I just learned of the shootings today in Colorado. A 20ish year old gunman opened fire today at a YWAM (Youth with a Mission) in my home town of Arvada, killing two, and getting away. 12 hours later and 65 miles away in Colorado Springs (where my parents currently reside), a 20ish year old gunman (the same gunman?) opened fire in the parking lot of New Life Church (yes, Ted Haggard's old house), killing one and injuring four others. The gunman was shot dead on sight by an armed security guard employed by New Life Church. I wrote to the pastor of New Life, Pastor Brady Boyd, the following letter:
Pastor Boyd,
My name is Thom Stark. I am a 26 year old, spirit-baptized believer and student of the Word. I am writing on behalf of my wife and child, and on behalf of the churches of Joplin, Missouri when I say that our prayers are with you during this difficult time. With you, we mourn the loss of all those whose lives were lost today, and with you we pray for strength and courage for the families of the departed, and for the body of Christ in Colorado Springs. With you we pray, amid this madness, amid this devastation and despair, that the God of Jesus Christ will be glorified.
It saddens me deeply, Pastor Boyd, that I am compelled to write this letter. My emotions are a potion of anger and grief, disappointment and disillusionment, with an inkling of hope up against a hard wall of heartache. As a fellow human being my prayers are with you and your congregation, but as a brother of yours in Christ Jesus, I am compelled to rebuke you. I pray God now that my rebuke will be both presented and received by you in a spirit of love and encouragement. I ask that you would pray that prayer with me now before you read on.
Though I pray with you that the God of Jesus Christ will be glorified in this tragedy, I must prophesy to you, my brother, that our God, the God of Jesus Christ, has not been glorified. He has not been glorified in your actions prior to, during, or after the shooting. This is a hard word to bring, brother Boyd, but I bring it out of concern for you and your congregation, and out of zeal for the faithfulness of the Body of Christ.
When I learned of the shootings I was heart-wrenched. I immediately began to pray. I began to pray that your church would be empowered to witness to the self-sacrificial, suffering love of the God revealed in Jesus of Nazareth. Some minutes later, I learned of a second great tragedy, a greater tragedy, and one that I did not expect. I learned that the gunman was shot and killed by a paid employee of your congregation of believers. Hearing this, I was devastated. The life of an unbeliever was traded for the lives of believers. A man was consigned to eternal separation from God in order to save from heaven those who are assured of salvation. The opportunity for the unique witness of a Bible-believing, Christ-following people in a world gone mad with violence was surrendered for the safety and security of predominantly wealthy Christians. God was not glorified. In fact, it was the contrary. The way of the world was held up and affirmed. A Spirit-empowered people charged by God to follow Jesus' example in overcoming evil with good instead chose to fight fire with fire. The gospel of Jesus Christ--the gospel of nonviolent, suffering agape--was displaced by the gospel of the United States of America--the gospel of safety secured by force.
Today the Body of Christ was wounded, not by an unbelieving gunman but by its own left hand. Today we struck back at our enemy, and hit ourselves. It was not merely New Life Church in Colorado Springs that was in the spotlight today, but the Church universal, and the Church universal has been disfigured. We share in your suffering, your torment, and your mourning. Indeed, we share also in your guilt.
Nevertheless, despite our stance of solidarity with you, you must be held to account for your actions. The severity of the damage done to the Body of Christ today must be made plain.
I read in one news article that "New Life is one of the most influential and one of the best known Evangelical churches in the country." Not only the United States, but the world was watching you today when you failed to witness to the transforming power of God's nonviolent love for His enemies. The watching world today learned that followers of Jesus, the Prince of Peace, do not love their enemies so much, do not believe so much in the resurrection of the dead that they will not arm themselves against aggression.
On your church's website you claim to "believe that God has chosen the local church to represent His life and His love to the community," and yet today it was not God's love that your church represented, a love that extends even to the enemies of God and His people. Instead, your actions promoted a love of self that is no different in any respect from that of unbelievers. Your church, directed by your decision making, was more concerned about its own safety than the life of a lost man and your witness to the gospel of God's radical love before a watching world.
Despite the fact that you state on your website that you are "convinced of the reality of powerful prayer," that you "believe that a praying church has a much better chance of making a difference than a prayer-less one," after you learned of the shooting in Arvada you chose instead to trust in the power of bullets, by intentionally increasing the security team in preparation for a showdown. Whether or not you encouraged your congregation to trust in the power of prayer, you undermined belief in such power by providing your congregation with a detailed escape plan, all the while putting the responsibility for the safety of your people into the hands of men with guns. How is God glorified in this? How is this any kind of image of the wounded body of Christ? The death of the one Christian killed was rendered meaningless by your decision to kill his murderer. By your will, the one of you who died did not die as a Christian but as a mere victim. God has not been glorified in this, and God is not pleased.
On your website you claim that your "purpose is to ... obey God according to the Scriptures." And yet when God in the Scriptures commands you to pray for those who persecute you, instead you kill him and tell a watching world that your "prayers right now are for those who were injured, and for the families who lost their loved ones." You claim that your purpose is to know God and to obey God, yet when Jesus says that loving one's own is what pagans do but loving one's enemy is what Christians do, you go on ahead and do what pagans do. If the family of the assailant you killed was included in "the families who lost their loved ones" for which you were praying, you did not make it explicit. Such ambiguity is hardly a bold witness for the gospel.
The only thing, it seems, you have to say about your enemy is that it is "unfortunate that we live in a society where this happens, but it does." You did not pronounce forgiveness upon him. You did not ask forgiveness of his family for taking his life. You simply bemoaned the fact that we live in a fallen world as though that were something novel to Christians. You said nothing of the Church's commitment to transforming such a society by the power of God's suffering love. You said nothing of that because it would have contradicted your witness, which was not a witness of God's suffering love but of self-defense and retaliation. Almost as if you forgot that your local congregation is a member of a much larger, universal Body of Christ, you conclude by saying that your church "has gone through difficult times in the past," and that your church "will survive and do well." It is clear how you intend for your church to survive--by the blood of your enemies. Brother Boyd, I urge you to reckon with the fact that if your church is representative of the universal Body of Christ, then the blood of the martyrs is no longer the seed of the Church.
I am ashamed, brother Boyd. I am ashamed because rather than going the way of the Crucified One and the martyrs who followed Him, the One whose Spirit indwells and empowers us both to be fashioned after the character of God revealed in Jesus, you chose that we would go the other way. Going this other way, you made it almost impossible for yourself to give thanks to Jesus Christ for His self-sacrificial service. You made it impossible for yourself to lift up the courage of the One who died for His enemies, who inspired and empowered you to follow in His footsteps. Instead, you thanked the police. You expressed your gratitude to the "courageous men and women in our law enforcement agencies and the way they responded." Rather than extolling the Christian virtues of self-sacrifice and enemy-love, rather than testifying to the power of prayer and committed Christian nonviolence, you exhibited the standard anxiety of a wealthy, privileged class of citizens when you sighed, "The police were on the scene, the building was secured, our people were safe."
On your website, you claim that "New Life is a Bible-believing church." And yet when in 1 Peter 2:20b-21 you are told that "if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God," you ignore it. You talk of God's calling on your lives as individual, Spirit-baptized believers, and as a Spirit-empowered body, yet when Peter tells you exactly what you have been called to, that you have been called to suffering, "because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in His steps," your church ceases to be quite so "Bible-believing."
You claim that you "emphasize every portion of Scripture," yet when it comes down to the wire, overcoming evil with good (Rom. 12:21) is not on the agenda. When John "calls for patient endurance and faithfulness on the part of the saints," his call seems to fall on deaf ears. According to John, "patient endurance and faithfulness on the part of the saints" means that "if anyone is to be killed with the sword, with the sword he will be killed" (Rev. 13:10). Why, then, if you emphasize every portion of Scripture, as you claim, did we not see patient endurance and faithfulness today? Why instead did we see what we saw? I need to know why. The blood of the martyrs who died to put an end to the vicious cycle of violence demand to know why. Why did the Church of Jesus Christ, the Crucified One, choose to defend itself with hired gunmen?
I write as your humble servant, brother Boyd. I am not superior to you in any respect whatever. I have no pretensions of that kind. On the contrary, I write as one broken and bruised by his own fallenness. But I also write as a prophet of the God of Jesus Christ, by the unction of His Spirit. I write in all sincerity, in all truthfulness, and in all humility, that by the power of the Holy Spirit the faithful witness of the Church to the nonviolent, suffering, self-sacrificial love of Jesus Christ might be restored. I call upon you to come alongside me and the universal Body of Christ to repent for this specific incidence of the killing of the gunman, and to repent for our broader complicity with this world and the many institutions of violence constituting it that stand in contradiction to the orthodox, faithful gospel of Jesus Christ. I will stand beside you, as now I mourn with you, both for the violence done to us, and for the violence we have done.
May the God of peace be with your spirit, and transform us all into the likeness of His Son.
Your servant,
Thom
Labels: Brady Boyd, Guns, New Life Church, Nonviolence, Pacifism, Peacemaking, Religious Right
111 Comments:
For the sake of humility and solidarity with our struggling brothers and sisters at New Life, I ask that comments on this post be framed as constructively as possible. Thank you.
One report I've read (though I'm not sure at this point) says that the gunman killed two people at New Life, one a teenage girl.
And by way of correction, I made the assumption that the security guard who killed the gunman is male. She is not, in fact.
Dan Hamel said...
Thom, I am glad that you took the time to write. I was speaking about this situation to some friends and, while they agreed with your words, they also were curious as to what your response would have practically looked like. I know this might seem pedantic, but would you mind sharing a few thoughts on an alternative course of action (both in their preparation and response to the situation). Thanks brother, much love!
Yeah, there are hundreds of possibilities. Here's one. The 10,000 member congregation could have been ready to gang-rush the gunman with hugs. He might have got several people before he was overpowered by a swarm of huggers, but overpowered he would have been. One gun against 10,000 open arms ain't no match. Pastor Boyd should have been on the front lines rather than in his office on the second floor, where he watched the whole thing go down. That would have been real preparation.
While I basically have no quarrel with the essential truth of what you wrote, I question the timing. Scripture tells us to speak the truth in love. Writing such a letter to the pastor on the day of such a tragedy is anything but loving.
Thanks, Pistol, for speaking your mind. He didn't get the letter yesterday. I doubt he'll get it today. Maybe tomorrow. Maybe it'll be screened and he won't get it at all.
Even if he does get it today, saying that the timing is "anything but loving" is a bit of a categorical statement I think. I guess it depends on what you mean by "loving." My hope was to reach him before he was settled about the thing emotionally, while it was still very fresh. In my experience, time tends to dull our sensitivity to the moral nature of our actions. We quickly become adept at categorizing and filing away our past actions.
Sure, there's a flip-side to that coin, but the point is, my intent was to reach him before things had settled. From my perspective, that is loving. If you want to write him again in a week or a month or a year, I'll sign your letter too.
The truth is, I don't think there's a formula for the right way to do things here. Everything is so messy anyway, and so many different factors can affect such a letter's reception. The most we can do is pray for the Holy Spirit to have his way and for the gospel of Jesus Christ to be revealed here. I hope you'll pray with me.
Moreover, I should point out that if this were the early church, and he had done what he did, there would have been no "cooling off" period before he was censured and disciplined by the surrounding leaders. We are not used to death, and that's what gives us the inclination to stand back a bit in awe of the gravity of the situation. In my view, the most important, most pressing situation is the nature of our response to evil, not the evil itself.
I couldn't help but think of the contrast between New Life's response--armed guard/hired gun shoots back ("eye for an eye"--forbidden by Jesus)--and the response of the Amish community whose school was shot up last year--reaching out to the families of the gunmen even in the midst of their own grief. It was easy to see which church followed Jesus.
Yeah the juxtaposition of New Life vs the Amish community came to my mind as well. Regardless -- good words Thom. I hope/pray the body-at-large seriously weighs these thoughts...
excellent. thanks for posting this.
Thom and company,
I am grieved and confused tonight and I would love your thoughts and help. Like most of you, I was extremely troubled when I heard about New Life's response to the persecution they faced this weekend. Not only does it seem to me that they premeditated and then followed through with this course of action that is unanimously and expressly forbidden in the New Testament, in carrying through with this violence they forfeited what could have been a nearly unprecedented opportunity for the Church to demonstrate to the world the radical and unbelievable enemy-love of God (or, in other words, the gospel of Jesus Christ).
This burdened my heart a great deal, and then, tonight, I felt like I had a container of salt poured in an open wound. I was with a close group of spiritually mature friends who all serve in the Church to some extent and I shared how worried and saddened I was that this church responded to an act of persecution with violence instead of a love motivated by reconciliation and witness, and all I got was confused looks and harsh remarks. Some said they weren't interested, some said they were too tired to fight (as if this were a discussion about what to eat for dinner), and others just allowed their silence to indicate their disapproval of my radical and extreme convictions.
I have received this response before in discussing the issue of Christian non-violence, but I think this situation is a little different then usual.
Even though I disagree, I at least can understand why some say it is alright to use violence in the scenario of protecting your wife/family in an assault (the often-used hypothetical situation that every person I've ever talked with about this matter brings up), but this is wholly different. In this situation the church was apparently under attack (i.e. persecution) for being the Church. God's people were under attack for their faith and not one person in the room I was in saw anything wrong with shooting the guy who was persecuting Christians...as though it were the natural or expected course of action commanded by Jesus and witnessed to in the rest of the New Testament.
What has happened that the leaders of the Church no longer see anything wrong with shooting our persecutors in stead of praying for them?
I don't know how I am suppose to serve the Church and my community in this regard.
I'm not just wanting to rant about people who don't "get it", I really want to seek your advice on how to open up doors for the Spirit to bring the Word to life and how to help people see the type of faithful testimony the church has been called to give.
Some interesting thoughts.
In response to Dan...
You made a comment that this situation is completely different than that of if someone was assaulting your wife and children... how did the security guard know the difference? We only know now after the fact the reason the man was shooting.
I'm sure the security guard didn't have time to research the shooter... check out his web postings... interview him...
He was released from the YWAM base, obviously upset from his dismissal... so really who are we to judge if he was shooting to persecute Christians because they are Christians or shooting Christians because he was angry that he was kicked out of a Christian program...?
And for the record, the security guard's bullet did not kill the shooter. His own bullet did. Which, obviously, does not change your argument concerning the use of violence by Christian's... but it does lighten the load a bit.
Chris,
Thank you for writing. I appreciate your perspective, but to be honoest, I find it troubling.
I don't know what you mean by saying that "his own bullet" killed him, and not the security guard's. Every report I've read and seen has been clear. The security guard shot him to the ground. He reached for another weapon, and she shot him in the chest, killing him.
As far as the distinction between being persecuted for being Christian and being attacked at random--for a Christian the point is moot. Jews weren't persecuted for being Christians, and yet it was to Jews that Jesus spoke when he said not to resist an enemy by evil means.
Moreover, it's a little silly, your suggestion, that the security guard didn't have time to "research" his past. The guy had already shot up a YWAM. If he was now shooting up the church, it's clear he was specifically targeting Christians.
Dan's harrowing question still hangs in the air.
As for the bullet that killed the shooter, the coroner's findings are that his own bullet killed him. I was not speaking figuratively... check out the news on CNN.com:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/11/colorado.shootings/?iref=mpstoryview
I completely disagree with you on your counter-argument to my comment concerning Dan's comment. :) It's not a moot point as far as I'm concerned...
Dan's words were "persecuting Christians" -- And you, simply quoting Jesus when He was speaking to Jews concerning loving their enemy, is taking Him out of Gospel context. Everything Jesus preached was on the basis of Kingdom. He was not just randomly holding lectures on different ways to be good. Not "pick and choose and be a good person..." He was teaching the ways of the Kingdom. Not just a one-time, all-inclusive lesson to the Jews who should then turn their cheek because Jesus said so...
Taking Dan's comment in context, it seemed as though he was saying that the shooter was persecuting believers because of their believing in Jesus, thus then the security guard's actions were evil (for that very reason)... and then he spoke of how if it were someone attacking his wife or kids, then that would be a completely different situation. From your point-of-view, I don't see the difference.
That's why I said the security guard didn't have time to analyze the shooter to whether he was shooting because of persecuting christians or if it was because he was mad and target the people who were associated with the people he was mad at.
Chris,
I do hear what you are saying about not having the time to look into all the facts and then make a mature and well-formulated decision against about the situation and how to respond. And, like you, I have heard that it was in fact the shooters bullet who killed him, but it is not as though we wouldn't have died from the security guard's bullets if he hadn't shot himself as he was laying on the ground. So the point is really still the same, even though technically it wasn't her shot that caused him to die at that moment.
I also see you saying that there really isn't a difference between the two scenarios…and I don't necessarily disagree, I am just saying that I can see why others would say that there is. And if you want to make a dichotomy, I can then at least follow the reasoning behind the decision to protect your wife (even though I would do things differently), I can not understand the reasoning behind the decision to kill a persecutor of the church, as it boldly violates every new testament command on the issue.
However, I want to get to you point. How was this security guard to know and act correctly in the heat and pressure of the moment? I think that answer revolves around the way we as Christians prepare our hearts for actions and the way we train ourselves, over a long period of time, to respond to injustice. We should clearly think out what a faithful response to persecution might look like, and then make preparations to act accordingly.
I do think it is provable that New Life took extra security measures as a result of the YWAM shooting the previous night, which means they made a connection between an attack on a Christians organization and their need to protect themselves as a Christian church…which indicates to me that they prepared themselves for violence that might come as a result of their faith. Furthermore, instead of the leader of this church calling the security team and praying and thinking through what a faithful response to persecution might look like, he apparently just beefed up the number of the church guards and told them to be ready to respond with the necessary violence. In a report I read, the guard who shot said, "I did what I had to do." And I would respond, "No, you did what you had been taught to do, because your church had not properly equipped and prepared you to do what you really had to do…respond with the love and peace exemplified by our savior. This is what you thought you had to do because you have yet to realize that Jesus has made an alternative way of dealing with injustice, a way that is congruent with the heart and enemy-love of God."
Christ, these are at least some points to ponder, I am kind of writing our loud, as if we were having a face to face conversation…and I am in a hurry because I have a lunch appointment.
Regardless, I want to get back to the heart of my question. Lets say this was a direct act of persecution (which I believe it was) and lets say the church was expecting it (which I believe they at least took precautionary measures in their preparation), then would you say that it was inconsistent with the gospel message? Furthermore, the group of people that I talked to understood the situation to be like the one I just described, a group of Christians under attack for their faith, who then responded with bullets, so the heart of the issue does not change at all: there are leaders in the church who see nothing with responding to persecution with violence. So once again, please help me to understand what we can do to serve the church and what I can do to serve my community…so that the Word of God might come to life and that together we might prepare ourselves for a faithful and consistent witnesses to the character and heart of God, made known to us in the life and death of Jesus.
Thom, you know that I disagree with your perspective on this, but I do respect your consistency. Let me make just a few comments "off the cuff."
1. Thom, you are intelligent enough to realize that Pacifism is a minority opinion and always has been. I'm not saying that the arguments aren't intelligent. Neither am I saying that there is no scriptural support (However, I would agree with the way that you might see certain texts). I am simply pointing out that there are a lot of intelligent, well-read, Jesus-loving Christians who have a different perspective than you do on this issue. Certainly that should give you enough humility to stop seeing this as such an either/or, black/white, good-Christian/bad-Christian issue. Frankly I find your certainty absolutely surprising.
2. The Amish comparison is illegitimate for no other reason than they were responding to the shooting after it had occured. Am I to believe that the Amish would have gladly offered their little girls as sacrificial lambs to a homicidal maniac without doing anything to stop him?
3. You are making some bold (and biased) assumptions about this security guard and the church. Do you think that they are not heart broken about the death of this man?
4. Your pastoral instincts leave something to be desired. Thom, I say this as someone who loves you (you know that, but not everyone on this site does) - no one dealing with a horror such as this really cares what you think. It just sounds so cold and indifferent to the real world suffering of these people. Until you have suffered for your pacifism, you have not earned the right to be prophetic to these people.
5. You concert of hugs is more than a little naive. What if someone hugged him a little too hard - wouldn't that in fact be violence? Assuming that you hug this maniac into submission, who do you call? The cops? Would they have guns? Would this man face any punitive punishment for his crime in your system? Would it matter if the security guard was not a Christian? Do we simply allow the "Gentiles" in law inforcement to take care of our dirty work for us as we very piously and passively wash our hands?
I meant to say "disagree with certain texts" above, but you already knew that.
Chad,
I'm not going to respond to you. I'm going to ask DeFazio to respond to you instead.
I will just say that I'm a little frustrated with your continual refusal to seriously engage these issues.
I just spoke with DeFazio. He said he'll try to read through the comments and get you a response by Friday or so. I may or may not add to his comments after he's posted them.
