"I cannot be any more specific about the methodology of love than to quote these words of an old priest who spent many years in battle:It seems once again fitting to have finished a chapter regarding the human weakness
"There are dozens of ways to deal with evil and several ways to conquer it. All of them
are facets of the truth that the only ultimate way to conquer evil is to let it be smothered within a willing, living human being.
When it is absorbed there like blood in a sponge or a spear into one's heart, it loses it's power and goes no further."
The healing of evil---scientifically or otherwise---can be accomplished only by the love of individuals. A willing sacrifice is required... I do not know how this occurs. But I know that it does... Whenever this happens there is a slight shift in the balance of power in the world."
M. Scott Peck
of moral guardianship only to round the corner and find the massive issue of nonviolence
looming ahead in our path. In my opinion, the one leads directly into the other.
Judgment Begets Bloodshed
It is very difficult to have violence without judgment being involved at some point
along the invisible journey of mental rationalization.
For to commit violence against our neighbor, we must first either judge them
worthy of punishment and then take it upon ourselves to inflict it, or we must
judge them unworthy of retaining possession of something and take it from
them by force. I realize that this is the greatest of oversimplifications, but
it draws the necessary parallels even if it does fall far short of the mark in
defining the problem of violence throughout the history of mankind.
Why I Changed
Violence is yet another of the areas in which my theological views have
shifted drastically during the past year.
I was once solidly fixed in the right-wing 'just war' mindset, like so
many Christians in America and around the world are.
But the more I read about the life and historical significance of Jesus
Christ, the more I come to the conclusion that as a follower of Him
engaging in violence renders my faith and my witness to the world
largely incoherent.
Many will say that violence is the only possibility in such a sinful and fallen
world. That we cannot but to engage in violence under pressing circumstances.
The arguments are endless, and they seem to be correct upon first inspection.
But I am under the impression that they only appear correct because we know
of no other way. The human condition is and has always been a story of
reciprocity. Return force for force. Blow for blow. Loss for loss. Murder for murder.
One of the first social accounts in the book of Genesis is the first recorded murder.
It is ironic then, that what we find directly after the incident a recorded conversation
between God and the murderer in question where God guarantees his protection
against the vengeance of those who might slay him in return!
There are virtually limitless postulations we could make on the reasoning behind
this, but the bottom line is this: God put a stop to the retributive cycle before it got started.
Here, with nonviolence, more than with virtually every other argument, I frequently hear the
objection of pragmatism. Many seem, to discard passages dealing with nonviolence simply because they feel that although those teachings are noble sentiments indeed, that they are simply
not applicable to a fallen world of bloodshed and sin.
My purpose here is to argue that perhaps they are applicable, but the real issue
for these objectors is that the price is too high and that they are unwilling to
submit and comply.
Violence is blasphemy. In Genesis 9:6 we read that whoever sheds
man's blood, by man his blood will be shed. At first blush, it would seem that this
first reference to the so-called 'law of reciprocity' would be God's blessing
over this sort of behavior. The latter half of the verse however, gives the reasons
why such drastic action must be taken.
Human beings were created by God in His image (Gen 1:26-27; Gen 5:1; Jas 3:9).
Among other things, this means that we possess a unique spiritual nature (John 4:24; Job 32:8).
We have a conscience which relates us to God. We have been endowed with advanced
reason and creative ability. Each human life is precious and unique before God
(Psalm 139:13-16). Therefore it is of utmost importance to note that taking
a life is wrong first and foremost because it is a direct assault on God's image.
It is for this reason that Genesis 9:6 reads as it does.
I also find it interesting that read differently, this passage doesn't sound as much
like a directive as it sounds like a general principle that has been instituted.
It's basically the exact same statement as is made by Jesus in Matthew 26:52 and
by John in Revelations 13:10.
Violence denies the sovereignty of Jesus Christ.
We need to understand the theology of violence, in that when we make a
conscious decision to take matters into our own hands, we are in essence denying
the providence of God. When we claim that Jesus Christ is our Lord, and
do not do the things that He said, we are liars.
