makes an appeal that as American citizens we are obliged to arm ourselves in case of revolt even though that eternal preparation for revolt is completely contrary to what Paul says in Romans 13. Hang on, this next leap is a huge one.

Because of our biblical obligation to the government expressed by Paul in Romans 13, I would say that owning a gun is something that goes beyond just a right, it is imperative to the well-being of our county. Notice this again in the 2nd Amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…” “Militia” is a term that may bring up misunderstanding. People will no doubt think of a rouge of hillbilly nuts who hate the government and form their group to create a cult whose purpose is to disturb or destroy our government. This is not what is meant. What is meant is a group of people who love America, whether or not they agree with the policies of any particular presidential administration or the rulings of any Supreme Court. These are citizens who are intent on obeying the government by keeping the government in check. What an incredibly unique and necessary situation our forefathers set up. Not only are there checks and balances in the three branches of our government, there are also checks and balances of power between the formal government and the people. Our forefathers knew all too well how unguarded governments can and most often do turn into tyrannical messes. And they wrote as one of the first amendments something to deter tyranny.

In spite of his impassioned appeal to the need of an armed citizenry to keep the government in check, something I believe was intended by the framers, he is again making a linkage that doesn't exist. He starts off with "Because of our biblical obligation to the government expressed by Paul in Romans 13, I would say that owning a gun is something that goes beyond just a right, it is imperative to the well-being of our county.". So Christians should submit to the government as Paul writes but then we see that American Christians have a complementary obligation to arm ourselves to keep the government in check. He goes from submission to the government, which is Biblical, to a treatment of why American citizens must be armed. The chasm between these two concepts is enormous. It is effective largely because we as Christians living in America have been so inundated with teaching about America being a "Christian nation", our shared "Judeo-Christian" values and the priority of the American pseudo-Christian civic religion over all else that we can often not distinguish between where Christianity ends and America begins.

His next three paragraphs focus on the topic of "HOW CAN WE EXPECT TO FIGHT AGAINST FIGHTER JETS AND PLANES?". They are not very interesting arguments and have nothing to do with the assertion in his title that Christians are ordered to have guns so I will jump to his closing argument:

I believe that there is a responsibility for us to have this kind of power immediately available to all Americans. The truth be told, if there are any Christians who have a hard time with this (and I know there are and I do sympathize with the objections), we must understand that to obey Romans 13, we must, at the very least, support the right to bear arms. When we go against, we may do so because of conscience or fear, but we have nothing to fear as long as we take all the necessary precautions and educate and train all those who do bear these arms. It needs to be well regulated on the “militia” level and on the level of the individual. Is it dangerous? Definitely. Is a car dangerous as we allow 16 year olds to drive them? Absolutely (I have one of those). That is why we should have diligent training for both. Will people use them for evil ends? Definitely. We live in a fallen world with fallen people who seek their own gain. But, ultimately, we have to understand not only the disobedience to Scripture when we go against the 2nd Amendment, but the radical danger there is when the government disarms its people.

I am not really saying that every individual Christian is ordered to have a gun. If it is something that is truly against your conscience, don’t get one. But those who can, should (and go through training, following the safety rules). But, at the very least, I do believe that in order to obey God, we should support the 2nd Amendment.

This is my musing on gun control. I am willing to change my mind if someone can convince me otherwise.

Wow. In a sense he is somewhat correct. The 2nd Amendment is the law of the land and part of the governing documents of America so we as Christians in submission to the government should of course recognize the right of citizens to bear arms. That doesn't mean we are obligated or permitted to arm ourselves. It is legal in virtually every state to go to a strip club. Many states have legalized gambling. Every state allows citizens to purchase and consume alcohol as long as they don't drive afterward.  I recognize that these are part of the law and as such I am not chaining myself to the door of a nudie bar. Even though all of the above are social ills and harmful, it is the law. There is a difference between what is permitted and what is proper for a citizen of Christ's Kingdom. I am again going to point out that when your title is "Why Christians Are Ordered to Have Guns" but you then write in your conclusion "I am not really saying that every individual is ordered to have a gun", you undermine your own argument. Either stand firm on what you said in the title or change the title to "Why Christians Should Consider Having A Gun".

Michael is sort of making two arguments and mixing them together, first that the 2nd Amendment is a vital part of the law of our land and second that the New Testament at the least doesn't prohibit the ownership of weapons by Christians. The first argument is not terribly well presented but it doesn't contain any obvious factual errors. The second argument is not made at all beyond throwing a couple of Scriptures out and then less than subtly trying to link them to the 2nd Amendment. His unwillingness to engage in the work of exegesis and willful disregard of contrary positions makes his Biblical case completely toothless. In fact it only works when one starts from a U.S. Constitutional and then backs into Scripture to find verses that out of context seem to maybe imply some very weak support for his argument.

There is a case to be made from Scripture in favor of Christians having arms and being likewise prepared to use them in the defense of others, especially those too weak to defend themselves, but it isn't made here. Michael needs to go back, rethink his arguments and read a few decent resources that argue to the contrary and are widely available like Preston Sprinkle's book Fight (see my review here). He acts as if the arguments that run counter to his position are not worthy of being mentioned in specifics or engaged in a meaningful way but if you can't defend your position in the face of critical and contrary arguments, it probably isn't an position worth having.

Approaching The Piper - Guns Kerfuffle From A Different Perspective

While the initial firestorm of often strident and sometimes angry rebuttals of John Piper's post on Christians arming themselves for self-defense (see my post here) has died down, there is still conversation happening on the issue and that is a good thing. In the broader conservative evangelical world Piper and Preston Sprinkle seem to be the lone stalwarts holding what is an unpopular position re: Christian non-resistance.  Sure I am defending Piper was well but no one cares what I think.