Thom-
Thank you for bringing words to this issue. I was writing about it earlier on my site, and could find nothing constructive to say. So thank you, again.
Thom,
Just to set things straight. The news report is that the security guard -- who is a volunteer -- shot the person, but apparently he shot himself. It was murder/suicide.
I don't know the answer to the question and you may be quite right as to response. But it is troubling that violence is taking aim at schools, colleges, and churches.
Pastor Bob,
Thanks for your comment.
Yes, the details were muddied at first. The security guard (a volunteer, not a paid employee as I said in my letter) DID shoot him, but the bullet that killed him was his own. He probably would have died anyway from her shots if he hadn't shot himself.
That is the way it went down, and I thank you for the corrective.
That doesn't change a thing, however, because the real issue here is that a church is asking its members to carry weapons to defend Christians from attacks.
It certainly is troubling that there are so many shootings at schools and churches and malls in the U.S. What is more troubling, I argue, is that the church thinks it's all right to combat that societal illness with bullets.
I completely agree, Thom. We believe in a Jesus that said, "Let them be. Even in this," when Peter asked what to do about the guards in Gethsemane.
Security and Christianity are not good bedfellows. You can only serve one master...
"While people are saying, 'Peace and safety,' destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape." 1 Thess 5:3
Thom, simply because I refuse to adopt your prescribed dogma on this issue doesn't mean that I am refusing to engage it. As a matter of fact, I am not especially interested in debating the finer points of non-violence with you (or anyone for that matter). It is an unwinnable and fruitless debate because no one can agree on a common lexicon.
What does violence mean? Is it only deadly force? Is any punishment deemed violence? What about verbal violence? What about the violence of ideas? What about the violence of so-called truth?
What does pacifism mean? Scripture says pursue peace (Heb. 12). All Christians should be pacifists - but by what means and what measurement?
Is pacifism a prescriptive global ethic or a personally held conviction?
Should we even "argue" about pacifism?
No one seems to be able to give me a credible, intelligent answer regarding the question of the Old Testament or the question of gross institutionalized evil such as the Third Reich. I'm just told to read some book by some guy who supposedly answers it.
It is "wrong" for a Christian to be a member of law enforcement? If so, then I frankly don't see how we can be anything other than self-righteous hypocrits.
Is non-violence or justice a greater virtue? Which is worse - non-violence that enables or ignores injustice or necessary violence that promotes justice?
For my part, I'm glad you are blogging again and have survived Creation and Science. Good luck with everything. I will now go "peacefully into the night."
Who am I kidding? I love a good debate - even an unwinnable, fruitless one. Why else would I come to this blog? Although it seems like everyone that comes here agrees with you Thom. You need someone to stir things up.
thom - i read an article on these shootings, and i read your open letter to pastor boyd. i too was angered and confused about the security guard's decision to respond to the shooter with violence. this tragedy is a real-life instance of the exact sort that has long been fodder for the "question of pacifism." the proximity of this tragedy to our own lives leads me to wonder, "what if this had occurred in my church?" it forces me to reckon with the actuality of my own belief in the Resurrection, and in the real power of love to overcome the rampant evil of this dark world. i feel a great deal of empathy for the people of New Life, including Pastor Boyd and Ms. Assam, the security guard (who, in an article, said of the situation, "I was asking the Holy Spirit to guide me the whole time.") The situation of the world gives constant occasion to think of these things, and the more i do so, the more clearly i see the way of Jesus. what else is a Christian than one who will follow Him, loving his brother and trusting his God enough to give his life willingly?
Chad, i would encourage you to take seriously the book recommendations. I find it greatly troubling that you consider this a "debate," and even more, one that is "fruitless" and "unwinnable." what is a more relevant question than this: "What is the character of our witness to Jesus? What is Jesus asking when he asks us to follow him." My pacifism is no abstraction; it is direct outgrowth of some serious contemplation of these very questions.
catch you on the flip side.
-z
I have been wondering a few things from people who do not approach violence and persecution from a pacifistic perspective, perhaps Rags will be able to help me out on this one....it really is an honest question. What I would like to understand is if people think a response to injustice/persecution that permits for or is dependent upon violence is ever commanded or allowed for in the New Testament? Richard Hays in the Moral Vision of The New Testament shows rather compellingly that "Tis no foundation whatever in Matthew (and we could easily add the other gospels, Hebrews and Revelation) for the notion that violence in defense of a third party is justifiable." Furthermore, as he notes later in his chapter, "There is not a syllable in the Pauline letters that can be cited in support of Christians employing violence." (324 and 331, respectively). What do you do with these remarks? The most common response I get when I discuss these issues is, "but it just doesn't make sense, it sounds so foolish and radical" which I think only bolsters the legitimacy of the opinion because it makes it coherent with the rest of Jesus' message. But what I don't get is an explanation of a New Testament text that shows me Jesus of Paul thought violence was alright. And what I do see is about 20 that specifically tell me otherwise...in addition to the narrative of the gospel itself, which I will allow Hays to summarize sense he does a better job than I could. "How does God treat enemies? Rather than killing them he gives his son to die for them. This has profound implications for the subsequent behavior of those who are reconciled to God through Jesus' death: to be "saved by his life" means to enter into a life that recapitulates the pattern of Christ's self-giving. The imitation of Christ in his self-emptying service for the sake of others is a central motif in Paul. It is evident, then, that those whose lives are reshaped in Christ must deal with enemies in the same way that God dealt with his."
To conclude, what I am asking for is for someone, probably rags, to help me see from the New Testament and the life of Jesus why violence is acceptable. Because it appears to me that most people I have heard from on the pro-violence side don't use the New Testament. That is not a cut, just and observation. Help me see how Hays is wrong, because as of now, I am convinced by his arguments.
Dan, great comment. Every conversation I have with people not of a pacifistic perspective seems to think that the burden of proof is on the pacifist to make his point. It's up to us to take them to texts (which we do), to make the philosophical and moral connections (which we do), and we are often met with the same arguments and objections (and so, Rags comments) that we began with. But I think that the burden of proof is on those who seek violence.
I told Rags yesterday that his viewpoint is one that agrees with pretty much the rest of the world, and that should give him pause to think in and of itself. I think it remains that this view (that violence is agreeable to the gospel, a means to peace, etc) is so ingrained that oftentimes they think it's the pacifist who has to make the case.
While I do not think that unwarranted, I echo Dan's question. Can anyone give us a solid hermeneutical case from Scripture that violence is permitted, encouraged, or in any way in line with the gospel? Something more than "we see those texts differently," and all that jazz - that's not good enough.
And furthermore, it is not just showing Scripture or the gospel to support such a view, it is dealing with passages (like Matt 5, like 1 Pet 2, like Rom 12, to name just a few) that seem AT FACE VALUE to support at pacifistic lifestyle.
I await with earnest...
For clarity, a discussion on this issue is not fruitless. That is what I said, but not what I meant. This is of course a very important issue that I don't intend to flippantly cast aside. In fact, I have more sympathies with certain strains of pacifism than Thom may believe.
What I was regarding as “unwinnable” and fruitless about this debate was the incessant (and often harsh – there is something blatantly anti-peaceful in the way that this issue is often discussed) argumentation and the shocking level of black and white certainty that exists on this issue. I never claimed to have such black/white certainty on this issue - and I'm humble enough (I hope, although it doesn't always come through in my posting) to be taught by others on this issue. But Thom, in our conversations you just seem unwilling to listen on this issue or to even concede that there may be points where you lack absolute clarity.
Thom is right (in a rather passionate email received this morning) – I have been negligent on reading seriously on this issue. If this is a reading competition – I lose.
I am thinking a little bit more clearly today. Let me say first of all a few things that I know…(I haven’t thought about this extensively, so there may be elements, I’m leaving out)
1. God achieved victory (and peace) through the non-violence submission of Christ to the cross. It was not through force of arms.
2. Our discipleship must model the cross (1 Peter 2:13ff among others). This includes not only our actions, but also our speech and our thoughts.
3. The ethic of the kingdom of heaven is radically opposed to the ethic of the kingdom of this world. This is evidenced in numerous NT texts, but stated with most clarity in the SOM (turn the other cheek, love your enemies, etc.)
4. Peace is a kingdom ethic. Hebrews says to pursue peace (12:14) as does Paul (Rom 14:19). Christians must have a natural orientation towards love which naturally results in peace-making.
5. God’s peace is holistic. It includes holiness and justice. Peace is more than simply the absence of terrestrial violence.
6. The first Gentile convert was a part of the Roman military machine (assumedly with more than a desk job), but yet was not instructed to quit his position. Some of John’s “converts” were soldiers and they were not instructed to lay down their arms. Jesus marveled at the faith of a centurion and healed his servant, but did not instruct him to leave his position. A law enforcement officer was converted in Philippi, but apparently did not give up his profession.
7. Both Jesus and Paul had a measure of respect for the state and encouraged us as disciples to have the same respect. We do in fact live under the umbrella of the state which lives under the umbrella of God’s authority (Rom. 13). We are to pay taxes, give respect, and offer honor to the sword-bearing, governing power.
8. Some early Christians were involved in the administration of the state (Ethiopian eunuch, Erastus, Theophilus) as well as others who were very wealthy and (assumedly) influential in the state.
9. There are smart, God-fearing, Spirit-filled Christians on both sides of this issue. I should be humble and open-minded.
10. There are smart, God-fearing, Spirit-filled Christians in the military, police, and politics. I should be humble and open-minded.
Here are a few things I’m not so certain about…
1. I have read arguments on both sides regarding the early church fathers. It appears to me that pacifists may at times be guilty of stacking the deck in their favor. Early church history is ambiguous on the issue. We know from early church history that Christians did serve in the military. This was in fact condemned by some. Tertullian was one such person, but his main concern seems to be idolatry not violence because he also said that Christians shouldn’t be teachers or students. We also know that non-violence does not appear in any of the early creedal statements of the church – whether in the early creeds we find in the pages of the NT or the pre-Constantinian creeds. This ought to at least give us pause at rushing to condemn those Christians who conscientiously object to pacifism.
2. How do you interpret “turn the other cheek?” This is a sincere question. Do I have the right to turn someone else’s cheek? Do I have the right to turn a blind eye to someone else’s suffering? Should I recast the SOM legalistically in my interpretative approach? Doesn’t that in fact miss the point? Further, do we stretch the application of this text too far when we apply it to the geo-political realm?
3. Thom tried to answer this in my email, but I’m still unsure what constitutes non-violence. Are tasers OK, is a punch to the face OK as long as it’s non-lethal? (Thom, I’m really not being sarcastic – these are real questions.) The most damning organ of the body is the tongue, but we seem to think that pacifism is mostly about our fists.
4. God values order and justice—in the church and in civil society (actually I’m certain of that). Why should Christians leave the order and justice to the non-Christian? Honestly, I do struggle with the hypocrisy of that. I wasn’t just trying to get a zinger in. Even the Amish live under the shelter of a free and ordered society. How do you reconcile paying taxes (which seems clear from NT) that support the military? So, I’m willing to pay taxes to send other (non-Christian) people to die to defend my freedom. There is no doubt that people like MLK Jr. have altered human history and national policy through non-violence. But there are also thousands of others through the centuries who have been able to change the system from the inside out. These people are rarely celebrated, but they have been powerful kingdom agents nevertheless.
5. Are just war and pacifism really polar opposites? Are these even biblical categories? In a recent Christianity Today, Sider (who is a pacifist) makes the point that part of the problem is that contemporary pacifists are much more comfortable talking a big game than they are suffering for their position. Another big part of the problem is that so-called “just war” advocates are not consistent enough in their position to “exhaust every means possible in avoiding conflict.”
OK, that’s all. I’m tired and have work to do. Thom, I’m sorry (again) if I offended you. It seems an operational hazard of my posting on your site, which is why I offered not to post anymore – not because I’m running away and hiding. I just don’t want to get caught up in all the (sometimes) negative rhetoric.
First of all, Chad, I didn't send you any email, and I received no email from you in reply to the email I didn't send.
Second of all, the idea that early Christians refused military service because of idolatry and not because of violence is just mistaken. It has been disproven by a number of historians. The material just doesn't fit that thesis. Read Bercot's Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs if you're in doubt.
Third, Peter preached a gospel of peace through Jesus Christ to Cornelius, which is clearly a gospel contrary to the gospel of peace through Caesar. According to both Orthodox and Roman Catholic tradition (both nonpacifist), Cornelius renounced his post, became an evangelist and was martyred in Asia Minor for preaching against idolatry. Fourth, John the Baptist expected Jesus to be violent and was mistaken. But I deal with all of this in an essay I wrote: here.
Fifth, as Christianity became more and more influenced by the Roman governmental system, more and more calling themselves Christians were soldiers. This practice was flatly condemned by all ecclesial authorities, not just Tertullian. Sixth, contrary to your claim that no official church statements objected to violence, the Church Orders flatly and unanimously condemned soldiering up until a few decades after Constantine. My extensive studies in the early church's view of soldiering have shown me unequivocally that it is just-war theorists that stack the deck, with nonsense like Christians were more concerned about idolatry than bloodshed. All of the early church's objections to soldiering are based on nonviolent discipleship.
Your fourth counter-point is so confused I don't know where to begin to help you out on that one. Call me on 4839970 and I'll talk to you about it.
No one has said that just-war and pacifism are polar opposites. Just-war is the best of the unchristian options. No Christian was a just-war theorist until Ambrose, popularized by Augustine. Both men consciously drew on pagan political theory to spell out their positions, namely that of Cicero.
My mistake. It was not an email. It was a post that for some reason doesn't appear here. I didn't respond because it wasn't particularly constructive.
In the above statement, I was not making "counterpoints." I was simply trying to mention some things that I knew and some things that I still am not certain about.
I don't find your responses satisfactory.
- I don't really have a response to number two since you pulled the book card on me. Although the material I read contradicts your claim.
- Appeals to church tradition have their place, but it is hard to build such a universally binding NT ethic from using sources exclusively outside of the NT.
- Your absolute language in your fifth point is surprising "flatly condemned by all ecclesial authorities," "...shown me unequivocally that it is just-war theorists that stack the deck..." I'm not saying that you are wrong. There were pacifists certainly in the early church who were people of prominence and importance. I'm just not sure that it is as black and white as you're making it.
- My fourth point is a bit muddled because I haven't got it figured out yet. There is just an inconsistency between the command to pay taxes (which supports military) and the supposed command to never bear arms. Is this not akin to letting the godless Gentiles do our dirty work for us? Would you have us not pay taxes?
- You have not said it, but it has certainly been said.
I love you, Thom.
It doesn't appear here because I took it down after five minutes, deciding instead to let DeFazio speak.
"I don't really have a response to number two since you pulled the book card on me. Although the material I read contradicts your claim."
Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs is not a book. It is a comprehensive source of quotations from the early church writers. "Pulled the book card"? What material have you read, Chad? My claim that the early Christians renounced war because of their commitment to nonviolence is not a claim that can be contradicted. That doesn't mean that idolatry didn't play some part of that renunciation, but the comments against violence far outweigh the comments against idolatry, so much so that the idolatry issue is really trivial in comparison. You haven't cited "the material you've read." At least I give you sources.
Your second point is so much frustrating ridiculousness. As if we're building a case from using exclusively extrabiblical sources! Talk about spun rhetoric! That said, the Christians of the first three centuries were a hell of a lot closer to apostolic Christianity than you, and for that reason alone their unanimous disagreement with your position ought to give you serious pause.
My absolute language in my fifth point may be surprising to someone who's done so little reading in the sources on this subject, but not to anyone who has done. In patristic scholarship, the pre-Constantinian church's ubiquitous pacifism is taken for granted. Again, I don't know what use your language "black and white" is, but the issue is one of historical certainty. There's no wiggling around it. That's how Bercot became a pacifist: because he read the pre-Constantinian Christians and learned that not only were they unanimous on the subject, they were "black and white" about it too.
Your fourth point is nonsense. The Jews' taxes went towards the Roman imperial cult and was spent on idolatrous religious ceremonies. Jesus clearly opposed those ceremonies, but did not (on the surface anyway) oppose paying the taxes and the tributes that supported such practices. Still, that's not the only part about your fourth point that's confused. My phone number hasn't changed since the last time I commented.
I love you too, Chad. There are a great number of theological questions I'm not certain of, Chad. This is not one of them because the nature of the material I'm faced with won't let it be. But first I had to unlearn my constantinian reading habits. Constantinian reading habits are a big part of why that fourth point of yours is so confused.
Your point that pacifists often aren't very "pacifistic" in their arguments is silly. Remember that Jesus is our model, not Mr. Rogers.
Ah. I see the problem with my statement. I said, "All of the early church's objections to soldiering are based on nonviolent discipleship."
My apologies. I should have said, "The principal objection of the early church to soldiering is based on nonviolent discipleship."
I'm not sure that Jesus would have us call each other's arguments bullshit.
Anyway, J. Daryl Charles, Just-War Moral Reflection, the Christian, and Civil Society.
I just want you to admit that there are smart people who disagree with you and that you might not be absolutely right in every aspect of this argument.
What about Paul's command to pay taxes where he talks explicitly about brandishing the sword?
What about the faithful centurion in Mark? Did he also give up his militarism according to church tradition?
Is it really your position that there was no such thing as a non-pacifist Christian pre-Constantine? So everyone pre-Constantine looked at this issue in exactly the same way? Remarkable considering they couldn't even look at the divinity of Christ in the same way.
You stile haven't called me.
I don't think Jesus cares that I called your argument bullshit. I think he cares more that his followers not hold bullshit positions for bullshit reasons, but that's a general sentiment, not an accusation against you.
Thanks for the source.
There are plenty of smart people who disagree with me. But I bet you I can pinpoint where they are not being as smart as they should be, on a case by case basis. For instance, you're a smart guy, but your post-constantinian reading of Romans 13 is not reflective of early Christian hermeneutics, and certainly not of Jewish prophetic thought about pagan governments, into which tradition Paul's Romans 13 fits squarely. The issue is not raw intelligence, but how that intelligence is put to work and what kinds of ideologies are influencing that intelligence. I might not be absolutely right in every aspect of my argument, but I would need you to show me where I'm wrong rather than try to get me to admit that I might be as a strategy for turning this issue into an ambiguous one that leaves room for multiple interpretations. The existence of multiple interpretations does not always mean that there is genuine room for them. In this case, there isn't.
The only reason I'm going through all of this with you is because I love you, because I know, because I care about you, and because I care about the gospel. I've been through all of this before, many a time, and I've convinced many a stanch just-war theorist that there is no precedent for that position in the Bible or in the pre-constantinian church.
Paul was writing Romans during the early part of Nero's reign, back when Nero was famous for his claim that he ruled so well that his armor and his sword were all for show, that he would never have to unsheath his sword because he had so much respect throughout the empire. Well, clearly that just wasn't the case. He didn't have the respect he claimed he had, and he wasn't as peaceable as all that. Paul knew better, and that's why, contrary to the imperial propaganda, Paul warns tax resisters about Nero's sword. There are multiple layers in Romans 13, and among those layers are plenty of hints that Paul isn't as pro-Roman as he sounds. Nevertheless, because of gospel nonviolence and agape, he instructs an ethic of subordination, until (vv.11-12) the people of God are delivered from their plight under Roman oppression.
The faithful centurion in Mark never became a Christian. Jesus used his example in order to shame Israelites for their lack of faith. Jesus never said that the centurion was blameless. He used one aspect of the centurion to shame his own people. "A pagan is better than you!" There's no expectation that the Centurion was to obey kingdom ethics. Jesus' limited mission was to the lost sheep of Israel.
Read my paper on those NT proof-texts against pacifism: here.
My position is that Christians who were not pacifists were Christian in name only. What is remarkable is that, despite all the disagreement about the nature of Christ, etc. etc., there really is no documented disagreement about this issue, and it was an issue about which theologians spoke not infrequently. As infant-baptism came into play, more and more Christians were nominal. There were some Christians who were soldiers. The faithful Christians looked for "deskjobs" or resigned. The nominal Christians were, as a rule, denied communion. If any Christian killed but wanted to repent, there was a mandatory three year process before he was allowed to take communion again. That's how seriously they took Jesus' example and his commands. That's one of the big reasons why I unabashedly take this seriously.
Thom and Rags...I am enjoying the privilege of listening in on your discussion, thank you.
I think Thom has made some rather convincing points, but I still would like to ask Chad to deal with the question I posed way too early this morning: show me from the NT that violence is consistent with Christian discipleship. Romans 13 and the Centurion are clearly not answers, Thom has shown this, and so has plain reasoning.
Thom
I am glad to review these comments and your blog. It is so good to see a witness to peace among the sea of violence I see among many Christians in my view.
Yes the call to be a Christian can be sacrificial of our own selves, but that IS the call. Laying down our own lives.
