At What Cost?

Peace within the church and unity of the brethren is not a "nice to have", it is a fundamental requirement, a non-negotiable commandment from Christ. Psalm 133:1 speaks of the joy when the brothers live in unity. We are commended to be one just as the Father and Son are one ( John 17:11-23 ) in Christ's prayers. Peter and Paul both urge us to work to a unity of Spirit, faith, knowledge and love (Ephesians 4:3; 4:13 , 1 Peter 3:8). I cannot help but believe that Christ is grieved over the divisions in His Church, especially since so much of what divides the church is due to disagreement on important but secondary questions. For example, I can drive to at least five different conservative Anabaptist local churches in less than 15 minutes that would look to the casual observer to be almost identical and yet they are distinct from one another and in some ways in competition for the same pool of members. It really bothers me that this is the case.

On the other hand, there is an awful lot of division that is unfortunate but also proper and necessary. The church in America is in the midst of a seismic event in the form of sexual ethics, especially the attempted normalization of homosexual behavior. The church has to address it and there really isn't a way to "live and let live" on this question. Either homosexuality is, as has been understood in the church for 2000 years, an aberrant and sinful behavior (assuming one identifies as homosexual based on taking action on urges rather than struggling with them in a celibate lifestyle) that must be repented of or it is a special category of specifically named sin that really isn't a sin at all. We are all sinners, even and especially those in the church, but for those with a new heart we cannot wallow in our sin and even celebrate it. You won't see, at least for now, "'Men Who Look At Women With Lust' Pride Parades". We either turn from sin to Christ and receive redemption or we remain under condemnation, turned away from Christ and embracing sin. There is no middle ground. If we had such a structure it would be a good time for a Council of Nicaea type moment so the church can go on record about this issue. Unfortunately, due in large part to the aforementioned division in the church, that is not feasible, leaving the issue up for debate from the level of large denominations to local churches and individual Christians.

I was reminded of this in a news story I saw recently relating to the Mennonite Church USA. By any measure the MC-USA represents the left-wing of the very diverse Mennonite community and is dealing with the homosexual normalization issue like the rest of the "progressive" wing of the American religious community. One regional conference, the North Central Conference of Mennonite Church USA, is stepping away from the MC USA. A representative of the very small (less than 400 total members in 10 churches), Fred Kanagy, said the following

“The NCC has come to recognize and identify ways in which MC USA has moved away from what we understand to be traditional, orthodox interpretations of Scripture from an Anabaptist perspective,” he wrote in an email. “ . . . The movement of many in MC USA in thinking, discernment and practice has created a separation, and the trajectory seems to indicate a widening divide, which we feel requires of us that we either change our convictions or change our affiliation.”

That is really the proper way of putting it. It is not the stodgy conservatives who are bringing disunity, it is those who are straying further from orthodoxy with each passing day. You might say, so what, it is only a few hundred people but they aren't the only ones. Also announcing their departure is the venerable and much larger Lancaster Conference with over 13,000 members , which according to the Mennonite World Review amounts to a loss of 14% of the total membership in MC USA. That is a major loss and I expect others to follow as Christians and local churches "vote with their feet".

This is not an unusual or rare problem. Many other "mainline" Protestant denominations have seen splits, especially in the Episcopal church in America which was the first to put forth a divorced (now twice divorced) open and unrepentant homosexual as "bishop". Individual Christians, local churches and groups of local churches alike have declared that the direction some have taken has led to an unequal yoking and they cannot maintain their affiliation. Rightly so. If we are not to associate with or even break bread with the unrepentant sinner that claims to be a Christian (1 Corinthians 5:9-13), we certainly cannot remain yoked with an entire group of people who " give approval to those who practice" sins such as homosexuality (Romans 1:32 and preceding verses).

There is a place for denominational unity I suppose but in many cases what we are seeing are local churches and individual Christians who are stepping away from denominational unity in order to remain in unity with the broader church. What seems to be occurring, as someone who identifies in many ways with Anabaptism but on the outside of the MC USA, is the same thing that happened in any number of "mainline" Protestant denominations. As their denomination moved further away from orthodoxy, they were forced to choose between unity with a denomination or unity with the broader church. In these cases they chose the more difficult and less popular route of choosing loyalty to the church universal, Biblical orthodoxy and Christ Himself rather than denominational ties. Rightly so. The path of following Jesus is pretty much never the smoother, easier path.