In evangelical circles talk of practical peacemaking and non-resistance is a relatively new topic but among the Anabaptists it has been the position since the earliest days of the Radical Reformation. Unfortunately there has been little conversation on this topic between Anabaptists and evangelicals on this topic or any other for that matter (thus the impetus for writing a book on what Anabaptists and the Reformed can learn by conversation with one another, a book that seems to be no closer to getting done now than when I first announced it ). I was glad to see Dwight Gingrich interacting with Tim Challies on this topic and Dwight has since written a lengthy post on the topic of conservative Anabaptists and non-resistance titled Peacemaking: The Quiet In The Land Speak Up. As someone grounded in the Reformed tradition and with a growing affinity for Anabaptism I jotted down some not terribly brief thoughts reproduced below. You should check out Dwight's post, he raises a lot of interesting questions.

-------------------------------

Excellent summary of the issue. As someone more deeply anchored in the Reformed tradition I can say unequivocally that Piper is really the lone voice in the contemporary Reformed world that is even the least bit open to non-resistance. The virtual firestorm response he has gotten is pretty typical for those in the Reformed tradition and in American evangelicalism alike. Among the Reformed more broadly there are three reasons why non-resistance has gotten little traction:

1) A general hermeneutic of covenant theology which tends to blur the distinction between the Old and the New, making the Old Testament written and lived out under the Old Covenant, to be as authoritative and more spherically as applicable to the church as the New Testament. This is the source of so many of Piper's detractors turning to Old Covenant civil laws for their Scriptural sources to reject what Piper is saying.

2) A broad acceptance of Just War theory with more than a little theonomy thrown in for good measure. Given Augustine's position as the father of Christian just war theory and the very high regard most Reformed give to Augustine, his teaching on just war is given broad, and in my opinion, uncritical acceptance by most prominent Reformed teachers.

3) There is a startling absence of any voices in the Reformed tradition that hold to any sort of non-resistance or if there are they are not well known. The Reformed lean heavily on scholastic writings of the forefathers in the tradition (Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Edwards,  etc.) and upon their historic confessions. When there are no contemporary or historic voices affirming a position, it is going to get little thought or attention.

Of course one overarching factor needs to be stated. In America non-resistance = pacifism and pacifism=liberalism. No good red blooded American Reformed Christian is going to stand for being called a liberal. This has led to a unilateral surrender of this issue to the religious left. That complete abdication of this topic to, for want of a better term, the liberal wings of the church. That is why I was likewise so pleased to find Preston Spinkle's book. I was familiar with Preston for his work with Francis Chan on a defense of the traditional understanding of Hell in the book Erasing Hell, so seeing him taking on this topic was encouraging. The only other book I have run across that deals as deeply with this issue is Guy Hershberger's "War, Peace and Nonresistance" but given that he is a Mennonite his writings have a very narrow audience (as proof the only review on Amazon for this book is mine).

Ironically, on almost any other topic, the same Reformed who are flogging Piper would agree with him over Jerry Falwell, Jr. and yet these same brothers have exploded with negative responses to Piper including some pretty over the top, frothing at the mouth replies from less thoughtful brethren.

You also touch on some broader themes and one of them has to do with the relative lack rigorous scholasticism in Anabaptism. Simon Fry touched on this in his recent post. I have seen some examples of "this is what we believe because this is what we believe" with no attempt or interest in engaging him contrary voices. As someone  who is an interested outside observer I can see that there is trouble coming down the road for the young adult generation in conservative Anabaptism as they tap into non-Anabaptist sources and see arguments that they have never heard before.  Lots of interesting things to ponder on this topic.

(as a side note for those unfamiliar with Tim Challies, he is a Canadian and that in part explains why he hasn't given this topic much thought because even owning a gun in Canada is a difficult task) 

Armed Self-Defense: The 11th Commandment of the church in America

I have remarked before that of the controversial subjects I post on nothing else gets the kind of angry response as the questioning of Christians using violence, whether on behalf of the state or in self-defense. It is not even close and when I say angry I mean really, really angry. So when John Piper wrote a post, Should Christians Be Encouraged to Arm Themselves?, that pretty neatly laid out the rationale for Christians not packing heat solidly grounded in the Bible and in recognition of the prioritization of the New Covenant, it got the sound and fury you would expect. I hope that the backlash doesn't drown out the message. John Piper has written something terribly important on this topic. It is important for what it says, for how carefully he says it and because it comes from someone with such a broad audience in the church. Piper and by association Desiring God Ministries have the greatest audience for the question of violence and the Christian.

I am not someone who takes what Piper says as gospel truth simply because it comes from his mouth or his pen.  I find that I agree with Piper to varying degrees on almost every topic but on places we differ like most of what he writes on ecclesiology I don't hesitate to call out when he or anyone else blurs the distinction between Western religious traditions and Scriptural command and precedent.

Needless to say, many have taken to the interwebs to contradict Piper. Speaking in generalities those who most vehemently advocate for Christians arming themselves, and doing so via careful exegesis, tend to lean heavily on the Old Testament and likewise tend toward theocratic thinking. Others, like Tom Chantry, assert that John Piper "has no discernment at all". Apparently Piper makes the mistake of not dividing "churchy stuff" from "non-churchy stuff". Check out the statements I put in bold:

The latest upheaval is over Piper’s silly article about Christians owning guns, a topic he first addressed some years ago. Now I’ll say this up front, of all the works of Piper which might raise outrage in the church, anti-second-amendment rhetoric is the very least. That said, the problem with both these articles is that Piper wants to funnel every discussion of gun-ownership and self-defense through the filter of evangelistic encounter. That’s nice and gospel-centered (TGC is kicking themselves for not publishing this first!) but fails to recognize the rather obvious facts that not every Christian is a missionary, not every circumstance is evangelistic, not every moral priority is gospel oriented, and not all violence is murder. Do you see how many categories get blurred when Piper speaks? That’s a discernment problem: he can’t tell one thing from another.