Have you ever heard of Pax Christi?
Dan, I think you misunderstand my position. I'm not a just war apologist. Although I guess I have that de facto position on this site. This issue isn't closed for me.
I'm also not sure that Thom has effectively closed the book on Rom 13 or the Centurion - if you want a NT-based argument, don't both have to remain on the table?
Anyway, on to settling this issue once-for-all. The question is, "which violence would we like to justify from the NT?"
Parental violence? (Hebrews 12)
God's parental violence (Hebrews 12, John 15)
Verbal violence? (Gal. 2)
Church community violence? (Hebrews 12, Matt. 18, Gal. 1)
Divine retributive violence?
Civil, punitive violence? (Assuming that Rom. 13 doesn't exist, we can also look at 1 Peter 4. Peter assumes that murder, theft, and criminal activity deserve punishment.)
Financial violence? (I have diologued with one professed anarchist pacifist on-line who claims that taxes is the equivalent of armed robbery.)
Zealous violence? (John 2)
I could also justify those who sit in positions of support of a potentially violent system (Assuming that Cornelius is off the table, what about the Philippian jailor? What about early NT Christians who worked in government positions? Again, if we are just working with the NT data then such examples must be allowed to exist.)
I know this argument has to drive Thom crazy, but I kind of enjoy driving Thom crazy. It is payback for all the professors that he has driven crazy. Violence is violence.
I have already stated above that I agree with what should be the obvious premise that peace is a funamental NT ethic. The question that honest Christians have struggled to answer (at least this honest Christian) is how do you arrive at peace.
Non-violence is not an end. It is a means to an end. And it should be the preferred "means to an end" of every honest Christian.
Just war thinking also is just a means to an end. In just war thinking, violence is not celebrated. It is bitterly wept over (at least let's hope so). Just war thinking (or just violent interpersonal intervention thinking - because really how many of us are making decisions on a national scale about war and peace?) just acknowledges the reality that there are tragic circumstances which require violence to secure the peace.
I know that this answer is not going to satisfy anyone on this site. I can live with that. It doesn't really even satisfy me. I don't want to justify violence. Violence is a defeat, but it may also be a reality.
Dan didn't say that Romans 13 and the Centurion were off the table. Dan said that they were not the legetimations of Christian violence that you suggested they might be.
Parental violence: God allows us to suffer so that we might be conformed to his character. Not the kind of violence at issue here, if this is even a kind of violence at all.
Church commmunity violence: You are stretching the grammar of violence beyond the ambit of intelligibility, Chad. And you know it. It's not driving me crazy, it's just not getting you anywhere.
Divine retributive violence: Allowing the natural consequences of our sins to take hold of us. Hence, Jesus preached divine judgment against the temple regime, and that "judgment" came in the form of the Jews getting squashed after picking a fight with Rome.
If you're talking about the book of Revelation, the victory of God over his enemies in the eschaton is thoroughly nonviolent, rooted in the suffering of the Lamb and the Word of Truth. Even if there is some kind of literal divine violence in the end, the pervasive message of Revelation is that Christians are to conquer by their own suffering, and to leave that "violence" (literal or not) to God.
Civil punitive violence: Romans 13 doesn't exist. Romans 12-13-14 does.
Moreover, I cannot believe you cited 1 Peter 4 in support of civil punitive violence. First of all, Peter never comes close to saying that a murderer or a thief or a criminal or a meddler should be punished violently. His remark isn't even about that. All Peter's comment about criminals needs to say is that, as a matter of fact, they do suffer for their crimes. Does that mean Peter supports capital punishment? That's one helluva proof-text! Especially given that Peter's master was a victim of capital punishment. As you know, the real point of Peter's statement underwrites the opposite position from the one you're representing. Christians are to suffer willingly and without regret. Why? Because they are Christians. What is suffering that is not Christian suffering. Suffering that is the result of crime or misdeeds. What is Christian suffering? It is undeserved violence. A Christian is to embrace it as his or her judgment. To endure through suffering is to come out of God's judgment as righteous. Peter's conclusion is that those who are suffering for doing good should continue to do the very things that has resulted in their suffering.
Financial violence: most taxation systems are illegitimate. Jesus and Paul both knew that. But you know what else was illegitimate? Jesus' execution, and Paul's execution.
Zealous violence: Read the essay I linked to in my last comment.
The Philippian Jailor: In the Roman empire, the punishment for losing a prisoner was taking on that prisoner's punishment. If there prisoner was sentenced to death, and the prisoner escaped, the jailor would be put to death. If the prisoner was sentenced to two years, then the jailor would be sentenced to two years, then fired from his post. The Philippian jailor was clearly, then, expecting to either serve time as a prisoner and cease to be a jailor, or to live as a fugitive from "justice."
Examples of NT Christians working in government: Who said Christians can't be in government? The problem is Christians being responsible for violence done to another human being or group of human beings. The Christians in the NT who were part of the government were like treasurers and stuff, and just because the text doesn't say they resigned doesn't mean they didn't. It might have been assumed, given the counter-imperial message of the "Gospel of Peace through Jesus Christ," the "Savior of the World," and all that Roman rhetoric turned upside-down.
Violence is both a defeat, and a reality. You're right about that. The question is: whose reality? The world's? Indeed. The eschatological community of the Crucified and Resurrected Lord? Not so much, except for the violence done to us.
Chad,
I appreciate your time and thoughts.
I agree with you and am glad to hear you say that violence is a defeat. I also agree that in this world it is a reality, but that does not mean I think it should ever be a means that Christians employ. Regardless, you are correct in observing that whether right or wrong, it is. The real question, however revolved around what we are to do about this reality. Do we confront the reality with a message of prophetic denunciation that is rooted in the heart of God or do we approach it with a philosophical construct that allows us to put salve on our (rightfully???) guilty consciences?
I really do want to say that I at least appreciate two things about you participation in this discussion: (1) you are having it, which I refused to do for some time before I "changed camps" and (2) you are doing it in a way that is more non-violent than most pacifists I know, which demonstrates maturity, humility and genuine love. I do hope that you know that the only reason some are so passionate is because they understand this to be an issue far too central to the gospel and our ecclesiastic witness to deal with it in a cursory manner.
All the same, you are right, the texts you mentioned did not satisfy me. Parental discipline, the cleansing of the temple and punishment that is mitigated by the pagan state were not very convincing. I don't even think they would be satisfying if I were on the other side, but I might be wrong. They seem to be much more of a hermeneutical stretch to me than a pacifistic reading of certain texts that have already been mentioned.
Here is one more question I would ask you to answer: if you were backed into a corner and had to take a stance (one side or the other) solely based on the NT evidence, would you be a just-war advocate or a non-violent peace-maker?
Once again, Chad, thanks. I know I have told you this before, but I appreciated you and your ministry a great deal. Blessings and love
Thanks, Dan. I can answer your question very easily - I would of course chose non-violence. And I think that the NT would as well. That is not a hard decision for me. Again, I am no just war apologist. Let me just close my comments with a few thoughts...
1. I am not against pacifism. I have much more agreement with many of you on this issue than you may realize. I am against the kind of all or nothing thinking that fails to acknowledge the messiness of reality.
2. I also think that we have to be willing to listen to each other on this issue - and really in any theological discussion. Is this a serious issue? Yes. Does that mean that because it is so serious we no longer need to be teachable or flexible? No. What turns most non-pacifists against pacifism is not the intellectual points - it is the disposition of those arguing for pacifism. They come off often times as intellectual elitists, arrogant and not terribly charitable. If you can't explain it without yelling or without telling someone that they just are ignorant because they haven't read a book written by a French pacifist (redundant) then your argument is not strong enough.
3. I agree with what Sider said in his CT article. Just War thinkers are not patient enough or consistent enough. Also, pacifists talk too much without showing us the reality of their pacifism in their lives. That is why so many accuse pacifists of being passivists. I think it is ridiculous to even have a discussion about Just War vs. Pacifism until we have learned to apply Jesus' words to turn the other cheek to our lives personally.
4. This is a hermeneutical issue. How much should we read into the biblical text (in issues like the jailor for instance)? Did Jesus even speak to some of these issues that we have brought up (It would have been much more helpful to see what the Samaritan would have done had he stumbled across the robbers in the act.)? How much credence should we give church tradition? Which tradition rightfully speaks a word of authority for us? Which interpretation of church tradition is authoritative?
With that, I'm done.
Peace
By the way, my turn to recommend a book.
"A Little Exercise for Young Theologians" by Helmut Thielicke
41 pages. Worth every minute.
Rags,
If you are still readying, I agree with everything you just said. Your concerns about the lack of consistency in most pacifists' lives/intellectual bravado and their theology is far too true and far too troubling.Furthermore, it is a sticky issue. That is not to say we should take a firm stance, but it is to say that love and grace ought to be as easily discerned in our words as truth.
(Disclaimer: I haven't yet read all of the discussion that has ensued since the post I was asked to comment on. Some of what I say may reflect this.)
Hi Chad. I’m not sure if we’ve met, but I must tell you that I have been encouraged by reports about you from Ozark students. I’m sure you can imagine how much I love the school, and while it is hard for me to see the profs I loved so much leaving for other ministries, it is very good to hear that others are stepping in and ‘carrying the torch’. Thom has asked me to respond to your comments, so that is what I’m doing. He didn’t explain why really, and I didn’t ask, and I have no idea if I will respond how he would, or how he wants me to. I suppose it will be easiest if I just comment on your five points in turn. I wish we knew each other (one of the most difficult parts of blogging for me is not being about to hear the other person’s voice), but we’ll just have to trust in each other’s faith and love. I apologize for how ridiculously long this is; you said above that you were just thinking off the top of your head, and may be somewhat unfair to have quick reflections dissected, but I suppose it will help us all think well about these things to take what you have said seriously. I’d love to continue dialoguing with you or whoever else about this. Also, I should admit that I wrote most of this at 3:00 AM while on a pastor’s retreat, and it is too long to go back and edit, so I’m sure there are many frustrating punctuation mistakes and missing words. Hopefully it’s not too distracting.
1. This is an interesting point for me, because parts of it are obviously true (that many well-meaning Christians disagree), but I’m not sure how much it matters. It is the nature of convictions that we believe they are true; certainty is a whole other question. It is quite possible and indeed quite common to hold people to standards they themselves do not think they need to be held, not because we are certain but because we hold certain convictions. I don’t think I’m really getting at your point though. You seem to be saying that because not all Christians share Thom’s perspective on violence, he should not (so boldly) hold them to the same standards. This is an important point, and one that needs to be always considered. I would make a few responses: (1) Jesus said that those who obey his commands are the ones that love him, and he commanded us to (a) love our enemies and do good to them (Lk 6.35), (b) pray for our persecutors and bless those who mistreat us (Mt 5.44; Lk 6.28), (c) not resist evildoers in kind (Mt 5.39). So assuming they have read these statements, the question is not do they love Jesus but are they loving (actively obeying) him in this situation. If not, then assuming they love Jesus, they will want to be informed. This obviously begs the question of how to interpret these passages, but you don’t have to go hard-line pacifism to see that our brothers and sisters in Colorado have obeyed these commands in any significant way. (2) As far as Thom’s humility, I’ll be the first to say he needs humility (as do we all), but his humility (assuming that in this case ‘humility’ is something that would make him more slower to call people to what he sees as faithfulness to the gospel) should not be based on majority opinion, but rather an awareness of the fact that each of us might always be wrong. But once again, knowing we might be wrong does not mean we shouldn’t hold convictions and hold them strongly, boldly, etc. You don’t have to have certainty to hold convictions; convictions are by nature something we believe others should share; this means we will have to ask people to accept new standards of faithful thinking and acting. (3) There are clearly times for God’s spokesmen to preach hard messages, messages that are held by a small minority (as in Isaiah’s or Jeremiah’s day). Thom considers himself called to prophetic ministry, not least because in church’s like New Life he has been prophesied over in this regard. Intelligence and humility are indeed important, but what Thom did can be (and at least presumably has been) done with decent doses of both.
2. While the comparison may not be exact, it is certainly not totally illegitimate. Rather than argue that the entirety of each situation is parallel, let’s take it from where we are now. The damage has been done. The shootings have occurred. Innocent people have been killed. The perpetrators are either dead or behind bars. Now notice the different responses of the two communities. The Amish community offers their attacker forgiveness. New Life remains silent. Obviously they can’t offer forgiveness the same as they could if he were still alive (part of the problem, mind you), but he still has a family to whom forgiveness could be offered, or at the very least the memory of him lives on. (I know this last part about the memory of him may not make a lot of sense, but it is a minor point so I won’t try to explain it. If you don’t like it, ignore it; it doesn’t add or take away from the point I’m making.) As for your last question, I’m sure the Amish would be the first to tell us that there are many more options than either (a) killing the attacker or (b) gladly offering him their little girls, but unfortunately I haven’t had the privilege of being raised in a community which disciplines itself to be nonviolent, and thus opens the way for more creative engagement of evil than this simple either/or allows, and therefore I cannot speak extremely well to these possibilities. Put more clearly (that sentence was pretty ugly), you seem to affirm two options: (1) kill the man; (2) do nothing. That is an extremely overly simplistic analysis of possible responses. And if those were the two responses (again, unlikely), perhaps we very well should believe that they would have chosen to allow their innocent, helpless girls to die rather than “take up the sword” against this man. It blows my mind, too, but the cross always was foolish.
3. From what I can tell, Thom is basing his response off of what has been reported in the news. While this information may not be complete, it is nevertheless real. And at least at the time, they had not made any public statements along the lines of what Thom is calling for. And the issue does not seem to be whether or not their hearts are broken, but how they are responding publicly as representatives of the church of Jesus Christ. So far as Thom’s position is concerned (which I recognize that you don’t hold), this church acted in ways inconsistent with the gospel, and they have not publicly repented for these actions. They have not publicly shown the same concern for this man that they have the other persons who died, which certainly seems out of line with Matthew 5.43-48 - whether you’re a pacifist or not. Because of this, the world is being presented with an embodiment of the gospel that is really no gospel at all, but simply old news in a new package. They should be asking forgiveness from his family, from the rest of the church, and from the world, or so Thom (and I) think. How they feel about it is important, but it isn’t the issue. The issue is whether the way they have dealt with this situation is consistent with the gospel of a crucified but resurrected Messiah who is the true Lord and Savior of the world. \
4. You certainly have a point. I see two related concerns here: timing and the likelihood of receptivity. As for the former, Thom has explained that he wanted to send it when he did in order to ‘strike while the iron is hot’. I believe he explains elsewhere that according to his observations people quickly settle in and become comfortable with the morality of their decisions. There may be more truths to consider, but this is certainly true in many cases, and is I think pretty good pastoral instinct. This situation may be different, however, because we are dealing with people losing their lives, and thus, as you say, people don’t really care what someone thinks. So as for the latter, there seem to be a few things to consider. First, Thom has explained to me that within the denomination of which New Life is a part, it is not at all out of the ordinary for parishioners to offer rebukes like this to their pastor. These churches are highly committed to leaving room for the Spirit’s activity in their midst, and thus prophesying isn’t as odd as it might be in our churches. Second, nevertheless, Thom is not a member of this church, and thus, so far as I know, Pastor Boyd doesn’t know him from Tom. I agree that it will be all too easy for him to disregard Thom as an insensitive renegade who speaks out of turn. My suggestion to Thom was to craft a letter and have a group of people sign it rather than just one person, because that may carry more weight for Boyd. I don’t know if Thom is currently regularly involved in a church community, but if not, this is one of those situations that rebukes him in this regard, because he doesn’t really have a specific community for which he can speak. Even if this is true, however, it would be wise to gather a list of names from various local church bodies, so that Boyd could see there are many of us who are saddened by his actions. Third, Thom is concerned for the impact this will have on the wider church, and some of the damage that has been done in this regard will only be healed if the world hears Boyd repent and ask forgiveness, and to be honest the world won’t be watching for very long. Fourth, Thom does voice care and concern for their pain, though it is obviously not the central part of his letter. Nevertheless, you may very well be right that they will hear him as cold and indifferent and thus dismiss him. I just don’t know. Fifth, you have a point to some degree about earning the right to speak, but once again this isn’t really the important issue if indeed Thom has been called to prophetically speak the truth. They were often silenced and rarely received well, but that in no way called into question their faithfulness to what God had called them to do.
5. I have a bunch of admittedly disorganized thoughts on this point. First, I don’t think that “naive” is an appropriate standard to measure the rightness or wrongness of our actions as followers of Jesus. At the most, it is peripheral to our concerns. There are many times when we are called to actions that seem naive from the outside looking in, but we are called to do them anyway. But even if there were no other situations like this, we are called to be faithful to the gospel and leave the results to God. Second, the idea that this method is naive, which for the moment I am taking to mean that there is no real way this could work, assumes things I know for a fact you don’t believe. I know for a fact that you believe God is capable of ridiculously improbable things, and that his Spirit is at work whenever his people are trying to follow him faithfully, and that no heart is so hard that God cannot possibly soften it. If all of these things are true, then we shouldn’t relegate ourselves to evaluative criteria that seem to rule them out from the start. Third, crazier things have happened on numerous occasions. (I’ll put some examples in a following comment, to keep this one from being too long.) Fourth, it’s kind of silly to propose that someone hugging him too hard would be transgressing the rule of nonviolence. Under that sort of thinking, we could never play contact sports, wrestle with our kids, or do all sorts of other activities that involve bodies coming into contact with one another that cannot be described as “soft”. That’s not an unimportant part of the pacifism debate, but it isn’t a very fruitful one when stated like this. Fifth, why is he all of a sudden a “maniac.” I would prefer to think of him as a person God created in his own image and loves very much, a person whom God is ready and willing to invite into his Messianic family at any moment, a person who is also very sinful and was at the time making extremely evil choices that totally oppose God’s will. I’m not trying to lessen the severity of his sin, but let’s not de-humanize him by calling him a maniac. Sixth, assuming this nonviolent resistance “works” – that he changes his course of action and surrenders his weapon (or at least leaves), there is indeed much that still needs to be done. He had already committed murder, so by all means, call the cops. (And yes, they’d probably have their guns.) No one said anything about constructing a system, but if we were doing so, we’d certainly need to base it on (among other things) Romans 12.19-20. Seventh, why should we insist on punitive punishment when that’s exactly not how God has treated us? Eighth, in this case no, because the security guard was being asked by the church to act on behalf of the church, as a paid employee of the church whose job it was to “protect” the church. Ninth, your last sentence is pretty unhelpful. Let’s start by not using charged language to describe the very complex question of the role of the state in relation to a church committed to nonviolence. If we take Romans 12-13 as a connected unit (and I know you’d tell your PI215 students to do just that ☺), then Paul certainly does seem to hold some type of position like the one you have kind of caricatured. The church, as God’s eschatological people, the people who are called to manifest the kingdom of God on earth as it is in heave, the people who stand at the center of his plan for redeeming the world – that is, the center of history – are called to form a community committed to nonretaliation and persecutor-love, leaving the rest to God (Romans 12). And (according to my current understanding, which may differ from Thom’s) Paul, eschatological realist that he is, recognizing that God’s kingdom is not currently fully come, tells us that God has chosen to work on “the rest” by agents of local law enforcement. Tenth, That certainly doesn’t mean we “very passively and piously wash our hands”; we’re the ones who kept him from killing many more people (or else died trying)! No, we don’t sit idly by, we continue to call people to confess Jesus as Savior and Lord, i.e., to embrace his way of cruciform faith, hope, love, and peace as the truly human way, the way of God’s kingdom on earth as it is in heaven. Eleventh, this could be a whole other post, but this entire conversation about whether it would’ve ‘worked’ ignores the fact that our goal as disciples of Jesus is not to run the world, to make the world better by ridding it of evil people and keeping good ones alive, but to be good people who are willing to die before killing, to witness to the resurrection-power of the God of Jesus Christ. I fear that quite often we spend a lot of our time trying to live as if the resurrection didn’t really make a difference for how we act and how we evaluate the ‘effectiveness’ or ‘rightness’ of our actions.
...
Chad, I appreciate your comments. It does take fortitude to continue in a forum where you are so grossly outnumbered (kind of like I sometimes feel in an Ozark classroom). And you know I love you. However, even though you are "done," I would like to offer a few comments upon your closing comments, though you may be done with this discussion.
First of all, I understand what you are saying about messiness. However, we have all tried to show you how "unmessy" we see this issue. Just because there are those who don't agree doesn't make an issue messy in terms of truth. Take an issue like the Rapture as an example. Just because there are plenty that believe in it doesn't change the fact that there is no biblical or traditional or any other kind of evidence for such a phenomenon. People not agreeing does not make an issue messy in terms of reality. And I think several really strong points have been made to show that this issue is one of those not as messy as you claim it to be.