HT: Tim Challies

I generally have little use for denominations, even though they sometimes work powerfully for good. This issue of sexual morality is going to be one that more and more denominations are going to be forced to address. Even "conservative" denominations like the Southern Baptist Convention and the Presbyterian Church in America are going to have to deal with individual churches who flaunt their disobedience from Scripture and their challenge of the broader denominational norms. We are already seeing a lot of this. There are many Presbyterians and Baptists who differ on church governance and the question of baptism that nonetheless have far more in common with each other than they do with fellow Presbyterians or Baptists. I think we will continue to see the rise of cross-denominational, "para-church" cooperative efforts in the years to come, if for no other reason than simple survival.

Unity is critical and the church needs more unity and cooperation but that can never come at the expense of truth.

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.

Fight: A Christian Case For Non-Violence Free Today!

I don't normally promote stuff like this on my blog but I have been looking forward to reading Fight: A Christian Case For Non-Violence by Preston Sprinkle since I first heard about it. Today it is free on Kindle and I snatched it up. I hope to blog along as I go and share my pithy and often witty insights with the general public, i.e. the handful of people who actually read my blog. Shane Clairborne writes the intro and while he is occasionally sketchy on his theology and is trying to hard to look hip, he also has valuable insights and lives out the peacemaking life. Go get yourself a copy, you can't beat free unless someone is willing to pay you to read it!

Living By The Sword, Dying By The Sword

Former House Representative Ron Paul has never been one to shy away from saying un-PC things. It is one of the things I admire about him and his blunt honesty is why I voted for him in the primary election last year even though he had no chance of winning. His recent tweet about the murder of "war hero" Chris Kyle has gotten many people all wound up. Here is what he said...

Chris Kyle's death seems to confirm that "he who lives by the sword dies by the sword." Treating PTSD at a firing range doesn't make sense
— Ron Paul (@RonPaul) February 4, 2013

His follow-up comment on Facebook was a little more nuanced, exposing the problems with using 144 characters on Twitter to express coherent thoughts.

As a veteran, I certainly recognize that this weekend's violence and killing of Chris Kyle were a tragic and sad event. My condolences and prayers go out to Mr. Kyle’s family. Unconstitutional and unnecessary wars have endless unintended consequences. A policy of non-violence, as Christ preached, would have prevented this and similar tragedies. -REP

The internet went bonkers about the tweet, most notably among conservatives and even many conservatives who would call themselves Christians. Setting aside the lack of nuance and perceived bluntness, is what Ron Paul said somehow incorrect? Jesus didn't say "For all who take the sword will perish by the sword unless they are a decorated U.S. military veteran". War is destructive, destroying property, destroying those slain and often destroying those who survive. War and violence beget war and violence. It has always been and shall always be.

It is odd that quoting Jesus is so controversial in a culture that is allegedly basd on "Judeo-Christian values". Perhaps these "Judeo-Christian values" we love to trumpet are little more than moralistic religious virtues that are aimed at creating a loyal, pliable populace that is easy to manipulate and rule. When being a peacemaker is controversial and when being a professional killer is exalted, a culture is many things but it is not reflective of the values of the Kingdom.

Mr. Kyle spent his adult life engaged in the killing of others. Many look at his 160 kills and the various awards and accolades given to him for his exceptional lethality and call him a war hero. I see him as someone used by the state to accomplish its goals by killing. Did those he killed deserve to die, were they bad guys? Probably. Was Mr. Kyle a heroic figure because he had a knack for killing? Not really.

A man who made a living from killing was killed by a mentally disturbed man who ended up that way by his involvement in an unnecessary war. That this sort of thing happened is not surprising. War and violence beget war and violence and our nation is full of people who carry scars, both external and internal, thanks to the insatiable bloodlust of man and his never ending quest for power. What Ron Paul said may have been worded in an inelegant manner and it was certainly counter-cultural but I hope that the very real issue he raised is not lost in the chatter of professional entertainers and talking heads on the TV, radio and internet.

New Book by Hauerwas

I downloaded and just started reading a new book by Stanley Hauerwas, War and the American Difference: Theological Reflections on Violence and National Identity. As an aside, it is curious how our language changed from "went to the book store and bought" to "went online to Amazon and ordered" to "instantly downloaded from my couch". Books are the antithesis of instant gratification but buying them no longer is! Anyway.