The theological critique of violence implicit in the active panel of the triptych addresses the element of despair in the just war argument. Violence is the only way, the last resort, the just war common sense says, because there is no other actor for good on the scene .When we commit violence, we invariably stoop to the level of our antagonist.
We must tough -mindedly take on the dirty work and the moral ambivalence of dealing death to our fellow creatures, because otherwise history would get out of hand.
But confessing Jesus Christ risen, ascended, and seated at the right hand of the Father meant, in the first century, that history cannot get out of hand.
The medieval and high Protestant word for “seated at the right hand ” was providence.
There is a potential for saving outcomes in the human drama, and there is a potential for redemptive outcomes out of suffering, if Jesus Christ is viceroy over the cosmos.
We short-circuit that providential potential when we decide to be providence ourselves, at the expense of the fellow humans on whom we inflict the violence that we claim is lesser.
Yoder, John Howard (2009-12-01). War of the Lamb, The
In doing so we validate their use of violence and give credibility to it.
The Scripture doesn't necessarily preach a message of submitting passively to
violence, but rather not responding to it in kind; instead we are commanded to
overcome evil with good.
Violence begets violence.
This principle is very simple and clearly stated throughout Scripture.
We have already gone over some of the passages involved in this 'law of reciprocity'
which has existed in humanity since the earliest of times (Gen 9:6; Exo 21:24-25; Lev 24:17-20;
Deu 19:19-21; Matt 26:52; Rev 13:10).
Violence damages our conscience.
Think back in time to the first experience of your life when you witnessed (or were
forced to witness) an event containing violence.
For me it was probably catching snippets on television of faked shootings
in movies or shows. Later I saw worse things like real shootings on
video and experienced bullying in school.
In each case I can remember the twisting feeling in my stomach, the waves of nausea,
horrible feeling of revulsion in my conscience.
If we are honest with ourselves, I think we are forced
to admit that violence does something terrible to us, especially when we
are young. We instinctively know that violence runs contrary to how things ought to be.
It's not dissimilar to the first time one is exposed to a pornographic image.
That person will never be the same.
Like a searing knife, it cuts deeply and leaves behind mental scar tissue in its wake.
Even worse, just like with the apt analogy to pornography, witnessing and
experiencing violence has a powerful desensitizing effect on people.
An effect that is well known and documented among healthcare and law enforcement
professionals. With enough exposure, people will either lose their sanity
altogether or erect walls in their mind to deaden them to the pain of others.
Neither option is healthy.
Given enough time, people will often even engage in violence themselves
even if they had sworn to themselves that they would never do so.
If violence has such a powerful effect on the human psyche and conscience,
how can we possibly deny that it is wrong on a fundamental level?
Violence runs counter to the life and teachings of Jesus.
I stated in an earlier chapter that if theology is the study of God, that any serious
undertaking in it would be sophistry without taking into account how the testimony
of Jesus Christ revises it.
And so, it is here, with the 'law of reciprocity' that we come to a baffling
turnabout in the teachings of Jesus.
"You have heard that it was said, 'AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.This quotation is directly quoted from the original law of Moses and the underlying
'But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.
If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also.
Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two.
Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you."
foundation of it from Genesis 9:6. How is it then, that suddenly and unexpectedly
such a longstanding tradition becomes turned on its head?
Here we will, no doubt, be swarmed by a legion of zealous individuals
holding forth the text of Matthew 5:17-18, vigorously compelling us to turn back
from our borderline heretical leanings. It would be fairly important to note
that the text of the same sermon differs drastically between Matthew and Luke.
Since it is not my purpose to address textual inconsistencies at this juncture, I will
merely show the difference for the sake of making a stronger case for the revision
of the law and then proceed from there.
In Matthew 5:17-18, the author uses the phrase 'until heaven and earth disappear,'
which was a fairly common Jewish idiom which basically meant 'forever'.