Secondly, nobody has simply told you to go read a book. There have been points made and then books which reinforced those points, but as I read the comments, I haven't seen anyone say, "I'm not going to explain it to you, just go read this book." Rather, it has been explained to you, and your points have been answered, and then you have been referred to a book. So I don't think your statement that we rely on book referrals and therefore our arguments are not strong enough holds. We don't rely on book referrals. We make our points. Then we're told to back up our points. We refer to a book, and then we're told we rely on referrals. That doesn't make sense.
Thirdly, you are right: Violence is hard to define. And you are also right: many pacifist are not very pacifistic in their speech. I agree with you on that point (although sometimes I think it is overstated and overused). However, I think you need to see that that is NOT a critique upon pacifism any more than the Crusades is a critique on the love of God or the validity and mission of the Church. Just because some pacifist are jerks when they argue doesn't mean that pacifism is at fault. This is not a valid critique, although it is certainly a wise admonishment.
Finally, to your fourth point, I think your repeating some questions that we have already provided answers to. We have made our arguments, we have responded to your points, and we are still awaiting arguments from the other side. I agree with you in part; I think that hermeneutics have much to do with this issue. However, must of us did not start out as pacifists. I for one struggled with the position, and truthfully did not want to become one. I have heard others express similar sentiments. But the burden of proof remained, and we changed our views because we were convinced by Scripture, the outworking of the gospel, by the picture of God's love in Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. There was a point where we were listening, and it changed us. You give the admonishment that we need to be willing to listen to each other. I think you should consider your words very carefully. I respect you a lot. You know that. However, this issue is not peripheral (how could it be?); are you listening to the people who have made such good arguments on this post?
I don't think you should be "done," Chad. I am glad that you have brought such a pastoral admonishment to us, and we need to take heed. But if we submit to our passion, it is only because we feel this to be a terribly important issue, and it must be reckoned with. Violence is a cancer, a disease. We all agree on that. But we believe that Jesus has showed us how to break the cycle of violence. I can't see how your view does not undermine this. I can't see how violence is ever warranted. And to bring this back to the beginning issue, I can't see how the violence perpetrated at New Life Church by a fellow Christian, saying things like, "It was just me, my gun, and God," could be construed as anything but apalling and destructive to the witness of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the great Prince of Peace. Thom said it quite plainly, "The life of an unbeliever was traded for the life of believers." If we really believe in the resurrection, how can this NOT be a tragedy.
I love you dearly, Chad, my brother, and you have taught me many things. I pray in Christ you see this not as an affront, but a plea from a brother admittedly less wise than you. For if we are unable to dialogue, then we will never get anywhere.
I apologize if I said anything redundant from DeFazio's post. I posted at the same time he did, and was unable to read it beforehand.
AAAAAAHHHHH! You keep on pulling me in!!
Defazio. Thanks for your reply. It was very generous and well-said. I can understand why Thom wanted you to respond.
A quick reply to Alex.
First, you are right. I need to listen - and I have. I have been blessed by some very intelligent students like you and Thom and Dan who have challenged me on this issue (whereas before I came to OCC, I really didn't even think about it). I am thankful for that challenge. I apologize if at any point it appeared that I was unwilling to "take my own medicine." By the way, the book comment was basically just a sarcastic aside. I just found it a bit amusing that my question concerning the Third Reich was answered by of all things a French pacifist author. If there is anything the French should be lecturing us on it is on the need to lay down our arms :).
Secondly, the reason I began this thread was not really over the issue of pacifism as much as pastoral restraint. By all means, be passionate for your position. It just strikes me that there is a time and place for being prophetic and you also (at least in my opinion) have to earn the right to be prophetic to people through relationships and common suffering.
Third, I use the word messiness to refer to the messiness of life. Pastoral experience and life experience defies an easy answer to this issue. Easy answers only live in the realm of academia and fourth grade Sunday school. I wonder if we are constructing a new system of legalistic do's and don't's around this issue...
Who makes the rule on what level of violence is unacceptable?
At what point do I violently intervene? If a man is being beaten? If a woman is being beaten? If a child is being beaten? Do I have to make sure that the person is an unbeliever before I intervene?
If one non-Christian is gunning down 10 non-Christians is it acceptable to intervene with violent force?
Are rubber bullets OK?
What if non-lethal force inadvertantly becomes lethal?
Is it acceptable for me to rely on the national guard to support my non-violence?
Should I pay taxes that go to the mechanisms of war?
Should I accept free-health care from a government that engages in war?
Should I keep my money in a bank that is guarded by a man with a gun?
Should I eat with tax collectors, sinners, and police officers?
I know these questions are silly, but all legalism is silly. That is what I'm talking about with messiness. I just refuse to give an easy answer for this issue. Easy answers are the currency of legalists.
Now leave me alone. :)
Chad,
From my perspective, these kinds of questions show how seriously you DON'T take this issue. And your mischaracterization of our position as a legalistic one shows how seriously you misunderstand it. The issue here is faithfulness for the sake of the gospel's glory, not personal purity for our own sake. It's going to take a lot more than being a pacifist to make a shit like me anything like "pure."
I thank Chad for his willingness to speak out based on his own convictions and pastoral instincts. I thank DeFazio, Dan and Alex for their patient responses. They are my examples, and I pay too little attention to them. I look forward to DeFazio's next post with the stories that represent the disarming power of nonviolence. That will be very helpful to this discussion. I am grateful to DeFazio, Alex and Dan especially for their careful answers to some of Chad's questions or objections. They have covered a lot of ground much better than I myself could. My next comment will be a piecemeal response to those questions and comments of Chad's that I think need more response.
Really, Thom? I don't see how you can hold such a strong position without at least pausing to ask yourself these types of questions?
You inability to acknowledge silly questions like this shows me that you haven't really engaged this issue from the layperson's perspective.
Doesn't a legalist in fact say that a good Christian does this and doesn't do this? Is that not what you are also saying - Good Christians are non-violent pacifists. If you are going to make a statement like that you should be prepared for all sorts of legalistic loopholes.
Thom, I really do respect your knowledge of this issue - if not always your attitude. I don't intend to fight you, but if you are committed to continuing study, you had better be prepared to engage idiots like myself who disagree with you unless you intend on always surrounding yourself with like-minded people.
Oh, Chad. I'll respond to this comment too.
MONK,
Sorry I missed your comment amid all the fuss. Thanks for stopping by!
I have heard of Pax Christi but don't know to much about it. Could you give me a little intro, all of us here on the blog?
Here are some stories, each of which show that choosing not to respond violently to violent attack sometimes does "work" in the immediate pragmatic sense of mitigating violence and perhaps changing the hearts of the perpetrators.
This one is from one of my Fuller profs, Thom Brennemann (now the president of Goshen College). In his own words: 'Terri (my wife) and I were held up, at knife point (knife to my neck) in our car. One assailant had one of my arms twisted outside the car window pulling my wedding ring off my finger. The other assailant reached across me with the knife and toward my wife to take her lapiz necklace from her neck and her wallet. As his ear passed my mouth, I simply whispered the word "feathers," which in my frantic mind related to that portion of Psalms 91: 4, "He will cover you with his pinions, and under his wings you may seek refuge." Not only did I wish to illustrate how God's word is powerful as a weapon unto itself, I also used it as an illustration that I knew in my mind that I was reciting the whole Psalm in abbreviated form, a Psalm full of language about God rescuing us in times of distress. In a similar way, I believe when Jesus said on the cross "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me," he was clearly aware of the rest of the Psalm (22) which was also a cry, a lament, in this case, with the hope that God would come rescue him. Of course, I don't understand why God rescued me and my wife in my story (and why God did not initially rescue Jesus in his recitation of the Psalm, nor does God always rescue us from such circumstances). Still, I am thankful that God did "save us" this time around in a very tangible way. I am also glad that I didn't try to do something foolish and grab the guy's arm, etc. -- a natural defensive response, which I did thing about momentarily -- but only envisioned having done so would have resulted in a very bloody outcome (visions of my neck being sliced open and my wife killed, etc.). The car was stolen out from under us, but we were, at least, alive and unhurt. So, here's to "feathers" as a defensive weapon.'
This story was reported by Yoder in What Would You Do? about a prominent gang member back in the day: Tom Skinner was the leader of an extremely violent and volatile gang called the Harlem Lords back in the 60s and 70s, who decided to become a follower of Jesus. The next night he faced his entire gang – as he described it, “129 guys with knives and pistols and no reservations about using them.” He told them about his conversion and that since he was now a Christian he could no longer lead the gang. As he spoke he kept thinking to himself, “You’re an idiot. You’re a dead man. There’s no way you’re getting out of here alive.” He knew that the #2 man – nicknamed “the Mop” because he was never satisfied with a fight until he drew blood and then put his foot in it – always wanted his position, and that he would use this as a chance to call him weak and de-throne him. But nobody moved. Tom told his story, and he walked out. Two days later the Mop cornered him and said, “Tom, when you was telling your crazy story the other night, I was going to put my blade in your back, but I couldn’t move. It was like someone glued me to the floor.” And he said that the others told him the same thing. At that moment Tom knew that the Christ he had committed himself to was real, so he asked the Mop if he wanted to know about the man who glued him to the floor, the Mop said yes, and right there on the street corner, the number 2 man bowed his head and committed his life to Jesus.
This one was widely reported in the news. It is the story of Ashley Smith. She’s the woman abducted by Brian Nichols in the Atlanta Courthouse Shooting back in March of ’05. After having been held hostage in her own apartment for 13 hours, she decided to get creative. "I got a book,” she says. “The Purpose-Driven Life. I turned it to the chapter I was on that day, chapter 33, and I started to read the first paragraph. After I read it, he said, 'Stop. Will you read it again?' I said, 'Yeah, I'll read it again." They then talked for hours about their families, about God, about the people he had killed. She told him she had just lost her husband and if he killed her then her little girl would be all alone. She later said, "I wanted to see my little girl the next morning and I didn't want him to hurt anybody else, and I knew that if I talked to him in the right way that he wouldn't." "I knew if I made him feel comfortable then I could get things the way I wanted them and not the way he wanted them.” She made him pancakes and together they watched the news of what he had done. Eventually he let her go, she called 911, and he surrendered willingly. After the situation was resolved, Police Chief Charles Walters said, “It was her calmness and resourcefulness that led this to a successful conclusion." (A calmness and resourcefulness we rule out when we immediately fight fire with fire.)
This last story happened this past summer. You can read about it here on my blog or here on Thom's.
These are by no means unique, though they may in fact be strange. (One would expect as much from people who base their lives on the conviction that God raised a Jewish guy from the dead.) I leave them to speak as they will.
...
That was supposed to be "the last story" and not "this last story. It is a different story, and since because of my blunder people might not see it, I'll just post it here (as it was in my original post):
This past weekend I preached a sermon on one of Jesus' most famous sayings: "Turn the other cheek." As soon as it is available, I plan to post a link to the audio file here on the blog, but in the meantime I thought I'd share this story that puts into action much of what this passage is all about. This is a true story that was reported in the Washington Post on July 13, 2007 (click here for the online version).
A Gate-Crasher's Change of Heart
The Guests Were Enjoying French Wine and Cheese on a Capitol Hill Patio. When a Gunman Burst In, the Would-Be Robbery Took an Unusual Turn.
By Allison Klein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 13, 2007; Page B01
A grand feast of marinated steaks and jumbo shrimp was winding down, and a group of friends was sitting on the back patio of a Capitol Hill home, sipping red wine. Suddenly, a hooded man slid in through an open gate and put the barrel of a handgun to the head of a 14-year-old guest.
"Give me your money, or I'll start shooting," he demanded, according to D.C. police and witness accounts.
The five other guests, including the girls' parents, froze -- and then one spoke.
"We were just finishing dinner," Cristina "Cha Cha" Rowan, 43, blurted out. "Why don't you have a glass of wine with us?"
The intruder took a sip of their Chateau Malescot St-Exupéry and said, "Damn, that's good wine."
The girl's father, Michael Rabdau, 51, who described the harrowing evening in an interview, told the intruder, described as being in his 20s, to take the whole glass. Rowan offered him the bottle. The would-be robber, his hood now down, took another sip and had a bite of Camembert cheese that was on the table.
Then he tucked the gun into the pocket of his nylon sweatpants.
"I think I may have come to the wrong house," he said, looking around the patio of the home in the 1300 block of Constitution Avenue NE.
"I'm sorry," he told the group. "Can I get a hug?"
Rowan, who lives in Falls Church and works part time at her children's school, stood up and wrapped her arms around him. Then it was Rabdau's turn. Then his wife's. The other two guests complied.
"That's really good wine," the man said, taking another sip. He had a final request: "Can we have a group hug?"
The five adults surrounded him, arms out.
...
So you can disagree with me if you want, but don't call me an idealist. :)
And if it is hard for you to believe that this could actually happen, beware of this sign that your imagination has been overtaken by "the powers and principalities" against which our real war must be waged. Let's pray for creativity, Spirit-cleansed imaginations, and lots of faith.
...
Chad said: Thom, you are intelligent enough to realize that Pacifism is a minority opinion and always has been.
Thom says: Pacifism is a minority position, and always has been, but as I've argued it hasn't always been the minority position in the church. It used to be the majority position, back before it was a "position." As DeFazio said, the fact that it is currently a minority position in the church is not a sufficient reason for me to treat it like it's one opinion among others. The fact that I'm in the minority does not give me pause about my position, but encouragement, not hesitancy, but boldness.
Chad said: I'm not saying that the arguments aren't intelligent.
Then Chad said: No one seems to be able to give me a credible, intelligent answer regarding the question of the Old Testament or the question of gross institutionalized evil such as the Third Reich.
Thom says: If we have different criteria for what constitutes credibility, which I think we might, then there's no solution to this other than what Hays calls, "the conversion of the imagination." However, I think DeFazio rightly pointed out enough common ground between us that we shouldn't have too much trouble coming to agreement on what, from a Christian standpoint, constitutes credibility.
Chad said: However, I would [dis]agree with the way that you might see certain texts.
Thom says: Well, I would have to know which texts those are and the nature of your disagreement.
Chad said: I am simply pointing out that there are a lot of intelligent, well-read, Jesus-loving Christians who have a different perspective than you do on this issue. Certainly that should give you enough humility to stop seeing this as such an either/or, black/white, good-Christian/bad-Christian issue. Frankly I find your certainty absolutely surprising.
Thom says: First of all, as I've said, intelligence has little to do with this problem. Ideology is usually what underwrites a particular hermeneutic, good or bad. Ideology is usually hegemonic, and thus many very intelligent people are unaware of the myriad ways a certain ideology controls their interpretive options. One test of a good reading is whether or not it supports our political habits. According to N.T. Wright, he doesn't like what he discovered in Jesus' politics. It cut against his common sense sensibilities. That's also true of me, Alex, Dan, Tyler, Mark Moore, and just about every pacifist I know well enough.
Second, humility is not the issue. I need humility, as DeFazio rightly pointed out. I need a bigger dose than most people. But humility as I see it is the willingness to put others before myself, predominantly in a physical sense, not just in my attitudes. Now, I may be stark in my presentation of the gospel message, blunt in my approach (I don't think I always am, and I don't think I was in my letter), I may be unaffected by the disagreement of the majority, but that, from my understanding of humility, does not make me less humble. If I would have said something like, "Boyd, you have no business being pastor. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah!" the case, in my mind, would be different. But I didn't say that, because I don't believe, and I honestly do not believe I am superior to Pastor Boyd. I've no doubt that in a number of respects, Boyd far surpasses me. But just because of that I am not going to pretend that his understanding of the gospel is not deficient, or that his understanding of the gospel is a legitimate interpretive option. It is a false gospel, and in this particular case, that is not just a reference to his approval of violence. If you look at their beliefs, New Life Church is a Health and Wealth church. Part of their problem with violence is rooted in that very fact. They believe suffering is in some sense the result of sin or lack of faith. In this case, they didn't take that route. They were able to blame it on the "maniac," as you called him.
As far as "good-Christian/bad-Christian": the early church saw Christians who used violence, or favored the use of violence, as bad Christians. That means they saw them as deficient followers of Jesus. I'm a bad Christian in many ways, and I'm attempting to overcome my deficiencies in those areas. The problem here is that violence is not seen as a deficiency, but is praised as heroic. Early Christians had mercy on those who used violence but were ready to renounce it in repentance. That is not the case here, and I think I've been more gracious than many early Christian leaders would have been. That does not necessarily make me better, or worse. I don't know the answer to that question.
I wonder if you still find my "certainty" surprising, or whether now you realize that it is required by the nature of my convictions.
Chad said: The Amish comparison is illegitimate for no other reason than they were responding to the shooting after it had occurred. Am I to believe that the Amish would have gladly offered their little girls as sacrificial lambs to a homicidal maniac without doing anything to stop him?
Thom says: In fact, the eldest of the murdered girls did offer herself as just such a sacrificial lamb. The Amish would not have had control over who was killed, because as a part of their Christianity such control is not theirs to have. The children and the women understand this and believe this just as strongly as the men. In Amish life, morality is not chauvinistic. Women and children have the right to be moral agents too, with convictions worth dying for. I'm sure the men and the elders, had they the opportunity, would have stood between the gun and the children and women. I'm sure they would have tried to reason, or to pray aloud, or to utilize all sorts of strategies for nonviolent disarmament (strategies which don't approach your pedantic questions about the line between violence and nonviolence). But when it came down to it, there is no question that the men would have died with nothing more than hope that their sacrifice would be enough to satisfy their killer. That is their way, and it's mine and my wife's too. The Amish comparison (which I never made myself) is perfectly legitimate.
Chad said: You are making some bold (and biased) assumptions about this security guard and the church. Do you think that they are not heart broken about the death of this man?
Thom says: DeFazio already answered this quite well. The issue not what's in their heart (which, by the way, at least on the part of the female security guard, seems to be pride, based on her statements to the press), but what's in their witness. Both Boyd and the security guard expressed pride in the way they handled the situation, and no remorse for the way they handled it. Either they're lying to the press and feel some kind of remorse they're hiding, or they don't feel remorse and they're telling the truth. Regardless of how they feel, as Christians they have a responsibility to witness before a watching world to God's love for his enemies. As I said in my letter, their actions barred them from the possibility of such a witness, without public repentance.
Chad said: Your pastoral instincts leave something to be desired. Thom, I say this as someone who loves you (you know that, but not everyone on this site does) - no one dealing with a horror such as this really cares what you think. It just sounds so cold and indifferent to the real world suffering of these people. Until you have suffered for your pacifism, you have not earned the right to be prophetic to these people.
Thom says: My good friend Andy Rodriguez wrote me and said that he agreed predominantly with my letter but that he also agreed with this point of yours. I wrote him back, saying something like this: I think the idea that I'm disqualified as a prophet because I haven't bled as a pacifist is utter nonsense and is a completely disingenuous evasion of the real issue. That's like saying that Jesus' prophetic critique of Israel's violence was invalid up until they killed him for it. The truth is the truth, and my blood doesn't make it any more or less true. There's a reason certain people shut their ears to Jesus' message, and it wasn't because Jesus didn't have the credentials. That was their excuse, but it wasn't their reason. Now, I may not have "earned the right" to speak to this particular audience, at least in the eyes of that audience, but that is a non-issue as far as I'm concerned. Most of the prophets of Israel weren't recognized as prophets until well after their death. I'm not putting myself up on their level, by any means. What I'm saying is that your point is invalid. God gives his prophets the right to speak, and it is based on truth, more than anything else. As far as my "bleeding for pacifism," I hope to some day be counted worthy, but I'm not going to go out and make that happen just so I'm allowed in your book to preach the gospel.
As far as my deficient pastoral sensibilities, I question your understanding of what it means to be pastoral. Now, I'm not saying you don't know anything about what it means. In many respects, you know a lot more than I do. I'm just saying you're wrong on this one point. DeFazio said something of my reasons for doing what I did the way I did, and those to me are pastoral reasons. That said, I don't see myself as a pastor, but as a prophet. I'm not saying there's no overlap, but they're not identical either, and it isn't legitimate to fault me for being insufficiently pastoral when being pastoral is consciously not my primary concern.
To sum up, your absolutist statement that I do not have the right to speak to these people is absolutely mistaken.
Chad said: Would it matter if the security guard was not a Christian? Do we simply allow the "Gentiles" in law enforcement to take care of our dirty work for us as we very piously and passively wash our hands?
Thom says: DeFazio dealt perfectly well with your objection to my "concert of hugs" as naive. I will say that as I said, it was one of hundreds of options other than violent options. Discovering alternatives to violence takes a creative imagination that is not constituted by worldly priorities. In turn, our designation of those alternatives as either credible or incredible is also a reflection of the nature of our priorities.