I have been interested in reading Hauerwas for  a while. Along with John Howard Yoder he is one of the preeminent peace theologians of our time and one of the "best" theologians on the leftward spectrum period. As one of his more recent works, published just last October, I feel like I am cheating a bit but I also think this book should give a good contemporary view unlike more dated books like Hershberger's War, Peace and Nonresistance written in the 50's. I am hoping to find Hauerwas more accessible than Yoder because frankly I found Yoder's The Politics of Jesus a reading quagmire that was not edifying or enjoyable, explaining why it sits partly read and un-reviewed on my night stand. Yoder has had a major impact on Hauerwas so I am hoping to see some of Yoder's thinking on a more accessible level from Hauerwas. This is the book description on Amazon:

How are American identity and America's presence in the world shaped by war, and what does God have to do with it? Esteemed theologian Stanley Hauerwas helps readers reflect theologically on war, church, justice, and nonviolence in this compelling volume, exploring issues such as how America depends on war for its identity, how war affects the soul of a nation, the sacrifices that war entails, and why war is considered "necessary," especially in America. He also examines the views of nonviolence held by Martin Luther King Jr. and C. S. Lewis, how Jesus constitutes the justice of God, and the relationship between congregational ministry and Christian formation in America.

That is a fascinating concept, that America depends on war for our national identity. A nation born of war and seemingly perpetually at war or on the verge of war for our entire history, Americans are a uniquely warlike people who honor and often glorify war even while tacitly acknowledging the horrors of war that have rarely impacted our own shores. This national character has infected the church here to an enormous degree, unprecedented in modern times, and that was on full display last weekend. I think this is an important concept, that we understand and recognize this infection so we can find a better way. Too many Christians in America don't see this as a problem at all and that attitude hampers our witness globally and our understanding of enemy love domestically.

At the outset I can say with some certainty that most introductions in books are a waste of paper, real or electronic. They seem forced and are generally unnecessary. Not so with War and the American Difference. I found myself highlighting a number of passages, more than I have highlighted in entire books!  His opening sentence makes the bold and counter-intuitive claim that war has been abolished. That seems an odd statement. War as I just said is all around us, a constant reality. But Hauerwas is right in that in the cross warfare has been abolished.

I do not want to convince Christians to work for the abolition of war, but rather I want us to live recognizing that in the cross of Christ war has already been abolished. So I am not asking Christians to work to create a world free of war. The world has already been saved from war. The question is how Christians can and should live in a world of war as a people who believe that war has been abolished.

That is such a fascinating outlook. Maybe being a peacemaker is not a matter of marches against war or refusal to kill on demand, although I think Hauerwas is going to be generally supportive of this. Rather we as the church are to demonstrate something radical to a violent, war loving world: a church that demonstrates the character of our Lord by being an alternative to war. When the world says kill, we say love. I don't think Jesus was speaking randomly in the Sermon on the Mount and as we read these words I think we see a lot going on, including a series of commands of what it means to love God and love our neighbor, the two "Great Commandments". Because we so often fail to do this Hauerwas suggests, I think rightly, that much of the ineffectiveness of the church comes from the incoherence of a people of peace supporting war.

I am looking forward to the rest of this book and plan on posting about it as I go, not necessarily chapter by chapter but certainly as interesting points come up. Nonviolence in the church is such a crucial, misunderstood and often ignored topic but loving our enemies gets to the core of the Gospel. All of our fancy theological systematizing is meaningless if we refuse to follow Christ.

The difference between Biblical nonresistance and pacifism

Take a look at this lengthy quote from Guy Hershberger

Believers in Biblical nonresistance find the social gospel and the pacifism of religious liberalism inadequate, not because they do not contain some fine ideals, but because they have a wrong conception of sin, of Christianity, and of the kingdom of God. The New Testament sees a great gulf between God and the sinful world, a gulf which will continue until the final judgment, for not until then will sin be brought to an end. The kingdom of God which the New Testament speaks of is brought into existence only through the supernatural power of God Himself. It is made up of Christians who have experienced the saving grace of God in their personal lives; who have been saved from the sinful world to a life of service to God. Such Christians are concerned for the welfare of humanity, and their influence on society may be considerable. But such changes as this influence may bring about within the sinful society of the world, however worth while they may be, do not constitute the kingdom of God. The kingdom is made up only of those who have been redeemed from, and called out of, the sinful society.