However in Luke 16:16-17, the same text is given a dramatically different spin.
In Matthew's Gospel the law will never pass away. In Luke, it would seem that it
is already in the process of making its exit.
The only conclusion we can reach after careful reading and study of the
Sermon on the Mount is that Jesus did indeed (at minimum) revise the tarnished
prior understanding of the law, and brought the whole picture into greater focus for us.
If we accept this fact to be true, then it becomes overwhelmingly difficult
for us to ignore the repeated teachings on nonviolence which come most
importantly from Jesus Christ Himself and second from the apostles and early
Christians who followed in His footsteps.
In continuing the attack on the 'law of reciprocity', Jesus states clearly that
if we love only those who love us, we aren't doing anything extraordinary at all,
a statement which is reiterated by Peter later in his epistle
(Luk 6:32-34; Matt 5:46-47; 1 Pet 2:19-24).
Further still as everyone old and young know by heart, Jesus instituted the
famous 'golden rule' in which He commanded us to do unto others what we would
have done to ourselves (Matt 7:12). I find it ironic to note that in commanding us to do this,
He offered up no convenient escape clause; something along the lines of
'Do unto others that which you would have them do unto you... Unless they hurt you.
Then it's okay to hurt them back'.
Jesus took this concept several steps further, however.
He pointed out that His kingdom was different than the kingdom of men
and directed attention to the lack of violence in His followers as indicative of that fact (John 18:36).
He revised the prohibition against murder to include the intentions of the heart,
stating that even hating your neighbor to the point of wishing that they were dead brings
one into grave danger (Matt 5:21-26).
He revised the standard of hating our enemies, and in this passage gives us such
a clear cut standard of repaying evil with good that I fail to see how there could possibly be any ambiguity involved. (Matt 5:43-48)
Keep in mind that the phrases that Jesus uses in these verses are not just randomly
chosen words. They have been carefully selected for maximum effect.
When Jesus says to turn the other cheek, He was most likely referring to the practice
of Roman soldiers to slap Jewish subjects on their right cheek as a gesture of
utter disrespect and humiliation.
When He said walk two miles when compelled, not one only, He was directly
relating to the typical practice of Roman soldiers to force Jewish citizens
to carry their heavy packs for a mile.
If these statements seem to bear a stigma of extremism in today's society,
imagine how they sounded to an occupied Jewish society over two-thousand
years ago.
Jesus repeatedly refused the methodology of violence and bloodshed to execute
His goals, although more than any other person in history, He had the ability
and right to use this avenue.
The prophetic passages attributed to Jesus in Isaiah 53 state that He went to
His torture and death with the humility and meekness of a lamb.
Alone truly innocent out of all people ever born, our Lord went to the cross
and endured monstrous cruelties nearly beyond comprehension, and in so
doing won victory over the dark powers assembled against not just Him but all
humanity. In a oddly poetic sort of divine redirection, He used the very
hatred and evil of the demonic forces to defeat them. In essence, they were defeated
by their own nature.
The Early Church Understood the Gospel in This Manner
How did the early church interpret His example in nonviolence and engage with
the world around them based on His principles?
Paul preached the same message (Rom 12:14-21; 1 Cor 4:12).
So did Peter (1 Pet 3:9).
So did John (Rev 12:11).
The scandalous message of the New Testament then is this.
Forgiveness and love in place of hatred and violence.
Violence inevitably leads to our not sharing the attributes of our Lord.
If it is true, as Stanley Hauerwas says that the best evidence we can provide for the existence of God is the manner in which we live, then how could we ever think that engaging
in willful bloodshed would present the truest image of our Savior who died
on the cross for us?
This assertion seems to be in serious tension with a particular mindset which
I of late have come to call 'Macho Christianity', headed by some very influential
and popular Christian leaders such as Mark Driscoll who has reportedly made the
statement 'I cannot worship a guy I can beat up'.
Regardless of where such thinking leads us, we need to understand and accept
the fact that Jesus may not line up with our preconceptions, viewpoints, or habits.