Now, as DeFazio already pointed out, your caricature of our position here, where the alternative is either kill or allow the police to do our "dirty work for us as we very piously and passively wash our hands," is irresponsible to the discussion. Those are not the alternatives; Christian pacifists do not accept either of them as viable alternatives. Christians should not prosecute. The state has its own laws, and they can certainly prosecute and imprison a murderer without our compliance. As Christians, we would implore the shooter to turn himself in since he has violated the laws of the government under which he lives, but as far as the laws of God are concerned, we have the authority to forgive his transgressions. For the record, it has happened before. There was a serial killer who was holding a Christian woman hostage with the intent to kill her. She witnessed to him until he gave himself up to the police. With God, anything is possible. That ought to be the church's attitude, and the basis of the church's response to evil. It is a testimony to the fact that it is God and not the state that is really in control of things. Bearing that testimony is mandated of Christians.
Chad said: What I was regarding as “unwinnable” and fruitless about this debate was the incessant (and often harsh – there is something blatantly anti-peaceful in the way that this issue is often discussed) argumentation and the shocking level of black and white certainty that exists on this issue.
Thom says: I see this as a general problem in people's understanding of pacifism. There's nothing that raises my ire more than Christians defending violence, and that kind of anger is justifiable and even has dominical precedent. Being a pacifist is not about being nice, nor is it necessarily about following a certain code of conduct in intellectual debate. I am convinced that a majority of Christians in the United States have inherited a "Christian" tradition that is not Christian, and that is broadly and uniquely complicit with systematic injustice and violence. That makes me angry, and I will be angry at any Christian who (unwittingly or not) plays a role in the defense of that system. That does not mean I do not love those Christians. That does not mean I see them as enemies, or that I see myself as in some way superior to them. I do not. I used to think like them. I used to defend the same injustices they do (unwittingly). The only reason I think the way I do now is because somebody got in my face and called me on the carpet for my complicity. I call that a gift of grace. I am now committed to being an instrument of that same grace. Sometimes it's appropriate to have an intellectual discussion that follows the normal rules of debate etiquette. Sometimes it is not. Jesus had quiet discussions, and he had very loud ones. He spoke in nuances, and he spoke in stark, black/white, either/or terms. The case of a church that purports to be following Jesus Christ pointing a gun at and shooting a man and being proud of themselves for it is a case in which the latter strategy applies, because it is a gross miscarriage of Christian witness. Nevertheless, I said in my letter and I continue to say today that I stand in solidarity with Boyd, and the gunwoman, as well as with the gunman, in their grief and in their guilt. I am not pointing the finger at them to highlight my sinlessness. I am standing with them and pointing the finger at us, because I believe the church is one, whether it acts like it or not. I really do, ontologically, share in their guilt for this sin, and I am sick about it.
Your critique that many pacifists are anti-peaceful in their speech is, in my estimation, based on a misunderstanding of peace. Pacifists should be angered by injustice, and by violence, and especially by the violence of those with whom they share basic convictions and commitments. Pacifists do not have to pretend they are not angry in order to be consistent pacifists, and they do not have to treat this issue with a dose of ambiguity in order to promote peace. From our perspective, the ideology that says pacifism is one interpretive option among others for Christians is an ideology that underwrites and supports violence and injustice. This is not a matter of personal conscience. This is a question of what the gospel is we all claim to be products of and to proclaim. I hope that my "black and white certainty" shocks you. I hope it shocks a lot of Christians into realizing that pacifism isn't a way out of political and/or moral responsibility but is in fact the way of Christ and of his followers.
Chad said: I never claimed to have such black/white certainty on this issue - and I'm humble enough (I hope, although it doesn't always come through in my posting) to be taught by others on this issue. But Thom, in our conversations you just seem unwilling to listen on this issue or to even concede that there may be points where you lack absolute clarity.
Thom says: Not to boast at all, but I've no doubt spent a lot more time and energy than you have seeking to understand the just-war position. I have listened very carefully to Christian objections to pacifism. If you think I'm not teachable, I'm sure I play a part in giving you that impression. I'm sorry for my part in that, but you also have to recognize that until this conversation you haven't understood the nature of my convictions about nonviolence. You have been baffled as to why it's such a "black and white" issue for me, and that has no doubt contributed to your perception of me as unteachable. That said, my understanding has grown and developed because I listen to people. The reason I'm a pacifist is because I listen to people and am willing to be taught by those who think differently than myself. If I haven't learned anything from you on this issue, maybe that's because you haven't said anything that has challenged my understanding. I think you assume that I haven't wrestled with some or all of your questions before. Well, frankly, I have, and I'm doing my best to give you an nswer to them. If I have called some of your questions confused, or evasions, that's because after wrestling with them myself I have come to see them as confused or as evasive. I will have more to say on this later in answer to one of your later comments.
Chad said: I have been negligent on reading seriously on this issue. If this is a reading competition – I lose.
Thom says: This is not a reading competition. Alex did a good job of addressing the particular, reiterated complaint of yours. My point is that your refusal (to date) to engage the stuff we've been influenced by, especially after you've said you ought to engage that stuff, partially discredits you as a critic of our positions. You haven't put the work into understanding us. As stated above, I've certainly but a great deal of effort into understanding just-war theory, and common Christian objections to gospel nonviolence. Not only have I read extensively in the literature of those with whom I disagree, I've also written rather extensively in engagement with their positions. You also have to understand that my strategy in dialogue with you is not going to be the same as my strategy in dialoguing with an average church member. I was under the impression that you were a college professor and that, therefore, you would have little trouble engaging the issue on a scholarly level.
Chad said: There are smart, God-fearing, Spirit-filled Christians on both sides of this issue. I should be humble and open-minded. There are smart, God-fearing, Spirit-filled Christians in the military, police, and politics. I should be humble and open-minded.
Thom says: Here again, you equate humility with a refusal to be certain about the nature of the gospel. That may or may not reflect an indebtedness to Cartesian anxiety, but regardless of the philosophical problems with that equation, it just isn't very Christian. You also implicitly equate our certainty with close-mindedness. That claim frankly begs a question you haven't thought to ask. Moreover, anyone in the military, the police, and in worldly politics is going to have a commitment to an ideology that is going to control their thinking on these matters. As I've said repeatedly, being intelligent isn't the issue here, because our intelligences are subject to a whole range of things besides "rationality." Moreover, the designations "God-fearing" and "Spirit-filled" beg the question. If it's true that God wants his church (and all those that constitute it) to be absolutely nonviolent as a part of its witness to his reign, then anyone who defends the Christian use of violence is neither God-fearing nor Spirit-filled, at least as far as their intellect and actions are concerned. Now, I do not deny that a person can mean well and be wrong, and I believe strongly that God judges everyone according to the knowledge and experience they have. I have no problem with God being merciful to people who were unfaithful to the gospel. I have a problem with the long-standing practice of Christians defending unfaithfulness to the gospel.
Chad said: There is no doubt that people like MLK Jr. have altered human history and national policy through non-violence. But there are also thousands of others through the centuries who have been able to change the system from the inside out. These people are rarely celebrated, but they have been powerful kingdom agents nevertheless.
Thom says: First of all, in many respects MLK DID change the system from the inside out. He appealed to the constitution of the United States and argued that systematic racism was inconsistent with the American system. He did not appeal to a foreign system and advocate it. Second, I want you to give some examples of that kind of people you're thinking about when talk of "powerful kingdom agents" who have changed the system from the inside out. On a case by case basis, we can talk about them intelligently.
Chad said: Thom, I’m sorry (again) if I offended you. It seems an operational hazard of my posting on your site, which is why I offered not to post anymore.
Thom says: You have not once offended me. I guess you've yet to learn that the way I speak has little to do with personal relations, and everything to do with the nature of my convictions. That may be a fault of mine, it may not be. But it is not an indication that I am especially "sensitive" or "touchy." Ask people that know me. I am largely unaffected by what people think of me, except when I think I might be in error. Then I seek the wisdom of a multitude of counselors to see if I am in the wrong or right or somewhere in between.
Chad said: Non-violence is not an end. It is a means to an end.
Thom says: I disagree. It is my biblical conviction that nonviolence is at the center of God's character, and thus it is an end in and of itself insomuch as it is our end to conform to the character of God, created as we are in his likeness.
Chad said: I am against the kind of all or nothing thinking that fails to acknowledge the messiness of reality.
Thom says: I think Alex already did a good job of responding to this claim. It is a claim. It is a claim that says absolute pacifism is unrealistic. That is a claim we deny. For us the issue is: whose realism? From our perspective, resurrection power is really real realism, over against the realism championed by systems that depend for their stability on violence. From our perspective, just-war theory is much more idealistic than pacifism, as is the Rambo mentality held by most alleged proponents of just-war theory. Basic to just-war theory is the idea that it is only just to act if and when we have a reasonable measure of control over the outcome of our calculated violence. Basic to Christian pacifism is that no such control exists, neither for those who renounce such control nor for those who pursue it. Christian pacifism does a much better job of acknowledging the messiness of reality, because it does not base its responses to evil upon utilitarian calculations. Christian pacifism is prepared to let evil do its worse, while hoping for the same power that raised Jesus from the dead to do its work. It is a realism based on faith, but so is the realism of just-war theory. It's just that the faith is put in different locations.
Chad said: What turns most non-pacifists against pacifism is not the intellectual points - it is the disposition of those arguing for pacifism.
Thom says: No. In my experience it's usually the "intellectual points," as you call them. I've seen perfectly humble, innocuous Christians present pacifism to a barrage of boos and hisses, in an OCC classroom setting. The message is upsetting to people with American sensibilities (even to liberal American sensibilities). Your statement above may be true for you, but it has not been my experience. That is not to say that I or other pacifists have NEVER turned off a non-pacifist by the tone of our argument. That is to say, rather, that in general it is the position itself that is offensive to so many Christians in the United States and elsewhere. It is also my experience that that general attitude of antipathy for pacifism contributes to the increasingly stark tone of many pacifists, including myself. When I argue with South Americans, for instance, I do not get near as boisterous because they typically do not have the ideological blinders that so frustrates me in North American Christians. Moreover, you have to look at the sociological factor that many pacifists in the U.S. and other Western imperialist countries feel the need to be loud and absolute precisely because they are not taken seriously as a minority. Despite my great amount of respect for certain pacifist friends of mine who are more passivistic in their pacifism, I continue to see that passivism as a problem for their pacifism, not as an outgrowth of it. I see it as symptomatic of their intellectual indebtedness to the framework of an imperialist ideology.
Chad said: They come off often times as intellectual elitists, arrogant and not terribly charitable. If you can't explain it without yelling or without telling someone that they just are ignorant because they haven't read a book written by a French pacifist (redundant) then your argument is not strong enough.
Thom says: You are the only one here, Chad, who has framed this debate as an "intellectual" one, and you have made that mistake consistently, despite our protestations. Moreover, this statement of yourself is itself uncharitable because it attributes to me an attitude I've never adopted toward you. I never called you ignorant, I've never yelled at you. If Alex yelled at you, it's because Alex yells, not because he's a pacifist. He'd yell about which kind of pizza is better. More-moreover, I commended a book to you by Trocme in answer to a question you asked. Earlier you had said that I have no credibility as a pacifist prophet because I haven't bled, so on that note I commended to you the life of someone who has bled, and who bled as a pacifist in the face of the Nazi regime. Your mischaracterization of my commendation of his book to you as an evasion of my responsibility to give you an answer seems to me to be an evasion itself. More-more-moreover, "French pacifist" is not redundant; not now and not in WWII. Trocme was a pacifist because he was a Christian, not because he was a Frenchman. And your comment here seems to me to betray your commitment to a U.S. ideology that is remarkably unchristian. If it was just a joke, then ha ha. Pass the Freedom Fries.
Chad said: I think it is ridiculous to even have a discussion about Just War vs. Pacifism until we have learned to apply Jesus' words to turn the other cheek to our lives personally.
Thom says: I agree. But I do not think I agree with your understanding of Jesus' command to turn the other cheek. Jesus was teaching an oppressed people how to resist their oppressors with dignity and without violence. I do not think that as residents of the U.S. we must become oppressed before we can be advocates of Christian nonviolence. If you mean that we must learn to tone down the absolutist nature of our claims before we can make claims, I don't believe that's at all what Jesus meant, and I don't think that's at all what Jesus exampled.
Chad said: How much credence should we give church tradition? Which tradition rightfully speaks a word of authority for us? Which interpretation of church tradition is authoritative?
Thom says: The open-ended nature of these questions, like there's little to no possibility of an answer, or that they so complicate the issue that it's impossible to land at an honest position, may serve to make your argument sound more responsible than ours, but it doesn't actually make it so. The fact is, before Constantine, there was only one church tradition on the question of Christian use of violence, and any deviation from that tradition was seen as unfaithful. So your last question is irrelevant in this case. Your first question sounds frightening to those with a "Bible-only" mentality, but reality, history, and theology are a little more complicated and messy than that, to use your language. It seems to me, however, that those who object to appeals to the early church fathers in matters of biblical interpretation usually have no trouble at all with appeals to Luther or Campbell, or whomever. For my part, I'd pick the ones closer to the apostles, not the ones further removed. Incidentally, Campbell himself (both of them actually, but I speak of the younger) was a stanch pacifist, believing the NT was as clear as day on the question, and he had no trouble (surprisingly) appealing to the agreement of the early church fathers with the plain pacifistic sense of the NT message. Not only Campbell, but a majority of early Restoration leaders thought and argued this way. I think OCC's "no book but the Bible" is more simplistic and less nuanced at times than Campbell's.
Chad said: I use the word messiness to refer to the messiness of life. Pastoral experience and life experience defies an easy answer to this issue. Easy answers only live in the realm of academia and fourth grade Sunday school.
Thom says: In what sense do you take our answers to be easy? Easy to come up with? Or easy to live out? Or both? My perspective is that in a very real sense the answer to the question of the Christian use of violence SHOULD be easy to come up with, but challenging to live out. Retaliation is an easy answer. It's the most natural answer, and the easiest thing to do. In another sense, there is not very much that is easy about our answers, because in practical situation they require a moral imagination that of the kind that is very difficult to forge in the midst of a society and a culture so constituted by violence. I will grant you that it is easier to say that I'm willing to die than it is to actually give my life to an enemy. That said, sitting now in uncertainty is not going to prepare me in any way to go against the grain. Part of the reason we are so certain in our talk now is because that is necessary to shape our moral choices when the shit hits the fan. Being a pacifist is not just responding nonviolently to violence; it is living the kind of life that makes nonviolence in the face of violence a real possibility. And part of that preparation is our willingness now to throw our lot in to a definitive stance. As a pacifist, I know I am a violent person. I am more aware of my violence than most nonpacifists are of their own violence. For violent people like me and Alex and Dan and Tyler, we need the line drawn in the sand, otherwise we'll end up on the wrong side when it comes down to it. But then again, for peaceable people like the Amish, who wouldn't think of doing harm to an enemy, the line in the sand is a matter of course. Somebody drew it a long time ago, and many, many people died in order to draw the line, but now they could almost do without it. It wouldn't make any practical difference. If you're like them, and don't need the line in order to live on the right side of it, then you're blessed and far superior to me. But the majority of Christians in the U.S. land definitively on the other side of the line, and that's why we're working so hard to rightly characterize the nature of the line.
Chad said: At what point do I violently intervene? If a man is being beaten? If a woman is being beaten? If a child is being beaten? Do I have to make sure that the person is an unbeliever before I intervene? If one non-Christian is gunning down 10 non-Christians is it acceptable to intervene with violent force? Are rubber bullets OK? What if non-lethal force inadvertently becomes lethal? Is it acceptable for me to rely on the national guard to support my non-violence? Should I pay taxes that go to the mechanisms of war? Should I accept free-health care from a government that engages in war? Should I keep my money in a bank that is guarded by a man with a gun? Should I eat with tax collectors, sinners, and police officers? I know these questions are silly, but all legalism is silly. That is what I'm talking about with messiness. I just refuse to give an easy answer for this issue. Easy answers are the currency of legalists.
Thom says: These questions do not betray a legalism in our position but rather betray your inability to conceive of our position on our own terms. We can go into a whole discussion of various different approaches to ethics: whether it be the ethics of divine mandate, contractural ethics, virtue/character ethics, or whatever. But that would take up too much of your time, and I'd only end up supporting myself with more of those book things. Your claim that I have refused to deal with these kinds of questions is just mistaken. In the past, I have been guilty of asking some of these confused questions myself. I have also answered them in various places already. The reality is that it is your conception of the relationship of the church and worldly governments that makes these questions intelligible, not our own, although there are some exceptions.
Like the war-tax question. There are some considerations that go beyond, "Well, Jesus said 'Render unto Caesar.'" I respect many of the arguments of Christian war-tax resisters, although I do not share their ultimate conclusion. (I am not, however, principally opposed to tax-resistance.) My own position is that we should look for any opportunity to get rid of money, because it's not a good thing in the first place. Moreover, U.S. money is toy money, and is really only worth as much as the strength of the U.S. military. When the U.S. ceases to be the predominant world power, the U.S. currency will crash. From my perspective, paying taxes (which I don't make enough money to have to do anyway, income tax anyway) is like giving Monopoly money to the little bratty kid who thinks it's real. The true U.S. currency is its military power, and as a Christian, and especially a Christian pacifist, I know that is no currency at all in God's economy. If I don't give my tax dollars to the military machine, then the Pentagon will just go to the Federal Reserve Bank (which in fact is no more "federal" than Federal Express) and have them print more money for which there is no actual financial backing. Then my income tax dollars will go toward paying the interest that the Federal Reserve Bank charges the U.S. government for the loan. In fact, the majority of the annual national income tax is put to just that use. Despite the fact that I'm convinced by constitutional and legislative research that the U.S. income tax system is both unconstitutional and illegal, if I ever make enough to have to pay an income tax in the U.S., I'll pay it for the same reason Paul told the Roman Christians to pay their illegitimate taxes: to keep the sword from being unsheathed.
In a piecemeal fashion:
Rubber bullets aren't the same as lead ones, but they still aren't exactly representative of the gospel of sufferings. They still represent an ideology that prioritizes our safety over our witness. Would Jesus have used rubber bullets to avoid being arrested? What if Peter had pulled a wooden sword? Would Jesus have allowed that? What if Oscar Romero wore a bullet proof vest? I hope you can see how these kinds of questions betray a misunderstanding of the real issue, which is not one of legalism but of character.
Government's should give free health care. They should not engage in war. I am not made impure because I accept what a government should be doing while denouncing what it shouldn't be doing. That doesn't compute. That seems to me a really very simplistic approach to morality, one that I don't think you take. So why do you think we'd take it? That kind of thinking isn't required by the logic of Christian pacifism. But it appears often in rhetoric against Christian pacifism. I do know some pacifists who think that way, but they are anarchists, and not the good, nuanced Chomskyan kind of anarchists.
Money in the bank with an armed guard. I don't put my money in the bank to protect it from robbers. I put it in the bank to protect it from myself. And everybody knows that bank-robbers aren't stealing from bank customers, they're stealing from insurance companies. But regardless of the question of the armed guard, it would be better for me to learn to live without a bank. If I could be more disciplined, that's probably the route I'd go anyway.
Yes, you should eat with tax collectors, sinners, and police officers. Although, the question is really different in our environment. We live in the imperial hub as some of its chief beneficiaries. Tax collectors were hated because they were turned on their own people (already oppressed) to obtain wealth and relative political security in the empire. That was the scandal--that Jesus forgave their very real sins against justice. Most police officers aren't corrupt, and many would never find themselves in a position where they'd have to use force. But many police officers, particularly in big cities, are possessed by the spirit of violence, and elitism.
I frankly don't know how you come off characterizing our position as legalism. After all this back-and-forth, without any warning or argument whatsoever, you brand us legalists and call it a day. I don't know what kind of peaceable rhetorical strategy that is, but it's an interesting one.
Chad said: Your inability to acknowledge silly questions like this shows me that you haven't really engaged this issue from the layperson's perspective.
Thom says: I have engaged this issue from a layperson's perspective, because I've been in frequent dialogue with laypersons and have converted many a layperson to gospel nonviolence. I think I'd have good reason to say that I actually know more about you do than the layperson's perspective on these issues, because you're not the one goading them into dialogue about it all. I am, and have been for years. If I'm ignoring those questions in this particular dialogue, it's because you're not a layperson, and I'm interested in you for your sake, not in debating as an exercise.
Chad said: Doesn't a legalist in fact say that a good Christian does this and doesn't do this? Is that not what you are also saying - Good Christians are non-violent pacifists. If you are going to make a statement like that you should be prepared for all sorts of legalistic loopholes.
Thom says: I find this point redundant and ridiculous. Are you a legalist because oppose homosexuality? "Good Christian men don't 'do' other good Christian men." Are you a legalist because you oppose murder? "Good Christians don't murder." Are you a legalist because you oppose theft? "Good Christians don't steal Audis." The nature of our convictions says that nonviolence, like marital fidelity and other things, is an integral part of the grammar being a "good Christian." People will always look for loopholes. That doesn't make the position legalistic. That makes the people looking for loopholes legalistic.