Yikes. First assuming that only "missionaries" need to worry about evangelistic encounters is false. Just because a Christian doesn't carry the title of "missionary" it doesn't follow that they are not called to reach the lost. Nowhere do we see a caveat on the Great Commission or elsewhere that only "missionaries" need to worry about evangelistic encounters. Apparently Chantry prefers that the unlicensed among us keep our mouths shut and pay attention to the sermon. The second is like unto the first. Why would every encounter with an unbeliever not be an opportunity to share the Gospel? Maybe in the workplace you could make that argument but that is partly why I choose to work for myself. If encounters with unbelievers is not the proper setting for evangelism, what is? The third is just perplexing because it is so sweeping and Chantry does nothing to explain it. What "moral priorities" do we have that are not "gospel oriented"? Are we to box up the Gospel so that it only applies when at church or when you are a missionary? In loving our enemies are we only asked to do that from the pew? One of the great weaknesses in the church is that we teach moralism instead of the Gospel, something I assume Chantry agrees with but here we have a learned fellow telling us that when inconvenient we can making moral decisions apart from the Gospel. Read it again: " not every moral priority is gospel oriented ". That is a major admission. While I agree with the fourth point from a legal standpoint the reality is that no matter how you nuance the taking of another human's life, it is still killing. When the abortionists say they are "terminating a pregnancy" what they are doing is still killing a child. Killing is killing no matter the rationale or circumstances. It is not a stretch to say that killing is naturally the opposite of loving. We are called to love others, even and especially our enemies. We are never called to kill anyone. Chantry doesn't miss the chance to take a shot at Piper for his relationship with Mark Driscoll and other bad people like Tim Keller and D.A. Carson. 

On the other hand there are plenty of more generic evangelicals who take umbrage at what Piper wrote because no red blooded 'Murican would say such a thing. Sounds like Piper's Christian hedonism is nothing but old fashioned communism. The arguments coming from those folks, boiled down to "Piper is wrong. USA! USA! USA!" can be ignored.

There is very little that I find more obnoxious and frankly disgusting than internet tough guys thumping their chests and talking about what a ruthless killer they are. I assume the vast majority of them have never so much as pulled a gun on someone much less pulled the trigger and extinguished the life of another human being. Yeah pal, we are all impressed by what a tough guy you are and how eager you are to tell others how willing you are to kill someone else. I would bet quite a bit that faced with an actual dangerous criminal that their real response would be to soil themselves.

The taking of the life of another human being, even if you are "in the right", is nothing to be taken lightly. I can respect brothers who have a reasoned approach to disagreeing with Piper and my own position but I cannot abide those who think that killing others is a joke or something to cause them to puff up their chest and strut about like a bantam rooster. In a surprisingly level disagreement with Piper, Doug Wilson expressed his disdain for this pseudo-masculinity:

But what we do know from John’s article is that he wouldn’t have a gun on him as he made the decision what to do. Now here comes the glib accusation. It is easy to say — as some have said — that leaving this open to question is not very “manly,” and that a true husband from ‘Merica would place a tight grouping of at least three holes above the assailant’s right ear.

That is it in a nutshell. I like what Doug says next:

John is actually doing something very different, and he is doing it in a very masculine way. He is a biblical absolutist, and he is pursuing a tight, systematic, rational argument from the text of Scripture. Differing with his argument, as I do, is not the same thing as answering him. In the meantime, I don’t have a doubt in my mind that John will go wherever the argument requires him to go, and he will submit to the text, whatever it says. We need more of that, not less.

Yes. Biblical manliness is exhibited, in part, in taking care with God's Word. Being a student of Scripture is far better than being a deadly shot with a gun. Wilson is right, we need more men to emulate Piper's handling of the Word of God. We have plenty of guys who can shoot a gun but not nearly enough who can rightly divide the Word of God. When it comes to eternity, being able to put shots in the 10 ring is as meaningless as being able to stand on one foot. What will matter is what we made of the Son of God who made peace between God and man and who called on His sheep to be at peace with all.

I would encourage you to read Piper's essay but also to step back and observe the response he is getting. I am not so much interested in his argument although it is quite good. I am more concerned with the reaction. Why would something like going around armed to kill an assailant, something not even on the radar of most Christians outside of America, get people so riled up? Do we really understand our citizenship in the Kingdom of Heaven rather than prioritizing our American citizenship or are we instead compartmentalizing our faith and giving priority to our worldly affiliation where it suits us? I find the responses to be troubling and raising more questions than they answer. We need a little soul searching here people. Something is off kilter in the church in America.

Just War Is A Theory. Jesus Is God. Which Then Should We Follow?

In March of 2014 a debate was had over the issue of "Just War", a doctrine which purports to lay out the conditions under which a nation may justifiably go to war and from a Christian perspective which wars can be considered just and righteous so that Christians can support and participate in said war. The debate itself is over 2 hours long and I haven't had the time yet to watch the entire thing. However one of the participants arguing against "Just War", Dean Taylor, carved out his closing statement and I thought it was worthwhile to link to it. One of these days I am going to actually watch the entire thing even though a) I already have a very firm conviction on this issue and b) I have some concerns about Dean's partner David Bercot. Anyway give it a watch and consider watching the entire video if you can make the time, I am thinking you probably want to watch it all in one sitting.