And if perchance He does not, we are not called to remake Him in our image.
Rather we are called to be remade into His (Rom 12:2; Eph 5:1; Col 2:6; 1 Pet 2:21; Phil 2:5;
1 Jn 2:6).
A Tradition of Martyrs
On this point I agree wholeheartedly with Tripp York.
Christianity (when necessary) produces martyrs not terminators. And for good reason.
The martyrs of the early church died because they were emulating Christ.
If it was right for Christ, it was right for them; or so they seemed to reason.
Consider the following cases of martyrdom and forgive me for quoting liberally for the sake of time.
Dirk Willems offered what we imagine to be an incredibly difficult, odd, subversive, yet faithful response to his killers. As he was fleeing from a hired “thief-catcher,” he crossed a frozen river in an attempt to escape his pursuer. As he cleared the ice, he heard a crack and a splash. He looked back to find the pursuer drowning in the icy water.Or this one:
Some would view that moment as providential. God was providing Willems an easy escape. Others may view it as just desserts or karma for the thief-catcher—that’s what he deserves for attempting to be complicit in the death of an innocent human being. Others still may see it as nothing more than a natural consequence: ice cracks under a certain amount of weight, nothing more need be said.
Willems saw it differently. He viewed it as an opportunity to help a suffering neighbor—one who also happened to be his enemy. Willems turned around and helped the man out of the icy river, saving his life. Overwhelmed by the mercy shown him, the thief-catcher wanted to release Willems. Regrettably he was unable to, as the thief catcher was instructed to remember his oath and detain him. Willems was apprehended, tortured, and burned at the stake. He was killed by those who claimed to know the peace that is Christ.3
(2012-05-17). A Faith Not Worth Fighting For: Addressing Commonly Asked Questions about Christian Nonviolence
Approximately two and a half centuries after the death of Jesus, a young man by the name of Maximilian of Tebessa was executed for refusing military service. It was 295 CE, and Maximilian was required to fulfill his obligation to serve in the Roman army. This posed a problem for Maximilian, as it did for most Christians prior to the middle of the fourth century...
...When asked his name by Dion, the proconsul of Africa who was recruiting new soldiers, Maximilian responded, “Why should you want to know my name? I cannot serve in the army, I am a Christian.”
Maximilian assumed that this knowledge alone should preclude him from military service. After all, what good is a person in the military who is in the trenches praying for his adversaries rather than attempting to kill them?
Dion countered that, Christian or not, a person’s highest loyalty was to Rome. Military duty was a responsibility placed on certain citizens, regardless of their religious convictions. Maximilian’s civic duty, assumed Dion, was far greater than any obligation Maximilian might have to his tiny political/religious movement.
Dion disregarded Maximilian’s dissent and proceeded to fit him for military garb.
Maximilian interrupted the fitting process by continually stating his inability to serve. Dion ignored his pleas and informed him that if he did not serve he would be executed. Maximilian responded, “[C]ut off my head if you like, but I cannot be a solider of the world; I am a soldier of my God . . . My service is for my own Lord. I cannot engage in worldly warfare. I have already told you that I am a Christian.”
Dion, again, told Maximilian that if he continued to refuse military service he would die.
Maximilian was not intimidated by Dion’s threat and explained how it was impossible for a Christian to die since they live in Christ.
Dion accepted the challenge and told him he was to be beheaded.
Maximilian simply responded, “Thanks be to God,” and gladly accepted the gift that the church names “martyrdom.”
(2012-05-17). A Faith Not Worth Fighting For: Addressing Commonly Asked Questions about Christian Nonviolence
Consider also these quotes from early church fathers regarding military service
and violence:
“We who were filled with war, and mutual slaughter, and every wickedness, have each through the whole earth changed our warlike weapons—our swords into ploughshares, and our spears into implements of tillage—and we cultivate piety, righteousness, philanthropy, faith, and hope, which we have from the Father Himself through Him who was crucified.”