The great mistake of modern religious liberalism has been not to see this very important point. It has confused the kingdom of God with mere moral improvements within sinful society, and in doing so has identified the Kingdom of God with the sinful society itself. It has rejected salvation by faith and substituted a shallow, optimistic social evolution. Instead of receiving the divine will from a God who speaks from His throne above, religious liberalism speaks of experiencing God and practicing the presence of God in a way that makes Him identical with human experience. But a God who is identical with human experience is not God. Having emptied God of His reality, religious liberalism no longer speaks the word of truth in condemnation of sin. The liberal church becomes a mere social agency, engaged in a variety of activities, which too often do not lead to any clear-cut and positive action. When a Christian earnestly believes is that the Sermon on the Mount was spoken by the Son of God with authority from heaven, and that this same Son of God will someday sit in judgment upon this evil world, he will go into action for God. And when an entire Christian brotherhood is possessed by this same faith it has the essentials for a solidarity which makes it possible to have a peace witness that commands respect and produces results. But when Jesus is thought of merely as a religious genius, as a product of human evolution, and when human society is thought to possess within itself the powers for its own healing, then men will adjust themselves in harmony with that world. And when the Christian church once adjusts its program in harmony with the sinful world, it has lost its own soul.(Guy Hershberger, War, Peace and Nonresistance, pp 84-185)

I think a lot of people recoil at the doctrine of non-resistance because they equate it with left wing political pacifism. Pacifism brings to mind images of hippies doing "sit ins" during Vietnam, people spitting on returning troops coming back from 'Nam, peace marches, Gandhi, etc. When you mention pacifism that is what comes to mind and that doesn’t sit well with middle class, red blooded conservative Christians.

Here is the thing. It doesn’t have to.

I am in substantial agreement with Hershberger on this. Biblical non-resistance is a whole different doctrine than the philosophy of pacifism or what he calls non-violent coercion or resistance (think Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr.). Gandhi was not a Christian, MLK Jr. may have been but the way of the cross is not hunger strikes and mass marches. I think Hershberger does a great job delineating the differences between Biblical non-resistance and pacifistic philosophy. Non-resistance recognizes the role of the state in a sinful and fallen world.
The core of Biblical non-resistance is not really a “war or no war” question but rather a recognition of the sinful state of the world and a submission to the will of God, whether that will includes going to a foreign land as a missionary or giving your life as a martyr for Christ. Christians are called to not seek their own “rights”, whether those rights include personal possessions, or the right to seek legal redress in a court or to defend yourself from harm or the seeking of retribution of any kind for being wronged by another. Rather than seeking justice for ourselves, we are called to declare the justice of God to others through the proclaimed Gospel and in acts of love, fulfilling both the Great Commission and Great Commandment. In doing so we will be persecuted and hated and reviled. That comes with the territory and is all part of the way of the cross.

Many of my brothers and sisters have taken the peacemaking ethic and moved beyond what the Bible teaches and into the realm of social engineering. This was apparently the case when Hershberger penned his book, War, Peace and Nonresistance and it is just as true today. It is understandable and in some ways laudable if naïve, given that many well-meaning attempts to eliminate poverty have institutionalized it instead of improving the situation. We need to recognize and reconcile the ideas that we are to care for the poor while simultaneously remembering that we will always have the poor with us, just as we will always have war, hatred and lust. That is simply the reality of living in a world groaning under the weight of sin and that will not be “fixed” until Christ returns in judgment. Our response to the reality of a lost and sinful world is to follow Christ: declaring the Gospel and serving the poor and downtrodden.

The nations will wage war. The powerful will oppress the poor. People will lie, cheat and steal. We as ambassadors of Christ are called to be apart from that, taking no part in squabbles over wealth or wars on behalf of nation states. Our calling is simply to preach Christ and Him crucified. That is not fatalistic, it is simply realistic and Biblical and not much has changed in the 2000 years since the cross.

First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. (1 Tim 2: 1-2)

Up Next

I ordered a book Dave Black mentioned on his blog, War, Peace, and Nonresistance by Mennonite  historian Guy F. Hershberger, that arrived yesterday. It is quite a bit meatier than more modern books and is considered to be a classic work on Christian non-resistance. I bought a used hardcover copy from Amazon, so it doesn’t have a dustcover and has a few pencil underlinings but I saved more than half of the cost of a new and I got free shipping. I can’t imagine much has changed from the third edition to the most recent version.

A few dozen pages into it and already it promises to be an interesting read. It was originally released early in 1944, just a few months before D-Day. America had been at war for several years following Pearl Harbor. Writing this book at that time was a pretty bold move and probably quite unpopular with the rest of Hershberger’s countrymen.

One topic in the book I am really looking forward to is his examination of the differences between pacifism and non-resistance. While they may seem similar on the surface they are quite different when you look at the underlying philosophy/theology. I think this is such an important topic for the church and one that, as far as I can tell, hasn’t gotten much attention in recent years and virtually none from Christians coming at the topic from a more conservative viewpoint. Maybe I should write a book….