70 Years Since The World Unleashed The Worst Weapon Of Mass Destruction Ever

70 years ago on this day the world saw the first of two atomic bombs unleashed on a mostly civilian population in Hiroshima, Japan. A few days later we did it again to the city of Nagasaki, Japan. With those actions hundreds of thousands died or were maimed and the world changed forever. If you have a streak of the macabre you can look at your own city and see what it would look like if the Hiroshima bomb was dropped on it today. You can also see the original orders for the atomic bomb strikes. What struck me was that the military was thoughtful enough to schedule religious services for Catholics and Protestants to worship Jesus right before they flew off to incinerate women and children. I wonder if they sang "Jesus Loves The Little Children"?

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an act of state-sponsored terrorism. That sounds harsh and not at all right to American ears. After all, we stopped the Nazis and then we stopped Imperial Japan, stomping the Japanese so badly that they still officially don't have a military (good news though, we will spend ourselves our of existence to defend Japan so they don't have to). Terrorism is what them Arabs and other people with funny names do, not what America does. Not so fast my friend. One of the prime definitions of the word "terrorism" is: Violence against civilians to achieve military or political objectives. That is exactly what happened and it doesn't make much difference to the civilians being killed if the plane was a commercial flight flown into a building in New York or a B-29 dropping a bomb on Hiroshima. Keep in mind that in both Germany and Japan, the U.S. used mass firebombing of cities to break the will of the people. The difference of course was that the U.S. and our frienemies the Soviets were already closing in on Berlin while we firebombed the Germans while an invasion of Japan proper was still in the works. Thanks to the fact that Hitler was nuts and the Red Army and the U.S. army were rampaging toward Berlin, German surrender was rendered moot. The Japanese however were more recalcitrant and harder to get to, even though the atomic bombing were preceded by months of firebombing of Japanese cities, including a raid on Tokyo that might have killed outright more people than the Hiroshima bombing, although firebombs don't have the radiation impact that the atomic bombs did, burning people alive in their homes.

Very subtle

Over the years as I have come to a place of non-resistance, I have found the excuses we use as a people to defend our use of weapons of mass destruction and terror to be increasingly hollow. I have run into all sorts of arguments, from new ones like nuking Japan saved them from being invaded and occupied by the Soviets (so see, we did them a favor. Sorry about incinerating those kids.) to old ones like the atomic bombing forced Japan's surrender and saved countless U.S. lives. I have even been told that the civilians had it coming because they were helping the war effort. Of course American citizens were doing the same thing on a massive scale but you can bet we wouldn't feel the same if Hitler had the bomb and used it on New York City. What made it more palatable then and probably secretly now was the very effective propaganda that dehumanized the Japanese people, just like Nazi Germany dehumanized Jews and ironically how pro-abortion forces dehumanize babies today. Watch some of the propaganda films from that era. Even Bugs Bunny got in on the act (watch the videos from that era and you will see what I mean). The Japanese were easy to dehumanize, even more so that the Germans, because they were foreign looking. The Germans looked like Americans but  the Japanese were an "other". They were called "Japs", "Nips", "little yellow devils" and all sorts of other charming names and the hatred for them was palpable up until recently. My maternal grandparents were Democrats but hated the Japanese people decades after the war. The vitriolic way they spoke about the Japanese seemed normal to me at the time but it is kind of shocking now that my sweet little Grannie had a hatred burning for an entire people decades after the war ended. It used to be a good way to get beat up where I lived if you drove a Jap car in the Rust Belt where American cars were built by American union autoworkers. If you Google search World War 2 propaganda posters you get pictures like the one above with the oh so subtle message that those dirty Japs were coming to rape white American women (search the "Tokio Kid" series for some particularly revolting pictures). In most of the propaganda posters the Japanese are portrayed as evil, leering subhumans with exaggerated slanted eyes and huge buckteeth, sometimes with fangs thrown in to reinforce the message. That message was clear, Japs aren't really humans. They are "The Enemy" and whatever we need to do to defeat "The Enemy" is OK, whether that means food and fuel rationing for the war effort or sticking those dirty Japs in internment camps or nuking women and children. This same tactic was used in Vietnam to excuse the war crimes perpetrated against the Vietnamese people. They were just "zipperheads" or "Gooks". Not people cuz the U.S. doesn't do that. We still see this today. So sorry kids got killed in that drone strike, they are "collateral damage" but we killed a high value target. USA! The U.S. has been acting like the drunkest guy in the party since World War II ended with the atomic bombings, stumbling around looking for a fight and generally making a mess of things, all the while killing lots of civilians while saving lots of other civilians. Ya want to make an omelette ya gotta break a few eggs. #amiright?

Militarily you can justify the atomic bombings. After all the goal was to force Japan to surrender and save American lives. Civilians always have and always will die in war in disproportionate numbers. I would not have wanted to be a civilian family in Germany that had a visit from Soviet troops or Americans because the stories are out there and they are ugly, often as ugly as the atrocities commited by the Japanese and Germans (I don't count the Italians because they were really useless in the war). Like I said, the goal was achieved. The Japanese surrendered, we won, the world was saved, USA! I am not minimizing the facts like the simple playground excuse of "They started it" and the reality of invading Japan leading to a lot of lives being lost among military and civilian alike. The Japanese were brutal in war, from the Bataan Death March to the practice of using teen-aged girls from occupied areas as "comfort women", a clever euphemism for sex slaves. Although less well documented than the Holocaust, Japanese war crimes are nausea inducing. Make no mistake, I am absolutely saying that the world as a whole is better off because we won and they lost although it is a lot more complicated. World War II didn't happen in a historical vacuum, just like the War on Terror isn't the result (entirely) of events since 9/11. I am personally glad that we got the bomb before the Nazis did (and also that Hitler was unhinged enough to invade the USSR, splitting his forces and changing history). That doesn't change the reality that the United States used terrorism as a weapon to subdue the Japanese people and we do history and humanity no favors by pretending that it was anything other than an atrocity, even if it was a "necessary" one. There are still many lessons to be learned today from the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima and I don't mean the lesson of "Don't mess with the U.S.".