– Justin Martyr (100-165 AD), Dialogue with Trypho 110
“We who formerly used to murder one another do not only now refrain from making war upon our enemies, but also, that we may not lie nor deceive our examiners, willingly die confessing Christ.”
– Justin Martyr (100 – 165 AD), Apology 1.39
“For it is not in war, but in peace, that we are trained.”
– Clement of Alexandria (150-aprox 211 AD), The Instructor 1.12
“Above all, Christians are not allowed to correct with violence the delinquencies of sins.”
– Clement of Alexandria (150-aprox 211 AD), Fragments: Maximus, Sermon 55
“The catechumen or faithful who wants to become a soldier is to be rejected, for he has despised God.”
– Hippolytus (170-236 AD), The Apostolic Tradition 16.11.
“But how will a Christian war, nay, how will he serve even in peace without a sword, which the Lord has taken away? For albeit soldiers had come unto John, and had received the formula of their rule; albeit, likewise, a centurion had believed, still the Lord afterward, in disarming Peter, unbelted every soldier.”
– Tertullian (160-225 AD), On Idolatry 19
“In our case, murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the fœtus in the womb.”
– Tertullian (160-225 AD), Apology 9
Shall it be held lawful to make an occupation of the sword, when the Lord proclaims that he who uses the sword shall perish by the sword? And shall the son of peace take part in the battle when it does not become him even to sue at law? And shall he apply the chain, and the prison, and the torture, and the punishment, who is not the avenger even of his own wrongs?”
– Tertullian (160-225 AD), The Chaplet 11
“We cannot endure even to see a man put to death, though justly.”
– Athenagoras of Athen (aprox 180 AD), A Plea for the Christians 35
“And as we by our prayers vanquish all demons who stir up war, and lead to the violation of oaths, and disturb the peace, we in this way are much more helpful to the kings than those who go into the field to fight for them… And none fight better for the king than we do. We do not indeed fight under him, although he require it; but we fight on his behalf, forming a special army – an army of piety – by offering our prayers to God.”
– Origen of Alexandria (185-254 AD), Against Celsus 8.73
“And to those who inquire of us whence we come, or who is our founder we reply that we are come, agreeably to the counsels of Jesus, to cut down our hostile and insolent wordy swords into ploughshares, and to convert into pruning-hooks the spears formerly employed in war. For we no longer take up sword against nation, nor do we learn war any more, having become children of peace, for the sake of Jesus, who is our leader.”
– Origen of Alexandria (185-254 AD), Against Celsus 5.33
“Therefore they are to be accounted as savage beasts who injure man; who, in opposition to every law and right of human nature, plunder, torture, slay, and banish.”
– Lactantius of Bithynia (aprox 240-317 AD), Divine Institutes 6.10
“Thus it will be neither lawful for a just man to engage in warfare, since his warfare is justice itself, nor to accuse any one of a capital charge, because it makes no difference whether you put a man to death by word, or rather by the sword, since it is the act of putting to death itself which is prohibited. Therefore, with regard to this precept of God, there ought to be no exception at all; but that it is always unlawful to put to death a man, whom God willed to be a sacred animal.”
– Lactantius of Bithynia (aprox 240-317 AD), Divine Institutes 6.20
“The whole world is wet with mutual blood; and murder, which in the case of an individual is admitted to be a crime, is called a virtue when it is committed wholesale. Impunity is claimed for the wicked deeds, not on the plea that they are guiltless, but because the cruelty is perpetrated on a grand scale.”
– Cyprian of Carthage (250 AD), Epistle 1.6
“And this is at least incredible, inasmuch as even now those Barbarians who have an innate savagery of manners . . . and cannot endure to be a single hour without weapons; but when they hear the teaching of Christ, straightway instead of fighting they turn to husbandry, and instead of arming their hands with weapons they raise them in prayer, and in a word, in place of fighting among themselves henceforth they arm against the devil and against evil spirits, subduing these by self-restrains and virtue of soul. Now this is at once a proof of the divinity of the Saviour, since what men could not learn among idols they have learned from him.” |The Turning Point; Empowering Religion
– Athanasius of Alexandria (296-373 AD), On the Incarnation of the Word 52.2-4
So the question is, at what point did Christians begin to think that it was proper
for them to take up (or advocate) the power of the sword in direct contradiction to the teachings
of Jesus Christ and the testimony of the early church?