In defense of Goshen College

This should be fun, today being Flag Day and all.

Goshen College, a Mennonite college just up the road from where we live, has decided to not play the Star Spangled Banner, aka the National Anthem, before sporting events held at the school. Needless to say, this is going over like a lead balloon.

Goshen College, a Mennonite school in Indiana, has become a target of public outrage over its decision to ban the playing of “The Star-Spangled Banner” at sporting events because it conflicts with the school's core values.

“We recognize that some people may not be satisfied with this decision, but we believe it is the right one for Goshen College,” Ricky Stiffney, chairman of the college’s board of directors, said in a written statement. “The board has a diversity of views on this issue as reflected through the process of considering the anthem.”

According to an online fact sheet on the issue, the college noted: “Historically, playing the national anthem has not been among Goshen College’s practices because of our Christ-centered core value of compassionate peacemaking seeming to be in conflict with the anthem’s militaristic language.”

No doubt this is fodder for many a commentator. One can only imagine the feigned outrage this will stir up from Bill O’Reilly or perhaps Glenn Beck. I got a kick out of this reasonable comment from a local politician:

Goshen City Councilman Harland Lantz told Fox News Radio that the decision is “anti-American.”

“It really hurts,” he said. “(The national anthem) is the American way.”

“Instead of living here in Goshen, they should go down and live in Cuba or Iran,” he said. “Then have them come back and see if their attitude has changed.”

Nothing more anti-American than free speech and religious liberty! Deport 'em all! That’ll learn ‘em! Love her or leave her! See I thought freedom of expression, especially free speech and freedom of religion, was the American way. Should we only permit freedom of religion for those groups that sing the National Anthem? Anybody who chooses not to engage in this sort of political speech should be deported to Cuba or Iran until they learn their lesson?

So what? Here is what. I think that Goshen is on the right side of this issue for a couple of reasons.

First, Goshen College is a Mennonite school and as such has a specific and intentional peace message. As this article points out, Mennonites have long history of separation from state, Mennonites and all mainstream Anabaptists have always held to this sort of position. The Schleitheim Confession, which is about as close as you are going to get for a unifying Anabaptist confession speaks quite clearly regarding the Anabaptist view of the state, specifically the sword and the magistrate. Anabaptists have long eschewed entanglements with the secular government, seeing such as a dangerous blurring of the lines that has had disastrous effects for virtually the entire history of the church. The long line of Anabaptists martyred by the unholy union of church and state in Europe speaks to the wisdom of their position.

Second and more importantly I think this is the proper position for any Christian institution or organization. Let me be blunt (because that so unusual for me):

I do not think that any Christian churches, organizations, parachurch ministries, colleges, etc. should sing the American National Anthem (or any other national song), pledge allegiance to a flag, sing songs in praise of America, place American flags in their buildings or engage in any sort of celebration of American military actions as part of their gatherings.

In Romans 13 we are called to submit to whichever governing authorities God has placed over us. Whether that means you are a first century Christian under the oppressive regime of Rome or a 20th century German living under Nazism or whether it means that you are a Christian who lives in America (even under a Democratic President). Romans 13 does not mean that we are required or even encouraged to exalt the nation we happen to live in over any other nation much less sing songs in its praise or swear oaths to its flag or worst of all kill others at its behest. Singing the national anthem before sporting events is a lovely tradition but the last time I checked it was not a condition of citizenship or a legal requirement. If you want to argue that American Christians should sing the national anthem, think about what that would mean to Christians today and throughout the ages that God placed in less pleasant countries.

It is not only perfectly appropriate as a Mennonite school for Goshen to decline to play the Star Spangled Banner, it is quite possibly inappropriate for any Christian college to play the national anthem.

What say you? Is this a principled stand on the part of Goshen College? A choice example of lib’ral political correctness run amok? The right and proper position of all Christian groups?

Non-resistance and situational ethics

This is not a classical example of situational ethics but the point is similar. The idea I want to explore here is the notion that the situation dictates the ethics of an action. In other words, for purposes of what I want to talk about, if turning the other cheek is Biblical and ethical but doing so in a particular situation leads to undesirable and even deadly consequences, one is not only permitted but perhaps morally obligated to set aside ethics in response to the situation. That would seem to be silly on its face but I see it employed all the time whenever someone brings up “turn the other cheek” as a binding principle on Christians.

Here is how the argument goes. You point out the clear teachings of Jesus and Paul as well as the martyring of so many early Christians. The response then becomes my old friend, the classic "yeah, but..." defense.

- what if someone were going to kill you?