The bitter irony of the United States being the only nation to use an atomic weapon in war while scolding others for seeking to gain access to the same is not lost on me and becomes more grating every year. I really don't want Iran to gain access to a nuclear weapon but I also am not super keen on Israeli already having them, or India or Pakistan or France or even the good ole U.S. of A. since we actually used them. After the Iraq invasion and occupation came up empty on WMDs, we could have sent the inspectors to America because we have them all over the central part of the country in innocuous looking concrete bunkers in Wyoming and Nebraska.

The Japanese people still remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We need to remember them as well, not as an opportunity to pat ourselves on our collective backs but as a bitter reminder of the cost of war that perhaps will dissuade us or at least give us pause before we get into the seemingly inevitable next war. We seem to look back with nostalgia on  the days of World War II and have been trying to recreate that heady feeling by getting into war after war ever since. Korea. Vietnam. Iraq. Afghanistan. Countless smaller wars and a decades long Cold War where only the threat of mutually assured destruction kept the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. from lobbing nukes at one another.

We like to pray for God to "bless our troops" and thank Him for our freedom but we must remember: The "freedom" you enjoy was purchased with the currency of dead women and children. That is an uncomfortable truth but a truth nevertheless.

The lesser of two evils is still evil. Remember Pearl Harbor but also remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Dresden and countless other places. Remember the mother in Dresden burned alive alongside her baby in a carriage. Remember the dead in Hiroshima and those maimed so horrifically that I couldn't bring myself to post a picture of them. If you are also a Christian remember the words of Christ...

"But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either. (Luke 6:27-29)

Non-resistance In Light Of The Selling Of Human Beings Piecemeal

I write a fair bit about the genteel genocide that happens on a vast scale in America in the sterile offices of abortionists. I don't apologize for that. Just the opposite, the national horror and staining of our character that is abortion demands the church speak out. If I posted something about abortion every day of the year I would still count myself timid in the struggle for basic human dignity for the least of us.

This past week has introduced an entirely new level of gruesome brutality as undercover videos show representatives of the falsely named organization "Planned Parenthood" bartering for the left over pieces of human infants. While "comedians" cried crocodile tears over the death of a single lion, the media did their level best to ignore the whole topic but thanks to social media and a few outspoken voices, this topic will not go away. What makes these videos so chilling is not the brutal act of abortion. Everyone knows (but few will say) what happens when a woman enters an abortuary pregnant with a human child and leaves no longer pregnant. We hide the brutal carving, crushing and vacuuming of over a million children each year behind clever euphemisms and concepts like "choice" and "women's reproductive rights". It is murder for hire hiding in plain sight, little different from rail cars filled with Jews going away and never coming back. The Germans knew something was going on but no one talked about it. Likewise we avoid talking openly about abortion and certainly refuse to look at the results. No, what really makes the videos grotesque is how casual the representatives of history's greatest mass murderer are about the entire thing.

Casual brutality is far worse than other kinds of brutality. The brutality that is often on display in our popular culture and evening news is bad enough but when brutality is hidden behind shrugged shoulders and polite conversation there is something far more disquieting about it. We sort of get it when people who are unhinged are savage but when savagery happens in lovely offices with not so much as a moment of regret by people purporting to be "medical professionals", it is so much worse. When you compound this brutality with the half a billion the tax payers provide to these butchers and the reality that one political party, to quote George Will's brilliant column, has as a sacred cow the unlimited, anytime, anywhere, any age support for abortion...

The nonnegotiable tenet in today’s Democratic Party catechism is not opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline or support for a $15 minimum wage. These are evanescent fevers. As the decades roll by, the single unshakable commitment is opposition to any restriction on the right to inflict violence on pre-born babies. So today there is a limitless right to kill, and distribute fragments of, babies that intrauterine medicine can increasingly treat as patients.

...you are left with no choice but to act. But how in keeping with Biblical non-resistance?

What then ought a non-resistant Christian do in light of abortion, especially with the new revelations of Planned Parenthood harvesting the "non-crushed" parts of tiny human being for sale?

I have some serious moral qualms about the way the videos were gathered. Being false even in the defense of the helpless is something that bothers me. I also have absolutely zero faith that electing a sufficient number of Republicans would do anything to stop abortion. My understanding of the Biblical mandate to Christians is, in the King James vernacular, that we "resist not evil" (Matthew 5:39) and "overcome evil with good" (Romans 12:21). So what then? Shall we sit on the sidelines and think positive thoughts?