And while the answer to this question is deeply convoluted, the search for it
inevitably takes us to the rise and fall of one man and his pernicious impact on
Christianity: Constantine.
Beginning a few years prior to the disputed “conversion” of Constantine, and not ending until a century or so after him, Constantinianism refers to the cataclysmic transition that occurred primarily during the fourth century.
During this time, Christianity eventually became the state religion.
As one can well imagine, things drastically changed.
The first three centuries of Christianity enjoyed a period in which the Christian response to violence was modeled after the response given by Jesus. Christians turned the other cheek, did not resist evil, and, through suffering persecution, actually increased in number.
After Constantine, the persecution of Christians ceased, but at the expense of Christianity’s nonviolent witness. Many adjustments were made, chief among them being that Christians were now in charge. By the end of the fourth century, through the might of the emperor Theodosius, Christianity became the official state religion. It was under his reign that Christianity became the primary religious option.
Christianity no longer required conversion as much as it simply required being born.
Baptism, which once required training, education, and a commitment to the possibility of an early death, now became an exclusive birthright...
...In just a few short years, a military that once killed Christians—and in which Christians were often forbidden to serve—was, by 416 CE, made up only of Christians.
(2012-05-17). A Faith Not Worth Fighting For: Addressing Commonly Asked Questions about Christian Nonviolence
Once Christianity became the state religion, the temptation to use the coercive
power that a vested interest in government brings became overwhelming.
Augustine contributed tremendously to the vision of 'just war' tradition by
rationalizing away generating temporary pain in order to secure eternal salvation.
And thus began a long and shameful history of bloodshed in the name of Christ.
Throughout the Middle Ages and into the Renaissance, millions were burned at the stake, hung, beheaded, or executed in other ways for resisting some aspect of the church's teaching or for failing to operate under its authority.
Thousands upon thousands were tortured in unthinkable ways in an attempt to elicit confessions of faith in the Savior and the church; some of the macabre torturing devices were even inscribed with the logo "Glory be only to God."
Christian sectarian groups such as the Paulicans, Cathars, Albigensians, and Waldensians were massacred by the towns---often including women and children---and Christians in both the West and the East slaughtered each other in Jesus' name as ruthlessly as they slaughtered Muslims.
Terrible atrocities were carried out on Jews, especially when the Crusades needed to be financed, and multitudes of women (estimates range between sixty thousand to several million) were burned or hung for allegedly being witches---most of whom denied the charge.
The church of resident aliens had become a horde of savage warlords.
The militant, Constantinian mindset carried into the Protestant Reformation. So long as they remained a persecuted minority, Reformers generally decried the use of violence for religious purposes.
But once given the power of the sword, most used it as relentlessly as it had previously
been used against them. Indeed, with the exception of the Anabaptists, every splinter group of the Reformation in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries spilled blood.
Lutherans, Calvinists, Anglicans, and other Protestant groups fought each other, fought the Catholics, and martyred Anabaptists and other "heretics" by the hundreds.
It wasn't until the bloodshed became economically unbearable and unfeasible in the
Thirty Years' War that a truce (the Peace of Westphalia) was called and Christians agreed, at least theoretically, to end the violence.
-Gregory Boyd, Myth of a Christian Nation
And the tradition did not stop there. It carried on into the new world.
It prompted the entitlement of the 'Manifest Destiny' thought of the 19th century.
A program that ended the lives of countless American Indians and enslaved millions
of Africans all for the good of our nationalistic agenda.