- what if someone was going to kill an innocent person on the street?

- Or my favorite because it is supposed to be irrefutable, what if they were going to kill your kids, rape your wife or otherwise hurt your family? Isn't it the duty of every red blooded American to double-tap the scoundrel first?!

The point apparently is that non-violence is fine in theory or as something we read about as an ideal but we are free to set that aside if we find ourselves in a situation that justifies us doing so. Perhaps some circumstances are bad enough that they trump Scripture. I don’t think that refusing to return evil in response to evil is just a nice ideal.

Case in point. When the authorities were led by Judas Iscariot to arrest Jesus, Peter came to the defense of Jesus (an innocent man) and struck the off the ear of the high priest’s servant (John 18: 10-11). That seems perfectly understandable and justifiable. It didn’t please Jesus though. Instead Jesus rebuked Peter for his attempt to defend Jesus with these famous words that are a part of our culture: Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. (Matthew 26:52). We all recognize what Jesus is saying and applaud. But if someone breaks into your house and threatens your wife, we would also applaud putting a bullet in his head as heroic and manly . Why the disconnect? I think it is because we treat Scripture differently than “real life” and in fact see no reason why we cannot let our cultural prejudices rule over Scripture. Our hermeneutic is far more cultural that we like to admit. We read something in Scripture that doesn’t jive with our cultural prejudices and rather than submitting to it, we assume it doesn’t mean what it says or we explain it away. They had all things in common? That doesn’t sound American to me, it must have been a unique situation. “When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up.” Paul must mean each family bringing a dish to pass at the potluck. So on and so on.

Back to non-resistance. I find it disappointing that when confronted with this issue the response is so often to throw out a situation that is supposed to negate the principle instead of engaging with the text. That we who own nothing, not our property and not even our lives, should be so quick to insist on our right to commit violence to defend them strikes me as horribly and tragically inconsistent. The witness and example of Christians throughout the centuries who have chosen to give their own lives rather than kill another should serve as more than a quaint story we tell. Of course the greatest example is Christ Himself, who permitted Himself to be crucified when it is clear that with nothing more than a thought He could have freed Himself and turned His persecutors into dust. Shouldn't the forbearance and submission of Christ, when resistance was not only in His power but His prerogative, give those who clamor for violence in defense of self, of others and of property pause? I certainly think it should but that is a pretty lonely position.

Peace

The word English word “peace” shows up over and over again in the New Testament. I am sure it is several different words in Greek but I think the general gist of it is probably the same. Jesus spoke often of peace:

Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. Not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your hearts be troubled, neither let them be afraid. (John 14:27)

I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world.” (John 16: 33)

That is a real peace, a peace in spite of peril, a peace in spite of worldly security. Sometimes it seems to be speaking of the standing of men with God, like in Colossians 1:20 where Paul says that Christ reconciled us to God, making “peace by the blood of his cross”. Other times it seems to be a real-time peace, something we can enjoy to an extent now and something we should seek. When Jesus said "Blessed are the peacemakers", it would seem that He is speaking of a present time making of peace, not a future eschatalogical fulfillment. It is not a naive ideology of "peace" that expects the world to be peaceful toward us if we are peaceful toward it. It is a peace that comes from knowing that we are secure in our Savior in spite of any persecution or even death that the world might hurl at us. What does a Christian have to fear in death? Why would anyone who has a confidence in Christ have a fear of death? That is why we can be peacemakers in a world that sees that as weakness.

Paul on occasion also mentioned peace when writing to the church. By occasionally, I mean all the time. For example:

To all those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. (Rom 1:7; See also: 1 Cor 1:3; 2 Cor 1:2; Gal 1: 3; Eph 1:2; Phil 1:2; Col 1:2; 1 Thessalonians 1:1; 2 Thessalonians 1:2; Philemon 1:3; 1 Tim 1:2; 2 Tim 1:2; Titus 1:4 to name a few)

Is this peace spoken of again and again merely a future reality? Grace to you now but peace to you later on? I don’t think so. I think that in reflecting the grace shown us by God the Father, we out to also be reflecting and seeking peace by seeking to live peaceably, by being peacemakers, by being meek and humble as a witness to a world that mocks humility and adores arrogance.

When we read what Paul wrote to Timothy in the "pastoral epistles", we often focus on the functional aspects of his writings but Paul seems to focus far more on the personality aspects and in those personality aspects Paul focuses on some very counter-cultural qualities.