Of course not. Being non-resistant never has been intended to be inactive, just that we seek the way of the cross in fighting injustice rather than employing the coercive and violent methods of the world. We can and we must be outspoken, prophetic voices calling those who commit abortion and those who seek abortion out to repent. Even as grievous a sin as abortion is, it is not beyond the reach of the blood of Jesus. Even those who profit handsomely from infanticide and are enemies of God and a type of anti-Christ in doing so demand not our hatred but our love and our prayer. We also must continue to emasculate the false dilemma posed to pro-lifers that we only care about a child until they are born. The evidence that the opposite is true is overwhelming but we must continue to do more to show the love of Christ to women and men alike who have chosen life instead of death for their child. That means education and that might mean material support, both of which are provided in vast measure by the many crisis pregnancy centers operating around the country. For those who have had an abortion and now repent must be treated as brothers and sisters. None of us has a clean slate before we were born-again. Of course we must pray, often and fervently, for God to stop this barbarism because only God can change a human heart.

It often seems bleak and even hopeless but little by little I believe that the people of this country will roll back the legal abomination created out of thin air by the Supreme Court. We are limited in the tools God has given but those tools possess unlimited power if we only have the courage and humility to use them.

Sober Words From Spurgeon For This Day

Unlike years past I had to work today so I have been off social media and for that I am largely grateful. Much of what is said today and on other patriotic holidays by professing Christians is enough to make our Lord weep. Charles Spurgeon had this to say many years ago (emphasis mine):

The Lord Jesus Christ is our peace in a second sense, namely, in making peace between nations. That there are wars in the world at the present time is not the consequence of anything that Christ has said, but of the lusts of our flesh. As I understand the Word of God, I always rejoice to find a soldier a Christian, but I always mourn to find a Christian a soldier, for it seems to me that when I take up Christ Jesus, I hear one of His Laws, "I say unto you, resist not evil. Put up your sword into its sheath; he that takes the sword shall perish by the sword." The followers of Christ in these days seem to me to have forgotten a great part of Christianity. How many of you would go tomorrow into a court of law and, if you were called upon to do it, would take an oath, whereas if there is anything taught in Scripture, it is expressly taught that you are not to swear at all, neither by Heaven, nor by earth, nor by any other oath! If Christ ever delivered a plain precept, it is this—and yet all denominations of Christians seem to have cast it to the winds, with the exception of the Society of Friends. And so with regard to this matter of war. Our Apostle does not mince matters when he says, "Whence come wars? Whence come fights? Come they not from your own lusts?" That is the top and bottom of it, but, wherever true Christianity prevails, war becomes less frequent. It is owing to Christianity that war is far less common—though still too frequent—than it used to be. The length of human life has been much increased by the prevalence of peace—and wars, devastating wars, though, alas, they still break out—are not so constant as once they were and we are confidently looking forward to the time when the Messiah shall wield His blessed scepter and wars shall cease to the ends of the earth! Then shall men—

"Hang the useless helmet high, And study war no more."Then shall the shrill clarion of the battlefield yield to the pipe of shepherd's plaintive melody. Then shall the weaned child play upon the hole of the asp and the lion shall eat straw like an ox. Oh, that the Prince of Peace would come and establish His empire upon a firm foundation! Then could we, indeed say, "He is our peace!"

That is the right tone for it. I rejoice no less to find a soldier or other wielder of the sword of Caesar is a believer than I do any brother or sister and yet I am saddened to see so many Christians embracing the act of soldiering for reasons of nationalism, fear or crass pragmatism. For Christians to memorialize those who died while being sent to kill because they were "our" soldiers killing "their" soldiers is to completely misunderstand the cross-national nature of the New Covenant and the pilgrim status of citizens of His Kingdom. I don't say this to sneer at my fellow believers in America as some seem to take such pleasure in doing but rather as a plea to seek the alternate way. I rejoice to see more and more Christians who hold to other orthodox views turning away from the lie of redemptive violence and "Just War" and embracing the place of humility with basin and the towel.

(Hat Tip: Linford Berry)

Calvinism and Pacifism?

I read a post by Thomas Kidd a few weeks ago and it really stuck with me. The title alone, Why Aren't Calvinists Pacifists? and being posted on the Gospel Coalition page makes for an interesting article. Alas as I have been censored for opinions not conducive to the mission of the Gospel Coalition I was not able to join the conversation but it seemed odd to me that it only drew 8 comments. Odd but not unexpected. This is an uncomfortable topic for Christians and especially for Calvinist/Reformed Christians with a decidedly checkered past when it comes to supporting state sponsored violence. The post gets to the heart of what might lead to Calvinist rejecting "pacifism" although I tend to avoid the term "pacifism" because it a) understandably carries so much political baggage in our culture and b) doesn't truly encompass the broadness of the Biblical message on non-resistance which goes way beyond warfare. As Kidd points out, a lot of the defense of Christians engaging in and otherwise supporting state violence comes from reading the Bible in a "flat" manner. He wouldn't call it that but I feel free to do so. In contrast to the Anabaptist hermeneutic which accepts and reveres all Scripture as God-breathed but also recognizes that the New Testament is a more complete revelation and ought to be used to guide the interpretation of the Old, the Reformed tend to see too many similarities between the church and Israel:

Reformed Christians have similarly tended to see certain continuity between the Old and New Testaments. Although Israel and the church are distinct entities, they contend, there are similarities between the way that God related to Israel and the way he relates to the church. Thus, if God at times commanded Israel to take on military assignments and conquer territory, it isn’t a stretch to think he might ask Christians to do the same things through the agency of the governments under which they live.

That is exactly why I prefer a type of New Covenant theology to the two main camps, the Dispensational theory which can't get the church and Israel together and the Covenant Theology camp which can't get them apart. There is continuity between the church and Israel but there are also critical differences. While I think Dispensationalism is wrong on just about every single distinctive point, I do have a deep affinity for Covenant theology but refusing to see the differences between the Old Covenant and the New gets us in trouble every time.