Chad said: I don't intend to fight you, but if you are committed to continuing study, you had better be prepared to engage idiots like myself who disagree with you unless you intend on always surrounding yourself with like-minded people.
Thom says: I never called you an idiot, nor did I think it. Moreover, the suggestion that I prefer to surround myself with like-minded people is just ridiculous. If that were the case, I would never engage unlike-minded people in discussion, which I am infamous for, and this letter to Boyd is a case in point. Several of the guys at Ozark that are "like-minded" were not at first. They used to think different, and I engaged them in conversation. Now they think in similar ways to me, and I think in similar ways to them. That comes from open conversation, not from ideological insulation, which you're accusing me of. I've taught classes for Mark and have presented these views to people in terms understandable by them. I've been a guest debater in philosophy classes. I've preached this from a pulpit in a church of six, all over sixty. You have little esteem for me indeed you think I've never changed my approach in all of these different situations. Even in this case, I made a point to speak in the language of charismatic Christianity. That doesn't mean my message wasn't still foreign, but that can't be helped. That's the nature of the gospel. But the idea that I'm not prepared to engage people that think differently than me is just absurd, and the idea that I prefer to insulate myself so that I'm not challenged by other kinds of thought would be offensive, if I were the type to get offended. But I'm not.
Peace.
I would yell about which pizza is better. Things like that are very important.
Thanks for your reply, Thom. One of your greatest virtues is that you do take questions and objections seriously enough to respond to them in great detail. Let me briefly offer some responses in return.
1. Certain facts and statements have come out since the shooting at Colorado that definitely make me cringe and don’t sound very Jesus-like. I am in complete agreement with you on that point. It would be a much better and more accurate representation of Jesus to weep over all loss of life in this situation. But in my understanding, the response to the shooting is not your primary concern – it was the resorting to violence in the first place. On this issue, I must concede that you also make a strong point, but I am not completely won over.
2. As to your disposition. A revision of my previous statements may be in order. Some of my very favorite students at OCC fall into the pacifist camp – Dan, Tyler, yourself, A-Rod, Alex, and others – most of them I haven’t had in class, but have built a relationship with them outside of the classroom. They have always been very respectful and courteous in their responses which are always very well-reasoned and well-presented. Even the responses on this blog have been mostly charitable and respectful. Defazio’s response in particular was very helpful. I guess what gets me going is the absolute certainty of youthful wisdom. Please do not twist my words. I am not critiquing your passion or knowledge or the seriousness of this issue. What I don’t understand is how you can have all your questions on this issue answered at such a young age. You can understand why this absolute certainty combined with very vociferous argumentation could be interpreted as closed-minded arrogance.
3. I respect your prophetic call. And there is some difference between the pastoral and prophetic. You responded as a prophet. As a prophet the practical response or even feelings of an audience don’t necessarily matter. But how would a pastor respond to this horrible act? I just want to encourage you – being a prophet is hard, but it is also easy. You get to stand on the side-lines hurling truth as a weapon and when you are rejected you write it off as prophetic persecution. Thom, I want to challenge you to stretch yourself in ministry. Being a pastor is hard. Investing in flawed people is hard. Loving people despite their failures, ignorance, and inconsistencies is hard. Preaching sermons that soothe rather than condemn is hard. I am not implying that you don’t do any of these things. I just think that you are selling yourself short by saying, “I have a prophetic call” without at least acknowledging that God may also want you to pastor. God wants us to love people more than ideas. He wants us to love his flock more than books.
4. Which reminds me of another point – I’m sorry for playing the “book card” with you. I know that this is more than a book argument or even an intellectual argument. I am tempted to say more, but I will end there.
5. I also must amend my previous “like-minded” comment. In hindsight I was reflecting mostly on my experience on your blog – being surrounded by nothing but like-minded people. One of the things I respect about you and all your friends is your willingness to engage people at OCC in what is sometimes a hostile environment for some of your views. Although, you might be surprised at how sympathetic certain members of the faculty actually are.
6. You also make a good point regarding my “legalistic” argument. While you may think that such questions miss the point (which they may or may not), you have to at least recognize that questions such as these are inevitable with such a global and comprehensive ethic as non-violent pacifism.
7. Defazio’s post was very helpful in presenting successful stories of non-violence, but that isn’t really a point that I would ever dispute. Of course non-violence is and has been “successful.” As I’ve said before, non-violence should in fact be a Christian’s knee jerk response to evil. Besides, I’m not sure that worldly success is an appropriate measure for a Christian ethic anyway. Lord knows the world is full of way too many overly-pragmatic theologies. That being said, we will have to agree to disagree on my “means to an end” view of non-violence. Non-violence in and of itself becomes passive indifference if it is not at least desirous of resulting in shalom and justice. Wasn’t the MLK and Gandhi’s approach or was MLK just satisfied with a campaign of powerless non-violence? Look at the stories that Defazio shared – non-violence led to peace and redemption. You may bring up the scenario, “What about a Christian who suffers non-violently in anonymity for his beliefs, dies as a result, and no one ever knows about it?” It’s a good question if not totally realistic. Isn’t there still a testimonial force to what this Christian has done (1 Peter 2:12)? If not a testimonial to his persecutor, isn’t he also testifying to his God and in his suffering crying out for vengeance (Rev. 6:10)? Wasn’t Jesus’ own non-violence a means to an end? That is, unless we adopt some sort of moral influence theory of the atonement, but even then, his non-violence serves a greater purpose.
8. You wanted a list of names of those who are working as kingdom agents within the system. I could give you a list of a dozen people in my church – state troopers, undercover narcotic agents, sheriffs deputies, members of the national guard, local politicians who are agents of change from the inside out. I’m sure Defazio could give you a similar list from his church. These are people who save children from a life of Meth abuse and other kinds of horror. These are people who hold the system in check from descending into anarchy and tyranny. These are people who treat criminals with respect and dignity. These are people who work as Christians to keep our society ordered and safe. Are order, safety, respect, and justice non-Christian virtues? I have not heard a solid argument that says civil order is wrong (this was in fact one of God’s own virtues in the OT). If it is not necessarily wrong, why should Christians not work from within that system to offer reform and accountability when necessary? You mentioned that a government should provide universal health-care. You cannot have it both ways. Universal health-care can only be provided in a safe, ordered, and just society. How is such a society maintained? You also said (I think) that positions in the government (presumably desk jobs) are not necessarily off-limits. I don’t see a difference. Is this not a legalistic and artificial line in the sand? The Eichmans of WWII were just as culpable in the horrors of Nazi Germany as the war generals – if not more so.
9. On some points, we will have to agree to disagree. I am not a “Bible-Only” Fundamentalist, as you know. But I try to be Bible first. Church tradition and history has an important place, but our discussion should work from the biblical evidence, not to it. We all must allow our interpretation of church history (and our favorite theologians and ethicists) to be critiqued by scripture. That said, I remain unconvinced by your reading of church history. It seems selective and reductionistic. I agree that the closer we get to the apostles, the better, but we also have fantastic heresy and fabricated mythology in those first Christian centuries. The Fathers were not infallible. Our friend Tertullian for instance regarded marital infidelity as the unpardonable sin from the book of Hebrews. Maybe I am misreading you, but you seem to be casting aside virtually all opinions on this issue after Augustine and Constantine as if God’s providence in the Church’s history and beliefs stopped with the Edict of Milan. Church history is more complicated and diverse than what you are making it. You can appeal to church history to baptize virtually any belief. Isn’t that what the neo-Gnostics are doing?
10. As to certain scriptures that we disagree on. I'm still unsure where exactly you're coming from on Romans 13. Maybe you need to re-explain it to me. Anyway, we also clearly don’t agree on Acts 10. In Acts 15 when the Jewish leaders of the church wrote a letter to the Gentile converts (to Antioch admittedly, not Caesarea) they only gave a few ethical instructions – abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animal and from sexual immorality. Evidently these ethical commands were more important than “lay down your arms.” You could say that non-violence is so woven into the fabric of the gospel that it didn’t need to be said – but that is certainly begging the question. You could also say that idolatry was tied to the system of military service, but that also is to read into this letter. Many occupations required an idolatrous sacrifice in the NT period – not just military service. It is illegitimate in my estimation for you to consistently tie idolatry to non-violence as you seem to be doing. This seems like a “funhouse mirror” theology where one theological or ethical point is exaggerated to the point that it is regarded as being able to accurately tell the whole story of Christianity. It’s not that it isn’t true. I just wonder if it tells us the whole story. Pacifism, at least it seems to me, has become more important in the minds of some people (this isn’t necessarily directed at anyone in this particular conversation) than knowing and confessing Christ. Now I know what you might say – to know Christ is to be a pacifist. But I wonder, who is more your brother – a non-violent Hindu or a Just War Christian? (I use “your” in the global sense not necessarily in the specific sense.)
11. Lastly, you have acknowledged that there are different types of pacifists in the world – even on our campus. There are moderate pacifists. There are anarchist pacifists. There are anti-government and pro-government pacifists. There are liberationist pacifists and ascetic pacifists. There is not universal agreement even within the pacifist camp on some of these issues. You have even nuanced your position through the years, and of course there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. But I think it speaks to the “unclosed” nature of this discussion. You see, I would like to call myself a moderated pacifist (you probably could tell me a more accurate title). As I’ve said before, selfless non-violence should be our knee jerk ethic as followers of the crucified one. However, I leave open the possibility of rare, tragic, and restrained national and interpersonal violence as a means by which God accomplishes his will upon earth. I leave open the possibility that there may be rare times where violence must be met with appropriate levels of violence in order to secure peace. I leave open the possibility that order and justice in a civil society are things that God values which may require the state to bear the sword as an under-agent of God. I believe Christians should be contagious in all parts of culture and society including the military, police, and politics. I believe that there is a time for everything – a time to kill and a time to heal; a time to tear down and a time to build; a time for war and a time for peace. If this doesn’t qualify me to be a pacifist, I can live with that, but this is where I stand (today at least).
Thanks, for the discussion Thom.
Sorry, my comma was in the wrong place.
Thanks for the discussion, Thom.
Thom.
From Pax Christi's website:
(http://www.paxchristiusa.org)
"Pax Christi USA strives to create a world that reflects the Peace of Christ by exploring, articulating, and witnessing to the call of Christian nonviolence. This work begins in personal life and extends to communities of reflection and action to transform structures of society. Pax Christi USA rejects war, preparations for war, and every form of violence and domination. It advocates primacy of conscience, economic and social justice, and respect for creation."
I, however am Anglican, and our Peace site is: www.epfnational.org
Hey, Chad. Thanks for furthering the dialogue. As an exercise in self-restraint, I'm going to have Tyler respond to these latest comments. Tyler and I think a lot a like on many of these issues, and I usually learn from him when he's in dialogue with others. So look out for his reply in the next couple of days.
Peace.
Thom,
Brilliantly written. I had the thought to write a letter also, but thought otherwise, I tend to come across to judging.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Chad,
Thanks so much for your repeated kind comments. I am certainly glad to further the discussion. Three quick points:
First, an agreement with Chad - I very much appreciated your thoughts on the question of prophetic and pastoral ministry, especially your remark that while prophetic ministry is hard, it is also easy. I know this is important for me to hear, and I hope and trust Thom will hear you as well. For the first couple of years out of Ozark it was very frustrating to be seen as "the Bible-college kid who has all the answers and is ready to call people to the carpet over them." I think this was an untrue label much of the time, and I have happily grown out of it for the most part with my current co-workers, but I have certainly learned a great deal in the past three years about how slow people change, as well as how patient we must be to facilitate that change. This is only more true in a post-Constintinian situation such as ours, where we are asking people to actually convert (rather than just become "better" versions of what they already are).
Second, a clarification for myself - The intent of posting the stories, as well as the comments about how sometimes nonviolent resistance "works" - was to bring to the surface the fact that the accusation of naivete leveled against the "concert of hugs" idea was not consistent with your actual beliefs. You have (I think) acknowledged this, not least in this latest post, and therefore we can dispense with the original accusation. So whatever else we may need to consider, am I right in saying that whether or not the concernt of hugs suggestion was naive is inconsequential? And am I right in saying that it is so precisely because the accusation of naivete depends on all sorts of assumptions we do not hold, not least that our actions should be measured in terms of their immediate effectivness?
Third, a clarification for Thom - I'm not sure if it is clear how Thom is using church history, especially the pre-Constantinian centuries. (I may be wrong in the following explanation, so anyone can feel free to correct me; whether or not I speak rightly for Thom, this is my view.) He is not holding them up as an extra-biblical authority per se, but instead, by noting the consistency of their insistence against the use of violence - based on their interpretation of the gospel message as it is preserved in the New Testament itself - he is asking what has changed that has caused us to read/apply these texts differently. It is noteworthy in this regard that what uniquely sets apart the Anabaptists, who are perhaps the most well-known Christian pacifists, is not their specific views on the sword or church discipline, but their refusal to accept any ultimate authority other than the NT. In Discipleship as Political Responsibility (a 50-page book every one of us should read and re-read!), Yoder argues that the Anabaptist movement became a concrete historical reality the moment Simon Stumpf and Conrad Grebel openly rejected Zwingli's decision to hand over to the city council the question of whether to dispense with the unbiblical mass. He later writes, "The right to exist for the Anabaptists did not come about because of their baptismal practices, nor because of the social ethic they adopted, nor because they refused to bear arms or take oaths. The right to exist for the Anabaptists emerged from their basic refusal to accept any authority, even if it claims to be Christian, alongside or above the Bible" (36). So far as I can tell, the bset arguments for gospel nonviolence are not at all dependent on the authority of church tradition, but instead on the fact that it is extremely difficult to support any other view without bringing in an authority external to the New Testament. The NT itself is our best "weapon" in this debate, and church history is at its best (for both sides) when it can help us pay closer attention to why we read the texts the way we do. In short, Thom would probably agree (in many respects) with your view of tradition's authority, and that is why he is a pacifist.
Hope this helps. I eagerly look forward to Tyler's more detailed comments.
...
Oh, and the best arguments for gospel nonviolence are similar to the bset ones. :)
"The life of an unbeliever was traded for the lives of believers. A man was consigned to eternal separation from God in order to save from heaven those who are assured of salvation. The opportunity for the unique witness of a Bible-believing, Christ-following people in a world gone mad with violence was surrendered for the safety and security of predominantly wealthy Christians."
Paraphrase: "I wish more innocent people had been shot to death. The killer should have been allowed to murder people, except maybe some of the poorer ones, until he was tired of it, so he could be forgiven."
I can't think of a civil way to say that's this is where religion crosses the line into psychosis.
Thanks for your comment, Lou. I certainly understand the nature of your problem with our claims. Let me just ask you a preliminary question: Are you a Christian? If not, how would you define yourself in terms of adherence to a religion?
Earlier in the comments Thom suggested that the Philippians jailer may have "served time" to parallel the punishment(s) of one or more of his prisoners. In Roman jurisprudence of that era, there was no such thing as "serving time" in a prison or jail as a punishment. Prison was where you waited until your guilt (and punishment) was decided. In practice, this could be a very long wait. But it was not the same thing as the more recent idea of "serving time" as the punishment itself.
Yes, that's correct. Thanks for speaking up. My point stands, however. The jailer faced Paul's punishment, whatever that would have been determined to be, if anything, and he certainly would have lost his job.
Quick question (and please hear me when I write I am not leading, I am sincerely inquiring): Are all governments inherently evil and acting on behalf of the "dragon"? Is it possible for a kingdom to act in accordance with The Kingdom (whether it realizes or acknowledges it is doing so or not)? Are the two in perpetual dichotomy with one another? I know that the state can certainly act outside of Kingdom boundaries (so to speak), but does it always?
First of all, is this Spike, or some Damien I don't know?
It is Spike, so be kind to me... I'm still finding my way through this important conversation.
Much better this way. My father, Dieter, would be proud. Spike was his nickname. Back on task, please help me with this question.
Spike, I've started a new thread in an attempt at answering your questions, and you can find it here.
Although I have generally avoided commenting on this blog, I am thankful to those who have. I have gained valuable insights. While I do believe the case for early Christian pacifism is strong, the evidence from the AnteNicene era does not support claims of a complete consensus.
I do regret some of the strident and combative language in the exchange. Coarse or disdainful language seems oxymoronic in a discussion on peacemaking.
I believe the amount of attention I focus on situations outside my sitz im leben is only somewhat helpful. For example, I have, thank God, never seen a weapon drawn against another human being (except in the media). But, I have felt and voiced anger toward brethren. While the former is more intriguing to debate, the latter seems more where the teachings of Jesus would have us focus. I think it is in the “these you ought to have practiced without neglecting the others” category.
To be honest, it is disturbing to hear, with some regularity, frustrations about combative and contemptuous language used in defense of pacifism. Perhaps, as I can see in my own life, we can be drawn most passionately to ideals that are particularly challenging for us.
I recall a public debate between two Christian professors on these issues. As the debate unfolded, the pacifist grew increasingly strident, eventually giving way to ad hominem jibes at his opponent (at one point scornfully accusing him of burying his head in a fantasy land). The just-war supporter, already known for an exceptionally gentle demeanor, never grew angry or spoke despairingly of the other. And it was he who went over to shake hands with the other at the end of the debate. It goes without saying which view seemed to resonate with most of the listeners.
There seems little question that the primary call we have been given to peacemaking is with our parents, our oikos, and the brothers and sisters we interact with on a day to day basis.. So, as someone still processing the issues, I would make a plea for a kinder, gentler pacifism.
Thanks for your comments, TommyJoe.
"the evidence from the AnteNicene era does not support claims of a complete consensus."
As I have said, there were Christians who were soldiers, but there was no theologian/ecclesial authority prior to Constantine that commended Christian soldiering. Every theologian/ecclesial authority who spoke on the matter condemned it. I'd appreciate it if you could show me otherwise.
As for your other comments, and encouragement toward peaceable discussion, they are appreciated. I've already commented in response to the notion that pacifists are required to be nice. Ad hominem arguments are something else entirely, and I hope you haven't found any of those here.
I am preparing a new thread on the early Christians' statements against war and in favor of nonviolence. I hope to have it up sometime today or tomorrow. I would ask that all discussion on the question of ante-Nicene Christians and violence/nonviolence be reserved for that thread.
No, there have been no personal attacks.
Your summary of the AnteNicene period is entirely accurate. By the second half of the second century, there is undeniable evidence of the presence of Christians (genuine or so-called) in one or more of the Legions. But, to my knowledge, no leader seems to have written anything to support or comment this. But, as the opening of De Corona illustrates, it was certainly not a rarity.
So, the question remains (and may be unanswerable) as to whether or not the state can or even should operate according to Kingdom-of-God principles? If yes, then are we back in the mindset of "Christendom?" If no, then on what basis can we castigate the state according to Kingdom (as opposed to purely judicial, nationalistic, and pragmatic) bases? Is that not true to its inherent nature?
Here pacifism takes two very different paths. One, the path of social involvement for the betterment of society (Quakers among the classic examples). The other, an identity as separatistic counterculture (The Amish may be an example of this).
In the first, you have pacifists passionately involved in the political discourse and even holding public office. But, is this on a "slippery slope" (don't you hate that expression) toward quasi-Christendom?
In the other, those communities invest little energy in prophetic denunciation of the operations of world powers? They are what they are.
Here we face the reality that the NT and early church was an era when these options were clear. They seem to have existed largely as separatistic counter culture. The AnteNicene church, for example, gives no evidence of programs to feed starving pagans or reform pagan society. These emerge only post-Constantine. In some cases they did rescue infants from infanticide or respond to a local plague. But, those were episodic and reactive. They otherwise seemed content to let the pagans alone (absent conversion) to live, and even suffer, as pagans.
Oh my goodness - a correction:
Last paragraph of my previous post should have read "...when these options were NOT clear..." I am a lousy proof reader!
Thom, I would like to offer Greg Boyd's post on the shootings found here.
I know it's a rather simple summary, but as you've hinted at - outside voices are quite beneficial in such discussions.
Thanks a lot, Lancelot! Boyd's response is characteristically good, faithful, and pastoral. I really appreciate having read it, and I commend it to all the readers here.
My only objection is to his use of Jesus' commendation of the Roman Centurion as his precedent for not passing judgment on the security guard. According to Luke's account, Jesus and the Centurion never actually met, but communicated through messengers. The narrative is all about faith, and Jesus uses the pagan Centurion (clearly a sinner by any standard) to shame his own people for their lack of faith. If Jesus didn't pass judgment on the Centurion, it's because 1) Jesus wasn't face-to-face with him, 2) Jesus was concerned about his own people at the time. This security guard happens to be a Christian already, not a pagan police officer, and thus I find Boyd's analogy on this one point to be somewhat evasive.