First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. (1 Tim 2: 1-2)

I have come to really cherish what Paul is saying here, that our great desire is not to win political victories over those who rule us or to see our church budget grow but that we may live peaceful and quiet lives. Even in the sort of men who we should recognize as elders, this idea of peace crops up:

So flee youthful passions and pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace, along with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart. Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels. And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will. (2 Tim 2: 22-26)

Look at that list. Pursue peace along with those who call on the Lord. Patiently endure evil. Gentleness. Kindness. Not badgering them. Not beating them over the head. If you want to be a servant of the Lord, being patient, seeking peace, being kind is every bit as important as being “able to teach”. We are not called to merely look forward to the future peace of eternity, but to earnestly seek after it now. How rarely do we think of these qualities instead of reviewing a man-centered resume of accomplishments and credentials? In another place, Paul speaks of our response to the world:

If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. (Rom 12:18)

Paul is a realist. It may not be possible to live peaceably with others but that is not because we will not live peaceably with them but that in spite of our efforts they will not live peaceably with us. That doesn't mean that someone who refuses to live peaceably with us gives us license to ignore this admonition. Indeed, Paul follows this up in the very next verse to admonish us to never avenge ourselves (Rom 12:19). Never is a pretty strong word but not one that Paul chose carelessly.

How that picture paints a contrast with our triumphalist, man-centered and worldly religion! When the unbelieving world looks at the church, it doesn’t see peacemakers, humility, grace, recipients of mercy who are dispensers of mercy. What is the witness of the church to the unbelieving world? By and large it is: anger, hypocrisy, money, power, politics. The world sees Christians as people who live the same way, react the same way, respond the same way as every other unsaved person during the week but then get together on Sunday mornings to show how pious and moral they are. Our Scriptures say "Blessed are the peacemakers" and "Overcome evil with good" but our churches say "Sue for your rights!" and "Get the terrorists before they get us!"

Shouldn't the church be a reflection of our Savior in emulating His humility, His sacrifice, His service, His peacemaking, His love? Rather than a mirror that reflects the image of the Savior, we are too often like a carnival funhouse mirror, a distorted reflection of His image. Why should we expect people to follow Jesus when we who have taken His name upon ourselves fail to do so in any sort of meaningful way?

Can Christians take up the sword? - The anti-sword view

I am going to turn now to the Scriptural evidence against using the sword.

I am not interested in the well established philosophy behind “just warfare”. I am trying to sidestep that and ask “What does Scripture say”? When we set aside our cultural bias as much as we can and read the Scripture, what is the conclusion we come to? Certainly the state can and does use the sword but what about God's people, redeemed new creatures in Christ?

The argument toward non-resistance comes primarily, and very strongly, from the Sermon on the Mount. It is my opinion that the Sermon on the Mount, a very lengthy and very powerful discourse from Christ, is often either misinterpreted into a call for a political liberal social agenda advanced by a secular government by means of confiscatory taxation or it is essentially ignored as being a nice thought that doesn’t apply to our life.

I am not going to reproduce the entire sermon because much of it is not as directly applicable to the question at hand, although I do think that the entire SotM paints a comprehensive picture of how Christians should live. Instead I want to look at a couple of sections in detail. The first comes in the very beginning of the SotM. In these verses we see the virtue of peacemaking, mercy, being persecuted with rejoicing because we trust that our reward is in heaven.

"Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy. "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. "Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. "Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you. (Mat 5:7-12)

The world is not going to promote these virtues. I just got my annual review at work and I was not hoping for "very meek" on my review and if it was there it probably would not have been a compliment. There is again a contrast in these verses between what the world sees as weakness and something to be avoided but Christ promotes as virtuous and leading to great rewards in heaven. It cannot be more starkly stated. If you want rewards in this world, being meek is not going to get it done. You cannot please both the world and Christ, you cannot live for the world and for Christ. You need to pick one or the other.

Later we see a section more directly applicable as it applies to non-resistance.

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you. "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Mat 5:38-48)

We see something important here. "You have heard it said, but I say". If anyone else said that, it would be seen as borderline blasphemy but when the Son of God says this, we need to take note.

What of the Old Testament laws that permit defense of property and retributive justice? In Exodus 21-23 God lists out all manner of civil laws, many of which are foundational to modern Western law. In these chapters we see passages like this: If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him, (Exo 22:2). That would seem to imply that if someone breaks into your house and you shoot him, you are OK. This whole section is kind of the “eye for an eye” section, if someone does this to you, you have this right. Is Jesus affirming this? Again, look at what He said...