I think he really gets at the core of the problem here:

Herein lies the more problematic factor in the relative absence of a Reformed pacifist tradition: Reformed Christians have often been too comfortable with state-sanctioned violence. Since the Reformation, many Protestants have seen an important role for nations, kings, and militaries in advancing the ends of the kingdom. If one believes in providence, then of course the acts of nations do somehow fulfill God’s plans for humanity. But Reformed Christians could borrow a dash of pessimism from Christians such as Anabaptists (Mennonites and others), and theologians such as Stanley Hauerwas, who are inherently skeptical about the agenda of any nation-state and its military pursuits.

This comes with ample evidence in the history of the church where a lot of Reformed Christians have a bit of a black eye when it comes to being unequally yoked with the state, leading all too often to the persecution of fellow Christians. You aren't going to see many writers for TGC speaking positively about Hauerwas but that is an issue for a different day. I am starting to think that the vitriolic response from some Reformed Christians to  the Anabaptists has a touch of guilt hidden deep down. In the end Kidd comes away rejecting pacifism but kudos to him for at least raising the issue.

Anyway, I think it is an interesting read and hopefully it got some people thinking. I believe in non-resistance for the same reasons I believe in the doctrines of grace, simply put they are both the most direct understanding of the Scriptures on their respective topics. Ironically I found both positions to be distasteful initially but now I see them as the best understanding of God's revelation in the spheres they cover. I don't see a contradiction in being a "Reformed Anabaptist" who believes in divine, sovereign election of an elect people and at the same time seeing that God calls us to a life of non-resistance. Many people do but if you try to see past your traditions and cultural church baggage you might just see that these two positions are not only not incompatible but are in fact two truths that stem from the same faithful trust in a sovereign God.

Book Review: A Farewell to Mars: An Evangelical Pastor's Journey Toward the Biblical Gospel of Peace

While I was in Florida for the last week I read. A lot. I finished two books and made decent progress on a couple of others, here is my first review.

Given that I am an orthodox, evangelical believer who holds to a position of non-resistance, I came at Brian Zahnd's book, A Farewell to Mars: An Evangelical Pastor's Journey Toward the Biblical Gospel of Peace with a mix of hope and trepidation. I was hopeful because it purported to be written from a viewpoint I am sympathetic to, one of a more traditional evangelical coming to a place where support and advocacy of militarism and violence was not compatible with the Kingdom. I was cautious because of some of the things I had seen about Zahnd in social media. I came away with pretty disappointed.

From a stylistic standpoint I found Farewell to Mars to be a disjointed and rambling book. Brian didn't seem to have thought through what we wanted to say other than war is bad. I also found it excessively self-referential. I understand that it is a book about his own personal journey but it would have been a little more useful in convincing a skeptical reader of the value of the non-violence position if he spent less time talking about himself and more in engaging the text. Not that he doesn't but his engagement was not terrible strong in my opinion.

I intentionally didn't do much studying of Zahnd before I read Farewell to Mars but I found his constant allusion to politics and his incessant references to "empire" and Jesus as a "victim" really undermined the book. I know it is hip to talk about "empire" and I guess it is integral to his thesis but it rang hollow to me and made the book less about non-violence for the Christian and more about trying to be a contemporary John Howard Yoder. To reach an audience of evangelicals with the message of Jesus on non-violence it is not helpful to bury non-violence in your own political agenda. Maybe that is not what he was after, if he was looking for affirmation from people already in his camp then perhaps he succeeded but as a message to the broader church on a critical and misunderstood topic it missed the mark by a wide margin.

For a better treatment of this topic without all of the less than subtle progressive talking points, check out Preston Sprinkle's book Fight. You can read my review of Fight here.

Book Review: Bonhoeffer the Assassin?: Challenging the Myth, Recovering His Call to Peacemaking

The German theologian and pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer, executed by the Third Reich in the waning days of World War II, is enjoying something of a posthumous renaissance in the evangelical world even though he might not really qualify as an evangelical. Much of this is attributable to the risible but wildly popular biography of Bonhoeffer by Eric Metaxas. Unfortunately this renewal of interest in Bonhoeffer presents as an ironclad fact his supposed involvement in one of the myriad plots within the Third Reich to assassinate Hitler.

The narrative of Bonhoeffer as an active participant in the plots to assassinate Adolf Hitler is a commonly referenced trump card in discussions of redemptive violence. This is especially true with the contemporary co-opting of Bonhoeffer as an honorary American evangelical hero. That is why this book, Bonhoeffer the Assassin?: Challenging the Myth, Recovering His Call to Peacemaking by Mark Thiessen Nation, Anthony Siegrist and Daniel Umbel, is such an important counter-balance to the Bonhoeffer as assassin narrative.

The great strength of this book is the systematic dismantling of the "facts" that form the evidence for Bonhoeffer as a participant in the assassination plots. By first unraveling the flimsy historical evidence. notable mostly for what is not there, namely any concrete evidence that directly supports the contention that he was involved directly in assassination plots, what is left is an examination of what we do have, his writings. When you read Bonhoeffer, and note the entire scope of his writing, what you are left with is a man who is hardly the model of a would-be assassin.

The great weakness of this book, in my opinion, is the pretty technical nature of several chapters. For someone unfamiliar with Bonhoeffer's works as well as unfamiliar with philosophical fundamentals and writers such as Karl Barth, several chapters will be difficult slogs to get through. I am more comfortable with theology proper than I am what I consider more esoteric philosophical conversations and while important I am not sure that the average reader will benefit much from these chapters.