Which prompted Frederick Douglas to remark:
"Between the Christianity of this land, and the Christianity of Christ, I recognize the widest possible difference---so wide, that to receive the one as good, pure, and holy, is of necessity to reject the other as bad, corrupt, and wicked...
I love the pure, peacable, and impartial Christianity of Christ; I therefore hate the corrupt, slaveholding, women-whipping, cradle-plundering, partial, and hypocritical Christianity or this land. Indeed, I can see no reason, but the most deceitful one, for calling the religion of this land Christianity."
None of this would have happened had we not fallen under the deception of
Satan in accepting the very power which Jesus Christ laid down and refused to utilize.
That Christians ever found themselves in a position of having to have a discussion on the ethics of waterboarding, much less stockpiling nuclear arms, is proof that our understanding of God certainlyIs Jesus the Lamb or the Soldier or Both?
has nothing in common with Jesus.
Jesus freely gave his life for his enemies and then, no surprise, demanded that we do the same. For what else could he have meant when he commanded us to pick up our cross and follow him?
My real fear is that those who imagine a Jesus willing to bless their rifles and grenades may have more in common with the Greek god Ares than Jesus of Nazareth.
Ares was the god of war and bloodlust. He never met a skirmish he didn’t like. He pursued violence and engaged in one bloody conflict after another. Likewise, worshippers of Ares would often look to him (and many more looked to his half-sister, Athena) for blessings on their noble crusades...
...Take your pick: Ares, Mars, Bellona, Enyo, Virtus, Odin, Thor, Agurzil, Mixcoatl, Mextli, Badb, Andarta, Neit, Segomo, Tyr, Chi You, Horus, Laran, Mangala, Indra, Hanuman, Al Quam, ad infinitum ad nauseum. Apparently, Jesus is but one more name we can now add to the ever-expanding list of war gods to call upon as we plunge our swords deep into the bodies of others.
(2012-05-17). A Faith Not Worth Fighting For: Addressing Commonly Asked Questions about Christian Nonviolence
This vision of Jesus as a mighty conqueror is increasingly founded by those who
hold to this ideal on the accounts of the book of Revelation.
Obviously we do not have the space for an entire overview of the book of Revelation.
But even if we did, it should be noted that extreme debate has raged for centuries
over how we should properly interpret Revelation due to its layered use of allegory and
metaphor.
Of one thing we may be certain. Jesus will return. He will judge the nations.
But we cannot forget that He does so not as the lion, but as the lamb. (Rev 5:5-6).
He rides into battle already soaked in blood. Who's blood? The battle has yet
to be engaged so it is then His own (Rev 19:11-14)!
From His mouth emerges a sword. Not a typical sword wielded in battle, but this
sword is the Word of God (Rev 19:15).
How do we know that it isn't a typical sword? Because in the same verse, we're
told that He will rule the nations He came to strike down with this sword
with a rod of iron.
The word John chose for 'rule' is the Greek word poimainō which is commonly used
for tending to, feeding, or shepherding.
Closing Thoughts and Summary
We will delve further into this eschatological imagery in Chapter IX.
The point I have made here should be clear.
The message of Christ is simple and not difficult to understand.
It becomes confused when we add our presuppositions to it.
The path may not be easy. Indeed the purpose of this chapter was not to address
ethical principles by which we should respond to violence in everyday life.
The purpose has been to establish a concise case for the nonviolent
path of Jesus, the path chosen by His first disciples and followers, and how
we have deviated from it along the way.
Some, I am sure, will challenge the validity of these arguments and future arguments
I will present on the grounds that they are emotionally charged.
To which I would be compelled to respond, 'Locate for me if you will, a human
being born throughout history utterly free of bias, opinion, and/or emotional investment'.
Indeed I would have to contend that if one is not emotionally invested in one's faith,
then they might wish to check for a pulse as it is showing signs of eminent demise.
The validity of these claims has no relation to their emotional investment or nature.
Rather they should be judged by their veracity in relation to what we know
of our Lord and Savior.
No comments:
Post a Comment