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. (Mat 5:38-40)

Is Jesus here only speaking of Exodus 21: 23-25? Or is He speaking more generally of not seeking restitution against those who wrong you? The overarching theme is that we are not to resist one who is evil. There doesn't seem to be an out for really evil people or if you have some really nice stuff or someone really makes you mad. Do not resist the one who is evil. This is where the rubber hits the road. When faced with evil, our natural inclination is to fight back. Jesus is saying that instead we should not resist.

This concept is hardly restricted to “merely” the Sermon on the Mount, although even if it were that should be adequate for His followers. A telling event happens in the garden of Gethsemane and is recorded in all four Gospels. In the garden, after Jesus prays, He is betrayed when Judas brings the soldiers in the dead of night to arrest Him. What happens next is very interesting…

Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's servant and cut off his right ear. (The servant's name was Malchus.) (John 18: 10)

Good for Peter, standing up for Jesus! No wonder Jesus made sure that they had swords! How does Jesus react? Keep in mind that this is Peter defending the Messiah against a mob of men armed and seeking in the dead of night to seize Christ. The Scripture does not record Jesus praising Peter, although in 2010 his reaction to leap to the defense of Christ (even by means of violence) seems pretty reasonable. Instead we see Jesus saying something entirely different…

And behold, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his ear. Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. (Matt 26: 51-52)

I guess you could argue that Jesus is chastising Peter here because He is not seeking to avoid the cross. On the other hand, notice what else Jesus says. All who take the sword will perish by the sword. It is not not right now but not ever. Is the message here “violence begets violence”? It certainly sounds that way. Not only does Christ rebuke Peter for taking up the sword, He speaks more generally in remarking that those who live by the sword shall die the same way. Also, and this is really where the point comes together, Luke records that Christ heals the ear of the servant.

But Jesus said, “No more of this!” And he touched his ear and healed him. (Luke 22:51)

That has nothing to do with the avoiding the cross. He was still going but He made a point of healing one who came to seize Him first, showing good to those who meant Him evil. That message should resonate with His followers today. Not only does Jesus not seek retribution against the ones who were coming to arrest Him, He returned good for evil. In a world of suing for our rights, Christian legal defense funds, etc. the One we follow does something completely different.

That would be sufficient in and of itself but Paul reiterates what Christ says. I think that this is important. Let's look at what Paul writes in this matter.

Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight. Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord." To the contrary, "if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. (Rom 12:14-21)

You really cannot overemphasize this. This is Paul, post-cross, restating and reinforcing what Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount. I don't think it is coincidence that this comes right before Romans 13 where Paul affirms that the state can use the sword. The contrast is pretty stark between Christians and the state. Live in harmony with one another (i.e. other believers), be lowly, be humble, do not think yourself wise (hard to do when you insist on adorning your name with titles and honorifics to tell people how educated you are). Live peaceably with all people to the best of your ability. Granted some people will not be peaceable toward you, but that is on their heads. We are called to not avenge ourselves but instead to trust the justice of God to set things right. If you want to fight evil, don't take up the sword, instead overcome evil with good. The best way of fighting evil is to do good to your enemies:

If your enemy is hungry, give him bread to eat, and if he is thirsty, give him water to drink, for you will heap burning coals on his head, and the LORD will reward you. (Pro 25:21-22)

What of the argument that war is sometimes necessary to ensure justice? That we as lovers of what is good and of justice have an obligation to see justice done?

First and foremost, this is a question of what Christians are to do and to be in the world. We are not called to be arbiters and dispensers of justice in the Bible. Quite the opposite. If we truly believe that God is who He says He is and that He will do what He says He will do, then we leave it to Him to dispense justice. I trust God far more than I trust myself or politicians (even Republicans!) to create a just society.

As a whole, the Scriptures paint for us a picture of Christians as a meek and lowly people, humble and placing their trust in God rather than men. We are followers of Christ, who was humbled to the point of death, going meekly to His death carrying His own cross, mocked and beaten, scourged and spat upon. Paul writes to Timothy

First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. (1Ti 2:1-2)

The Christian life is one that seeks peace and quiet, humble and dignified lives. We pray for our leaders, not so that they will advance our agenda over a different agenda, but so that we may lead peaceful and quiet lives.

My final post will wrap up this series and serve as a place for discussions about this idea of non-resistance.

"The regenerated do not go to war, nor engage in strife. They are the children of peace who have beaten their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruninghooks, and know of no war.... Since we are to be conformed to the image of Christ, how can we then fight our enemies with the sword? . . . Spears and swords of iron we leave to those who, alas, consider human blood and swine's blood of well-nigh equal value." - Menno Simons