More fundamentally it is important to remember that while the alleged evidence of Bonhoeffer's involvement in the assassination plotting is pretty flimsy, even if he were involved it really doesn't matter because our standard is Scripture, the example of Christ and the witness of the Biblical teaching. Bonhoeffer, whether he did or did not actively seek to be involved in the assassination attempt, is still just a redeemed sinner and while he was brilliant he was also still very much a work in progress when it came to his own theological positions. In spite of that caveat this is still an important book that serves as a serious, scholarly corrective to the "heroic assassin that justifies killing" paradigm that surrounds Bonhoeffer in popular literature. When a man who was as brilliant as Bonhoeffer and still has so much to teach the church is primarily known as the pastor who plotted to kill Hitler in spite of a decided lack of concrete evidence, something is wrong and I believe Bonhoeffer himself would be aghast. You might not find the argument compelling but it at the very least deserves examination.

Book Review: Fight

Preston Sprinkle has done the church a service in his book Fight: A Christian Case for Non-Violence. This contemporary look at the question of Christians and violence is an especially pertinent one given the near universal embrace of violence and warfare as acceptable means to an end in the evangelical church. Outside of some of the historic "peace churches" like the Mennonites, Amish and Quakers, the idea of non-violence as a foundational doctrine in Christianity is relegated to the leftward spectrum of the church where it gets lost in the chatter about various other liberal social causes. As a relatively recent adherent to the non-violence stance I can say with some confidence that there is little serious literature in the evangelical world to defend this stance. Instead we find a church comfortably cocooned in a society that, if not glorifies, at the least celebrates warfare.

Unlike many modern advocates of non-violence, Sprinkle has a largely orthodox set of beliefs. He recognizes the reality of hell (he co-authored the book Erasing Hell with Francis Chan, see my review here) and speaks without apology of God's wrath. I fear that it is too easy to dismiss many writers as leftist cranks without genuine interaction with their concerns. Unfortunately a lot of the literature on non-violence is muddied by authors who subscribe to heterodox positions like open theism. This makes their argument convenient to dismiss out of hand. After all if someone can get those kinds of issues wrong why would anyone give credence to much more complex questions.

Along with the typical New Testament passages, Sprinkle also looks at the Old Testament and the early church fathers. What he lays out is a convincing argument that non-violence is a normative and necessary outliving of the command to love our enemies. Also powerful is his wrestling with the usual "gotcha" questions like "what about Hitler?" and the hypothetical intruder bent on hurting your family. Those sorts of questions (I get them whenever I write on the topic on non-violence) are not designed to generate meaningful dialogue, they are designed to shut down conversation before it gets uncomfortable. Sprinkle approaches these topics with humility but conviction and his conclusions and thought process are worthwhile for every serious Bible student.

If there is a weakness in Fight it would be the narrowness of the topic. That is understandable but unfortunate. I prefer the broader term "non-resistance" to the more narrowly focused "non-violence". What we find in the New Testament is much broader than not shooting/beating up our enemies. Instead we see this idea of deferring to others in all sorts of aspects of our lives: economic, legal, etc. I get why Sprinkle focused as he did on violence proper (it is a huge problem in the Western church) but I would love to see him write a follow-up with a broader view.

Regardless of where you are currently on this subject Fight is a great entry to help the conversation. The non-violence position is a historical powerful witness and one that needs to be recovered in a church at ease with celebrating warfare and violence.

That Doesn't Make Sense

"That doesn't make sense". An Amish friend said that last night and it stuck with me. A little background...

I was driving this friend and his family to see his in-laws for a surprise visit (one fun side effect of being Amish is that a lot of older Amish don't have phones at all so you can arrive for dinner to find no one home, which is what happened and a story for another day). I had a local newspaper in the car and he was reading up on the latest sports news and other items when he came to this story: Muslims fleeing African nation. It was the subheading that caught his attention: Christian militia take revenge for previous abuses.

"Christian militia?" He seemed genuinely puzzled. What in the world did that mean? It seemed to him to be an oxymoron. He wondered aloud what kind of Christians were killing people and how Christian could they possibly be. In the culture he lives in it is simply unthinkable that a Christian would kill someone else. It just didn't make sense.

We take for granted in our American evangelical subculture that Christians kill. They kill in self-defense. They kill in the line of duty as police. They kill those labelled enemies by the state and often inadvertently kill complete innocents as an unavoidable and tragic but necessary cost of waging war. Even when we are not doing the killing we cheer on those who do. Killing and Christianity have gone hand in hand for a very long time, probably since Constantine allegedly saw a vision that called him to conquer his foes with his soldiers carrying the cross as their symbol. Throughout the history of the Western church, the church has employed the sword alongside the state, whether in killing "heretics" or multiple attempts to reconquer the "Holy Land" or wars between Catholics and Protestants. The cradle of Western Christendom that nurtured the church in America was awash in blood. Little wonder that the American church adopted the notion of "just war" to merge a pseudo-Christian civic religion with nationalistic fervor.

How is it that a subculture that is marked by a quaint adherence to dress codes and rejection of modern conveniences, a culture that is sincere but way off the mark on many issues, gets what the evangelical church blessed with hundreds of years of scholarship and countless professional theologians continues to not just miss but take great pride in missing, namely the intellectual gymnastics that provide permission for Christians to kill? Like many other traditional Anabaptist groups the Amish have little in the way of formalized theology as their forefathers were more concerned with avoiding the persecution of "the church than they were in developing systematic theologies and statements of faith. Their statement of faith was written in the non-resistant blood of Anabaptist maytrys. Meanwhile Evangelical and Roman Catholic alike have detailed theologies of "just war" that have provided religious cover for killing. It makes me wonder if having all of those theologians is really a blessing to the church at all.