That said, that doesn't mean I think we should be insensitive to the gravity of the situation she found herself in.
Yet the real problem is, she intentionally put herself in that situation with a predetermined mind to do just what she did. That's why she was carrying a gun, loaded, in preparation for the eventuality of her having to use it on someone.
Boyd has a way of teaching a radical gospel in a very unassuming, almost innocuous manner. But I wonder whether in this case Boyd ought to have been just a little bit more prophetic. Nobody has to be hateful, but when we're dealing with the unfaithfulness of fellow Christians to the gospel, what right do we have not to judge?
I'll admit that I have a non-sexual man crush on Boyd, who is probably my favorite 'pastor-theologian' in the world, but I must say that Thom's thoughts in this last post seem more in line with 1 Corinthians 5.12-13: "What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those inside. 'Expel the wicked person fromamong you'." (The last sentence is a quotation from Deuteronomy 13.5; 17.7; 19.19; 21.21; 22.21, 24; 24.7, and the whole chapter is predicated on the church being the holy people of God, overagainst those who would in the name of Christ act in ways inconsistent with the gospel.
Well, I’ve been commissioned to write a response to you Chad. Sorry it has taken me so long to get this written, but I thought before responding I ought to read what everyone else has already said. It has been quite the discussion. I would like to make some initial statements (in the way of putting in my two cents) before I respond to your specific objections, questions, observations, and whatever else we might call them.
First, let me say I think this is a very important issue for us all to think through, and I think it is important for us to think through it now. Because of the reality of the situation at New Life, this is clearly not an “Ivory Tower” issue, but a question about faithfulness to the Gospel and about our identity as followers of Jesus. Also, it is crisis that we are most likely to see ourselves for who we really are. As the peaceful priest Daniel Berrigan put it, “A society [or in this case a Church] discovers itself mercilessly in the mirror of its crisis. There is no point in searching for identity in times of normalcy: We cannot really see ourselves in that clouded mirror of unexamined affluence and selfishness we commonly call peace” (No Bars to Manhood, 30). So, this is important right now.
Second, it has been emphasized throughout this discussion that pacifists are not always the most “humble” or “kind” people. There is definitely something to what you’re saying. It is more than the fact that they are imperfect people. Sometimes they are downright ornery especially when it comes to arguing about non-violence. This also goes back to the struggle to define violence. As my good friend Mike Ackerman once said, “It is hard for me to be really pro a ‘non-thing’” i.e. non-violence. It sounds silly to say, “I’m really for not being a certain way.” On the other hand, a lot of the definition of holiness is defined by not being a certain way, so we can’t through it out. But, for the sake of the conversation, it might be helpful to frame things up by defining peace and making that our pursuit rather than ‘non-violence.’ Besides we’re all for “peace” right? So, is it peacemaking for Thom to write this letter to pastor Boyd? Is it peacemaking for Alex to yell about pizza (because Lord knows he does)? Is it peacemaking for Chad to question Thom’s pastoral voice? I think so (with the possible exception of Alex’s pizza yelling). I think peace, as Jesus would have us define it, is living in right relationship to God and his people. Now, the next obvious question is “What does right relationship mean?” Well, I think we call agree that it is defined by the Son of Man himself. So, a peaceful person looks like Jesus. Does that mean we can be peaceful and still call people “snake babies” and “white-washed tombs”? Or that like Paul we can say, “Hand him over to Satan!”? Well, as God’s prophetic (and pastoral voice) I think the answer is “yes,” qualified by motive. Jesus can say some things that we might not be justified in saying because we’re not like the son of God. But, if we’re peacemakers then we are sons of God, and God’s presence in the world. We must tell the truth, even if people don’t want to hear it. However, our motive must always be restoration. We have to tell the truth in such a way to restore people to right relationship with God. So, not only is this an important discussion, but it is also “peaceful” even if we disagree and argue.
Okay on to the outright “response.” I’ll just respond to you, Chad, by posting your question/comment then giving a response. The good part for me is that I get to choose what to respond to, but if I don’t answer something you want answered then just post another comment and I’ll do my best. Here goes,
(1) On the Fence. “In my understanding, the response to the shooting is not your primary concern – it was the resorting to violence in the first place. On this issue, I must concede that you also make a strong point, but I am not completely won over.”
Cool, what do you think might be a better option since the “concert of hugs” idea was “naïve”? I think we’re all in agreement some sin was committed in how all this thing went down. Thus, it seems something ought to be said to Pastor Boyd, though we might disagree on what. Chad what do you think a pastoral and prophetic response to pastor Boyd might be?
(2) Folly of Youth “I guess what gets me going is the absolute certainty of youthful wisdom. . . What I don’t understand is how you can have all your questions on this issue answered at such a young age. You can understand why this absolute certainty combined with very vociferous argumentation could be interpreted as closed-minded arrogance.”
Agreed, vociferous argumentation combined with absolute certainty could be interpreted as closed-minded arrogance. But, I don’t know exactly who is claiming “absolute certainty.” You might think this semantics, but it is a pretty important distinction between “absolute certainty” and belief. Yes, we pacifists believe that the violence committed by some Christians at New Life was sin. That does not mean we’re all absolutely certain about all of the nuances of what it means to be a Christian. We don’t have all of our questions answered, I have new ones all the time, but I also know that I can’t be crippled in faith by ambiguity. You’re objections to peacemaking combined with your lack of an argument could also be interpreted as closed-minded arrogance. So, rather than calling each other arrogant lets get at the truth. Is peacemaking central to the gospel or not? I haven’t really heard an argument from the NT or Church history that says it isn’t. You’re welcome to present the case for violence. We won’t call you arrogant, but we may call you wrong. Please don’t call us arrogant, but you’re welcome to call us wrong. Just tell us why. I think most everyone here is open-minded enough to change ideas. I know that Dan, Michael, myself, and Thom are all willing to change beliefs. I know this because we all have done so by becoming pacifists. I have even done some flip-flopping. I started out as a pacifist came to Ozark and became a just war theorist then befriended Thom and became a pacifist again. I would sure like to be able to hurt or kill anyone who might touch my wife. I just don’t think I can as a follower of Jesus. But, if you convince me from the scriptures I’ll be more than happy to be a violent person, it’s easier for me than this whole peacemaker thing.
(3) Pastor vs. Prophet. “You [Thom] get to stand on the side-lines hurling truth as a weapon and when you are rejected you write it off as prophetic persecution. Thom, I want to challenge you to stretch yourself in ministry. Being a pastor is hard. Investing in flawed people is hard.”
Very true, and Chad you do have the most pastoral experience. We need to hear this. Assuming that Thom is correct that peacemaking is central to the Gospel, how might he communicate this truth with a more pastoral voice? One of the ways I’ve tried to do it is by simply teaching through the Bible. Not shying away from difficult texts, but honestly reading the scriptures with my church at Dederick. I know people have changed views because of it. But, in the midst of a crisis what ought we to do? What ought we to do from a distance? Chad, as our elder teach us how to be pastoral and prophetic, but don’t tell us not be prophetic (I know that’s not what you’re saying). Also, I don’t think it is fair to say Thom is standing on the side-lines. I don’t know anyone who puts more on the line for peace than Thom, do you? He is ridiculed by faculty for being arrogant when he’s just trying to be honest. He devotes time and energy to projects for peace. He has an open door and accepts anyone. He changes the way he eats, shops and lives because of his beliefs. You can call Thom a lot of things but don’t call him a side-liner. He takes more crap for being a pacifist than anyone I know. Chad, I could just as easily call you someone who stands on the sidelines because you teach at a college and don’t pastor a church. But, I won’t do that because it isn’t true. You are here at Ozark because you care about the Gospel and about the church. Thanks for being here and not on the sidelines. And thank you Thom for being willing to fight for the truth even in the face of opposition. If it wasn’t for you, I wouldn’t be as faithful. Thanks for not standing on the sidelines.
(4) Nothing to say here.
(5) “One of the things I respect about you and all your friends is your willingness to engage people at OCC in what is sometimes a hostile environment for some of your views. Although, you might be surprised at how sympathetic certain members of the faculty actually are.”
This is good to hear. I know that we all try to open to God’s word and how it ought to affect our lives. Though, I might caution that “sympathy” can be interpreted as paternalistic superiority. Sometimes what I hear in the form of “sympathy” is, “Ah, those pacifists have some nice ideas, too bad they don’t have the real ministry experience to understand they’re idealism won’t work in the real world.” Sorry, but I do live in the real world. I live in a world where people die and get raped and violence happens. There has been an attempted rape on someone very close to me. Do you think that I don’t think about that? That we all don’t think about that?
(6) Legalistic Loopholes or Necessary Questions. “Questions such as these [i.e. questions Thom refers to with expletives] are inevitable with such a global and comprehensive ethic as non-violent pacifism
There are some bad questions, but Chad, I don’t think all of yours are bad. There are some questions we ought to answer, but Chad are there not also some questions that are okay to ignore? Or simply call bad questions? I’m a little confused about what you mean by “a global and comprehensive ethic as non-violent pacifism.” Thus, I’m having a hard time seeing the ‘inevitability’ of some of the questions. Many times the questions are more of an illustration of the asker “straw manning” or refusing to take the pacifist position seriously than they are honest inquiry.
(7) Peace making as a “Knee Jerk Response” or a Comprehensive Christian Ethic? “Non-violence should in fact be a Christian’s knee jerk response to evil. . . Non-violence in and of itself becomes passive indifference if it is not at least desirous of resulting in shalom and justice. . . Wasn’t Jesus’ own non-violence a means to an end?”
I don’t understand how peacemaking can be a Christian’s “knee jerk response” and not be his comprehensive ethic. Is evil not evil even when it wears a uniform? How much less evil is it for a marine to kill someone in the name of “America” or “Freedom” than it is for a thief to kill someone in the name of “prosperity”? How much less evil is a bomb from a B-52 than a bullet from a gangster? Why is peacemaking “a knee jerk response” up until we have to actually put it into practice? What does it mean to say that peacemaking ought to be “a knee jerk response” but not a comprehensive ethic? No one here is advocating passive indifference. In fact, the kind of shalom and justice that we are advocating is one that is more costly for us. Jesus’ own peacemaking was more than a means. Jesus’ peacemaking was the means. Jesus provided for us a model in which to live that is non-violent. Pacifism is not just one way among many, it is Jesus’ way. Excuse us for not being ethical pluralists, but we’re trying to have a Christian worldview (being Ozark Students and all ).
(8) Participation in government. “You wanted a list of names of those who are working as kingdom agents within the system. I could give you a list of a dozen people in my church – state troopers, undercover narcotic agents, sheriffs deputies, members of the national guard, local politicians who are agents of change from the inside out. . . These are people who save children from a life of Meth abuse and other kinds of horror. These are people who hold the system in check from descending into anarchy and tyranny. . . These are people who work as Christians to keep our society ordered and safe. Are order, safety, respect, and justice non-Christian virtues? . . . Positions in the government (presumably desk jobs) are not necessarily off-limits. I don’t see a difference.” (emphasis added)
Chad you bring up a good point here. There must be some level of participation in government especially in a democracy (it sure would be nice if the US was really a democracy). Michael gave a list of examples of people making peace. Thom asked you to give a list of examples of people who used violence to make peace. You have not done so. I’m guessing you’ll be hard pressed to find one because I don’t think they exist. I’m sure that these people all mean well, that doesn’t mean they’re Christian in doing it. Give an actual example of someone really changing things from the inside out for this to be helpful. These people do save just not the way Jesus would have them do it. They save the way Americans or Chinese or Romans save, not the way Christians do. The problem is not with the desire for peace or working for peace. The problem is the way people work for peace. Safety might be a different issue. We think peace and safety belong together, but Jesus didn’t. I sure would like to be safe, but God thinks peace making is more important. At the end of the day, ordering society is not the job of Christians. Can we work with the government for good? Yes, I think so, but there has to be a point where we say, “We cannot participate. What you are doing is wrong.” So, order, safety and respect are not Christian virtues. Justice, however, is a Christian virtue. The problem is that Christian justice is different than American or Chinese or German justice. Also, I find it hard to believe that you don’t see a difference between a Marine and a judge. Are there some positions that are okay for Christians? Yes and I don’t see how it is legalistic to say so, but I’m willing to listen. Is there a sense in which military desk jobs are “off limits”? Yes. I don’t think the President can faithfully live as a Christian. The job requires him to act in ways that are unchristian. Similarly, I don’t think a prostitute can faithfully live as a Christian.
(9) Scriptural Authority “Church tradition and history has an important place, but our discussion should work from the biblical evidence, not to it. We all must allow our interpretation of church history (and our favorite theologians and ethicists) to be critiqued by scripture.”
I couldn’t agree more. Scripture must be authoritative. The problem is that scripture says we should make peace and not use violence. I’m for using scripture so use it. Prove to me from the scriptures how violence is Christian? Alex keeps saying that the burden of proof is on the person arguing for violence. I disagree; the burden of proof is on whoever is trying to say something. So, peacemakers have made a lot of good arguments on this blog. They have given “proof.” Now, why don’t the just-war theorists or the redemptive-violence adherents speak up? Instead of critiquing the pacifist position using everything but the scriptures, use the scriptures! What scriptural authority is there for using violence to accomplish the purposes of God?
(10) Texts in Question. “I'm still unsure where exactly you're coming from on Romans 13. . . We also clearly don’t agree on Acts 10. In Acts 15 when the Jewish leaders of the church wrote a letter to the Gentile converts (to Antioch admittedly, not Caesarea) they only gave a few ethical instructions – abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animal and from sexual immorality. Evidently these ethical commands were more important than ‘lay down your arms.’”
Honestly, Chad this argument surprises me. Acts 15 for violence huh? I can see Romans 13 is a difficult text. Thom sees Romans 13 as a hidden transcript against the government. I think his position has a lot of strengths, but I’ll let him explain it. Simple fact is Romans 13 clearly differentiates between the Christians who are supposed to overcome evil with God, love everyone and the government which bears the sword. How can you love someone and kill them? How does Acts 10 advocate the use of violence? I understand the issues with the pacifist position, what are the strengths of the violence advocates? The commands to the Gentiles in Acts 15 were specifically given as identity markers for gentile Christians. I think the Christians did need to hear “lay down your arms” that’s why Paul wrote Romans 12–13. To say that peacemaking is less important than eating meat of strangled animals from Acts 15 is, in my opinion, absurd. Maybe I’m dense, but I don’t see the connection between Acts 15 and peacemaking? I think what you mean is that the gentile Christians needed to hear what was vital. The problem with your argument is that the purpose of the Acts 15 letter was not to say EVERYTHING that was vital for the faith, but to say what was vital to maintain unity between Gentile Christians and Jewish Christians. Peacemaking what not an issue of unity.
(11) Pacifisms and Chad. “There is not universal agreement even within the pacifist camp on some of these issues. . . I think it speaks to the “unclosed” nature of this discussion. . . Selfless non-violence should be our knee jerk ethic as followers of the crucified one. However, I leave open the possibility of rare, tragic, and restrained national and interpersonal violence as a means by which God accomplishes his will upon earth. I leave open the possibility that there may be rare times where violence must be met with appropriate levels of violence in order to secure peace. I leave open the possibility that order and justice in a civil society are things that God values which may require the state to bear the sword as an under-agent of God.” (emphasis added)
Chad you’re very open. But, I don’t understand how universal agreement is relevant to truth. People don’t universally agree about much of anything that doesn’t mean that there isn’t a true position. The issue may be “unclosed” for you, but that doesn’t mean it is. It seemed pretty closed for Jesus. You’re saying that in order for us to be better Christians we need to be open to Christians killing or committing other acts of violence. We’re saying that in order for you to be a better Christian you need to be open to peacemaking as a comprehensive Christian ethic. Can and does God use violence to accomplish his will on earth? Yes, of course, God also uses the Devil to accomplish his will. God can use Assyria to punish Israel then use Babylon to punish Assyria for punishing Israel. Just because God uses something doesn’t mean he prescribes it or that he approves of it for us. Just for clarity, what is “an appropriate level of violence in order to secure peace”? I still don’t understand how this works. Violence to make peace?
In closing, I think we agree on most things. What I don’t understand is why you’re so against pacifism? What is it about pacifism that you don’t like? Not what is it about Thom that you don’t like but what about pacifism? At the end of the day I cannot reconcile the love of Jesus with violence. I don’t see how Jesus would shoot anyone. I don’t see how Jesus would drop a bomb on anyone. Maybe, this is too simplistic but I just don’t think I can be like Jesus and be violent. Chad, you’re a good sport for putting up with all this. Even more than that I think you’ll be a better Christian. I hope that I am after thinking through these things. That we all might be more faithful to the King.
T-stew
I think that the writer of this letter is being deceived by the enemy and is using this incident as a platform to push a political agenda (non-violence). I am no fan of mega-churches by any means, but this incident could have happened in any church (even a home church). According to Mathew 21, Jesus himself used "violence" in the temple to drive the merchants out. Isn't a murderer in a church a more extreme situation than a merchant in a temple? The writer fails to recognize that there exists forces of evil here on earth that manifest themselves in the actions of humans. What about not casting your pearls before swine? It is also rather presumptious to assume that the shooter wasn't saved. Apparently he must have at least previously professed salvation or he wouldn't have been accepted into YWAM. It is not for us to judge his salvattion. I think the writer of the letter would agree with that. If so, then how can the writer base his entire letter on the fact that the shooter wasn't saved. One need only use the sound mind that God gave us to see that this letter was not written in brotherly Christian love. That is nothing more than a facade to promote his political agenda. For this Thom, I publicly rebuke you.
dear anonymous,
don't be such a coward or gnostic.
"publicly" rebuking? please.
dear thom,
talk about coming in late, but, i've enjoyed reading the posts here. for what it's worth (and probably not much after 80 plus posts) ;), what i've been learning and practicing is to have a genuine hope in my enemies' Resurrection instead of their demise.
perhaps no one more than my dad's. we never had a good relationship, and once he committed suicide in prison and wrote me off in his suicide letter, it was clear i made him my biggest enemy.
i am extremely surprised, but glad to say that today i no longer hope in his eternal torment but in his Resurrection. while some of this has been fostered by good conversations and reflections in the office and library and coffee shop, most of my growth has come during communion and baptisms.
i am trying my damndest to have this hope for all of my enemies, but it is difficult for me. again i find strength in communing with the crucified but Resurrected Jesus in communion and baptisms, but, i am very stubborn.
sometimes i wish i were one of those, "jesus said it so i am on board immediately" people, but, that's not usually been the case.
anyway, i'm babbling at this point.
just wanted to share my current perspective on this important conversation.
oh, "anonymous".
of course this blog (in response to the event) is to advance a political agenda.
what other kind of Christian blog is there?
JPB – good to hear from you.
Tyler, outstanding response. Thanks a lot. Thom is particularly shrewd for bringing voices like your own and Defazio’s into the discussion. If I’m honest, Thom brings out my feistiness which can tend to cloud the real issues. For my part, if I have engaged in any straw man, ad hominem, or red herring arguments I apologize.
Damien is going to make fun of me because I continue to post after swearing that I am done posting on this issue. But since you took the time to respond to me, I’ll respond to just a couple of points – more for clarity of my position than advancing the argument.
1. To clarify why I brought up Acts 15…At least by my understanding pacifism is being assumed as an essential part of the earliest Christian kerygma. If that is the case, you would assume to see it in this letter to the Gentile converts. There are, after all, ethical instructions in the letter but nothing about leaving military positions or the like. You would also expect to see pacifism as a part of Paul’s preaching all through Acts, but you do not. He does indeed talk of suffering for the gospel but nothing along the lines of the comprehensive pacifism that is being promoted here. I just find this curious, that is all. Further, I find it remarkable that such a radical shift in the thinking of the Church happened at the time of Constantine without any reference (at least to my limited knowledge) to a universal church council addressing this issue. How did such a radical change happen without major conflict and discussion? Was Constantine that powerful that they had to have two meetings that hashed out the canon, but not a single meeting saying, “OK, pacifism is so “second-century.” From now on it’s nothing but militarism and forced conversions. Ye-haw!”
2. Your point about ethical pluralism and epistemic certainty is a good one (although Alex might have something to say here about situational ethics). Of course you don’t have to have absolute certainty in a position to argue for its truth. Part of the problem that we have in talking about this particular issue may be that I (and many others) have placed it into that nebulous category of opinion or personal conscience. To me, pacifism is an area where good Christians will disagree. You can be a good Christian who is not a pacifist. You can also be unsaved and be a really good pacifist. For many of you pacifism it seems has been placed in the category of essential – you cannot really call yourself a good Christian (or a Christian at all?) if you are not a pacifist. Am I mistaken in this observation? Please correct me if I am, but that is the feeling I have been getting. A person like me will accuse you of being arrogant (for which I apologize if that offended) or legalistic (for which I don’t really apologize). You will accuse me of missing the whole point of the gospel and maybe being a little closed-minded myself. I’m certainly not saying that we shouldn’t debate and even argue about non-essentials. I just think a lot of times we are not connecting in our discussion because we aren’t seeing this issue on quite the same level. I don’t really know how to solve this problem except that we need to tolerate each other with patience and allow ourselves to continue to be taught by each other.
3. Was Jesus non-violent in his salvific agenda? Yes. Was eschatological peace accomplished through non-violent submission? Absolutely. Did Jesus teach certain pacifistic principles? Yes, I believe so. Was Jesus a “pacifist?” I’m not sure. The problem is that when you assign a title like “pacifist” to Jesus, you are also assigning to him all of the baggage that comes with contemporary or not-so-contemporary expressions of pacifism. With which type of modern-day pacifist would Jesus most identify? The fact is that we don’t exactly know Jesus’ mind on so many specific contemporary questions (pacifism aside). And so we run the risk of whittling down some very complicated and complex issues to a simple WWJD statement. After all, you could read the NT and assign Jesus any number of titles depending on the theological presupposition of the day (which the third-questers have been so apt to do) – Jesus as cynic philosopher, social prophet, eschatological prophet, spiritual guru, ethical pacifist, etc. Am I making any sense?
4. You still want specific examples of those who work from within the system? I’m afraid you’ve rejected all of my examples a priori. You simply have the assumption that peace cannot be accomplished by someone who carries a gun.
5. I don’t feel that my questions concerning the government have been satisfactorily answered. This isn’t an accusation. It is simply a frustration that none of us (myself included) seem to have a ready answer. Adding to the frustration is that Jesus when asked about this issue just kind of blows it off. There’s no doubt that pacifism is firstly a personal ethic (turn the other cheek), but in a comprehensive ethical system, questions of institutional violence become inevitable (although I’ve noticed that our personal pacifism is rarely the first concern upon our lips). So, at the risk of repeating myself, is justice and civil order a godly ethic? If civil justice is a godly ethic, might Christians actually participate in the system that works for such justice always reserving the right to withdraw from the system (even under penalty of death) if it clashes with their primary loyalty? Didn’t so many in the military actually take this approach in early Christian centuries? You say ordering society is not the job for Christians. Why? If you mean that Christians have a higher calling, I would agree. But in my opinion that higher calling does not necessarily mean that I cannot function as a kingdom agent in that position. In fact, we may exercise that higher calling from the inside out. Now, given your argument that creating order and safety is not the Christian’s job, at what point do we become complicit in the system? When we pay taxes (which seems to be a Christian ethic)? When we vote? When we accept government benefits or handouts? Is there really a huge difference as you say between the judge and the marine? They are of course at different ends of an oftentimes violent system, but they are still a part of that same system. In summary I ask, what is the Christian’s role in government? Should we withdraw, should we revolt, should we ignore, should we reform from within? Christians have taken all of these perspectives and more. Further clouding the issue for me is that not all governments are the same. Rome is not the same as America. Cuba is not the same as Saudi Arabia. China is not the same as England. You get the point. Do the rules and restrictions change depending on the government? Thom has addressed this last point elsewhere, so I won’t continue down that path.
6. You ask how I would respond to this issue pastorally, and that gets exactly to my point in the first place. I did not begin this discussion to critique pacifism (and neither did Thom begin it as a defense for pacifism – sorry for leading us off topic). I’m not sure that it really matters what I would do if I were in Boyd’s shoes. I’m not him and I have never been in a situation remotely close to his, but if I were forced to answer, I’m not sure I would do very much differently. I might insist on non-lethal force being used. But here is the thing; if I were in any way responsible for the well-being of thousands of people – many of whom are non-Christians and innocent children – it would be foolhardy for me not to take steps to ensure their safety. This would be especially true if there were an eminent threat. OCC has a hired security guard (who is not armed to my knowledge) and a relationship with the JPD – are these safety measures un-Christian or is it wise to protect students on campus? I don’t see safety as a concession to the world. I see it as wisdom. Now, how would I respond if there was a tragedy? Probably with as little words as possible. We usually get into the most problems when we open our mouths (see Job). I would weep and pray for all the lost life especially the mad-man who initiated such evil and attempt to find moments of redemption and reconciliation and euangellion in the tragedy. What I would not appreciate is the peanut gallery thousands of miles away telling me (and all those who read his web-site) that the way I handled the situation was wrong and un-Christian (even if I did not in fact handle it in the best way possible). There is a time for assessment and rebuke – that time is usually not in the immediate wake of tragedy. Thom, I am not trying to attack you or your position. I’m simply saying how I would feel as that pastor. I might ask you all some more immediately relevant pastoral questions in return. If a non-Christian becomes a Christian at your church and he is also a gun carrying police officer who loves his job and does it well, will you instruct him that he must eventually give up his position? How hard will you insist? If a godly woman in your church has a son who is also a Christian, and this son is sent to Iraq (a situation I’ve dealt with), will you send the family a letter of “prophetic rebuke” in response? If one of your elders is an officer in the Army (as was the case for me in Illinois – he is a godly man and one of my dear friends who has been a contagious disciple of Christ as a leader in the military), will you ask him to step down as an elder? On what scriptural grounds? If a woman in your church was raped, will you instruct her not to prosecute? If you discover a child in your church is being physically beaten, will you not intervene – legally and maybe even violently if necessary – to save that child? Will you withdraw financial support from a children’s home in the Philippines that employs armed guards at the gate to protect the home and the children (my own sister was adopted from such a home)? Here I go bringing up absurd questions again, but I don’t think they are all that absurd. The reason why I have adopted a certain amount of resistance to many of these ideas is because I always have questions like these circulating in my mind. Which leads me to my last point…
7. If I am forced to pick between the Teacher of Ecclesiastes and Jesus, I will of course choose Jesus. But I don’t see anything necessarily contradictory in the message of Ecclesiastes (I noticed that this particular text wasn’t addressed in your reply) when he says that there is a time for everything under the sun. In my admittedly post-Constantinian, pre-Yoderian reading of Ecclesiastes, I observe that wisdom leaves the door open for the complexities of life. I understand that this wisdom is not prescriptive, it is merely descriptive. I also understand that we could push this text to the level of absurdity (is there ever a time for drop-kicking puppies or racial genocide?) However, be that as it may, the description still stands. There is not a standard answer for every different question. We must have wise discernment in this messy (if I can use that word again) world. In conclusion, I have nothing against pacifism. Who would have anything bad to say about non-violence or peace? It’s like speaking badly against Mr. Rogers. Who in the world would do that? In fact, I am declaring today that I am a pacifist! I’m just a moderate or nuanced pacifist. Since I have already spelled out (in a very rudimentary way I admit) my nuanced pacifism in a previous post, I will not rehash it here. But this is not a flippant issue for me. It is a very serious issue – and that is part of the reason I have taken a more nuanced position.
Sorry for the length. It would appear that Thom is beginning to rub off on me.
This is a typo correction of DeFazio's last comments, a few comments up. He was quoting Paul and said, "What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those inside. 'Expel the wicked person from among you'."
It should read, "God will judge those outside.
Dan said…
Rags:
I am so glad to hear that you are finally a pacifist! I will be telling every one I talk to over the next few weeks. And I'll be sure not to include the fact that you are a "nuanced" pacifist.
Whoever the anonymous poster is from a few entries up:
(1) In turn, I would like to publicly rebuke you for such ridiculous comments.
Additionally, I would like to ask you to:
(2) Re-read the Sermon on the Mount and realize what casting your pearls before swine really meant. (If you do, I suspect you will find that it has something to do with how we respond to injustice and who we place our hope and trust in).
(3) Recognize that we all understand there are forces of evil in the world. In fact, this post would make little sense if that were not the case, we just happen to believe that as Christians, we should act in accordance with the teachings and life of Jesus in our response to that evil.
(4) Re-read Thom's letter to realize that his entire argument is not based on the shooter being a non-Christian. It was certainly mentioned, but to claim that it was the main argument indicates that you need to re-read and re-think what was being said.
(5)Ask yourself, "when Paul rebuked the sinful practices of the Corinthian church, was he being unloving?" In accordance with your reasoning, you would probably have to answer yes, in which case you might as well throw in a public rebuke of the inspired apostle while you are at it.
(6) Quite writing in anonymity, in the Christian community it makes sense to stand behind what you believe and speak truth to people who actually have a way of knowing who you are.
(7) Forgive me if this sounded unkind. Your post clearly indicated that you have not read this entire thread, haven't thought through these issues, haven't read Matthew 7 and 21 in their literary and historical contexts, and haven't taken Jesus' words and example seriously. And not only is that frustrating, it is wrong.
Ha! Thanks, Dan. Is there like a button that I could wear on my "Yoder is my homeboy" T-shirt?
If there isn't, we can get one for you. Since your doing it, I'm sure Damien will want to jump on board, too, so I'll be sure to get a couple.
I'll try to post in response to Chad's comments as soon as I can, but in the meantime, I'd just like to remind everybody that one of the "nuances" of Chad's pacifism is that he supports the current war in Iraq, if not as a just war, then at least as, in his own words, "a grim necessity."
Okay, this is an aside, a very far aside. I have noticed that some of you all have been using "post" to refer to comments, and I am just wondering if my understanding of the blog lingo is deficient or what. Here's my understanding:
Post: e.g. "Death at New Life"
Comment: e.g. What I'm writing now.
Thread: a post + all its comments.
Am I using these wrong, or what?
;-)
Thom, I agree with you that Chad's pacifism isn't really pacifistic, but I still look forward to being able to call him a pacifist. I'll use this as a way of convincing freshmen and sophomores that they should be pacifists, too.
Here's something interesting I came across in my re-reading of Bainton. It pertains to the discussion of the prohibitions in Acts 15. I'll quote Bainton at length:
RE: ACTS 15
"Concretely, the early Church saw an incompatibility between love and killing. In later time the attitude and the act were harmonized on the ground that the destruction of the body does not entail the annihilation of the soul [Greek, not biblical, thinking]. The early
Church had an aversion to bloodshed, however. To some extent this was due to the Western text of the Apostolic Decrees, recorded in Acts 15. The Eastern text, which came to prevail enacted abstention from 'things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication.' In this context, blood was taken to mean the eating of blood. The Western text, as knows to a long series of Latin authors from Tertullian to Augustine, read: 'To abstain from things sacrificed to idols, from fornication, and from blood,' plus the Golden Rule. In that context blood was taken to mean bloodshed. Whichever text is historically correct, and many scholars regard the Western as the more defensible, the form containing bloodshed was early and widely received. It was applied alike to murder, capital punishment, and killing in war. On the basis of this verse Tertullian formulated the three irremissible sins as idolatry, adultery, and homicide [which included any form of killing, including the ordinarily legal varieties]. Augustine testified that many regarded these three as crimina mortifera. This is not to say of course that the aversion to effusio sanguinis [bloodshed] rested solely upon the Western form of this text. The Easterners equally shrank from bloodshed." (Roland H. Bainton, Christian Attitudes to War and Peace: A Historical Survery and Critical Re-evaluation, 77-8)
I don't cite this because I think it gives a definitive answer to the Acts 15 question. I just thought it was interesting that there was a textual variant here [the Nestle-Aland has the Eastern text] and that the whole Western tradition did in fact take Acts 15 to be a prohibition against human bloodshed.
I don't particularly care which of the two variants is the original. My New Testament pacifism has never been based on Acts 15, and there's no need for it to start now. Moreover, as Bainton pointed out, the Western tradition's pacifism was not based on Acts 15 either; it was just one text among many which informed their pacifism.
I just thought it was interesting, and I also brought it up in response to Chad's earlier derision of Tertullian for his view of adultery as the unforgivable sin. This serves as a corrective. Tertullian's view of the unforgivable sin was that there were three unforgivable sins: idolatry, adultery, and the killing of another human. His selection of these three sins was not random but was based on the Western text of Acts 15, and according to Augustine, Tertullian was not alone but was "among many" in regarding these three sins as "mortal sins." Moreover, I hardly need to point out that these sins were not unforgivable for unbelievers converting to Christ; they were unforgivable when they were committed post-baptism. That is not to defend their status as "unforgivable," but merely to qualify it.
sorry,
i know i'm not really a part of this conversation, but, N. T. Wright's interview over at http://www.wittenburgdoor.com/heavy-theological-dude-mistakenly-talks-us
seemed helpful here (mostly affirming what's already been said). from the interview (sorry it's a bit long, but, the end is really nice, especially his integration with Volf, whose book is wonderful in my opinion):
DOOR: Is that why you write that “the call of the Gospel is for the church to implement the victory of God in the world through suffering love?”
WRIGHT: The cross is not just an example to be followed; it is an achievement to be worked out, put into practice. But it is an example nonetheless, because it is the exemplar—the template, the model for what God now wants to do by his Spirit in the world, through his people. It is the start of the process of redemption, in which suffering and martyrdom are the paradoxical means by which victory is won.
DOOR: So where does forgiveness fit in?
WRIGHT: Some people believe that when it comes to forgiveness, you just draw a line and forget it even though it’s tough and messy. But this is too simple. In Miroslav Volf’s excellent book Exclusion and Embrace, his basic argument is this: Whether we are dealing with international relations or one-on-one personal relations, evil must be named and confronted. There must be no sliding around it, no attempt—whether for the sake of an easy life or in search of a quick fix—to present it as if it wasn’t so bad after all. Only when that has been done, when both the evil and the evil doer have been identified as what and who they are—this is what Volf means by “exclusion”—can there be the second move towards the “embrace” of the one who has deeply hurt and wounded us or me.
If I have named the evil, and done my best to offer genuine forgiveness and reconciliation, then I am free to love the person even if they don’t want to respond.
DOOR: Any examples of putting this into action?
WRIGHT: Two examples here. The first is Desmond Tutu and his work on the Commission on Truth and Reconciliation. I have no hesitation in saying that the fact of such a body even existing, let alone doing the work it has done, is the most extraordinary sign of the power of the Christian gospel in the world in my lifetime. We only have to think for a moment of how unthinkable such a thing would have been 25 years ago, or indeed how unthinkable such a thing would still be in Beirut, Belfast or—God help us—Jerusalem to see that something truly remarkable has taken place for which we should thank God in fear and trembling.
The second example is the killing of the Amish school children. The families of the girls who were killed extended forgiveness to the man and comforted the family. Also, these families insisted that some of the money raised by the Mennonites to support them be given to support the family of the shooter, who killed himself. These countercultural examples show how the Christian community can react.
ps - i thought thom's initial letter was a good example of volv's "exlusion" and calling evil what it is (at least this much).
*volf
JPB -
You're a part of any conversation I'm a part of.
Chad said: It would appear that Thom is beginning to rub off on me.
Thom says: Unfortunately, I don’t think this is true.
Chad said: At least by my understanding pacifism is being assumed as an essential part of the earliest Christian kerygma. If that is the case, you would assume to see it in this letter to the Gentile converts. There are, after all, ethical instructions in the letter but nothing about leaving military positions or the like.
Thom says: I think that's silly. The vast majority of Gentile converts to Christianity were poor, slave class. There were some rich, and at least a few soldiers early on, but they were clearly in the minority. Acts 15 gives instructions that apply to all Gentiles; it gives no instructions that apply to one segment of Gentile society, whether military or otherwise. The theological dispute had nothing to do with pacifism. Jesus’ teaching on the matter was clear enough. (Only much later did Christians start maneuvering their way around Jesus’ commandments.) The theological dispute was over how Gentiles were to become partakers with Israel in the promise, and thus the instructions given pertain to the question at hand, not to some other question that was not in dispute.
Chad said: You would also expect to see pacifism as a part of Paul’s preaching all through Acts, but you do not.
Thom says: No. YOU do not. But it is preached by Paul through his actions, through his mode of ministry, and in his letters quite explicitly. (If you're interested, JPB wrote a great peace on Paul's conversion from a violent M.O. to a nonviolent one. Let me know and I'll email it to you.) Peter preaches the gospel of peace through Jesus Christ (not the gospel of peace through Caesar) to Cornelius in Acts 11. That is the preaching of pacifism. Peter explains to Cornelius that it was Jesus, not Caesar, who accomplished peace—the gathering together of the nations into one peaceable kingdom. If you were a Centurion and you became loyal to an enemy of the Roman state who was assassinated by your own comrades-in-arms, what kinds of problems do you think that would create for your occupation? What would you do about it? I would feel betrayed, betrayed by the false ideology to which I’d devoted my life, and I would renounce the false ideology in order to enter into service to the true peaceable empire. I would do exactly as tradition (East and West) says Cornelius did, as well as many, many soldiers just like him.
Chad said: He does indeed talk of suffering for the gospel but nothing along the lines of the comprehensive pacifism that is being promoted here.
Thom says: Suffering for the gospel is not comprehensive? Tell me, Chad. What facet of your existence does not fall sway to the gospel? Are you only required to act like a Christian when you’re being persecuted as one? If an attacker doesn’t know you’re a Christian, or doesn’t care one way or the other, does that exempt you from the gospel of sufferings? In what kind of scenario, exactly, are we exempted from following Jesus? When is God’s power-displayed-in-weakness not strong enough? When, precisely, are we required to give up the church’s way of dealing with evil in order to take up the world’s way? When is suffering for the gospel not worth it for you?
Chad said: Further, I find it remarkable that such a radical shift in the thinking of the Church happened at the time of Constantine without any reference (at least to my limited knowledge) to a universal church council addressing this issue. How did such a radical change happen without major conflict and discussion? Was Constantine that powerful that they had to have two meetings that hashed out the canon, but not a single meeting saying, “OK, pacifism is so “second-century.” From now on it’s nothing but militarism and forced conversions. Ye-haw!”
Thom says: During and for a while after the reign of Constantine, there were still serious and very vocal objections by theologians to the trend toward militarism. Lactantius, the tutor to Constantine’s own son, was one of the loudest voices of protest against the direction the church was heading. Why did the church change? Well, here’s one big reason: many believed that Constantine had ushered in the millennium (among them Eusebius). They saw the new era as a cataclysmic eschatological shift. They were wrong, to be sure, and that contributed to the change in ethics. Another reason: the church underwent a ten-year period of intense persecution that ended with the ascent of Constantine as the emperor of a newly reunited Roman empire. Constantine had effectively “saved” them, and many were more than happy to help him out in return. Christians enjoyed privilege and power after Constantine. Before, they had rejected such opportunities as unchristian. Now the church was becoming invested in the well being of Rome, because it saw Rome as the church’s patron. This was made possible in part by their belief that a Roman emperor had ushered in the millennium. Prior to this time, the church consistently rejected Rome’s claims to being patron, even when Rome offered its patronage to Christians. (This was a strategy to bring Christians under a greater degree of control.) God, and God alone, was the patron of the church. Now, that was beginning to change. Another factor in the radical ethical transformation of the church was a progressively more lax process of conversion. Within a few decades after the time of Constantine, the process of conversion to Christianity was shortened. Not only was the catechesis process reduced from three years to one month, the process by which catechumens were approved was virtually erased. Before, a potential catechumen had to meet certain ethical criteria in order to be approved. Now, anyone and everyone was approved. By the time of Augustine, infants were automatically catechized.
Obviously there is no single reason why all of this took place. If you’re looking for a simple answer, Chad, you won’t find one. But the fact that all this did take place is historically incontrovertible. As the church grew in number, it came to look, and act, more and more like Rome. It’s called deterioration, and it happens to everything. Before Constantine, there were many Christian soldiers, but they were explicitly forbidden (by theologians, church authorities, and church manuals/orders) from shedding blood. This was possible because there were many opportunities for soldiers to do work other than fighting. Many Christian soldiers were firefighters, administrators, etc. Others were killed for not using the sword in the face of battle. Others still were spared because, in one instance, their prayers brought rain in time of drought. Nevertheless, eventually, the Christians in the Roman military became more and more Roman militants, less and less Christian. This gradual shift was concurrent with all the other shifts mentioned above. And it was not met without protest by ardent voices who spoke in continuity with the pre-Constantinian church.
The fact that there was no council addressing this issue shows that the majority of church authorities saw the shift in a favorable light. Dissenting voices did speak up, but they were in the minority. Lactantius was a public official before he became a Christian. He resigned his office when he converted. Later, he was called upon by Constantine to become his son’s tutor. Lactantius accepted, and began to speak out against all these unfaithful shifts the church was allowing, as well as against Roman imperialist propaganda. For instance, Lactantius was fond of pointing out that Rome’s “just wars” were no such thing. Lactantius was not alone. There were others who spoke out against Roman and Christian militarism both, and there were many soldiers who for several decades after Constantine continued to renounce the sword and the military life. They were now the minority, but they stood in continuity with the former majority. Interestingly, when Julian the Apostate became emperor, he kicked out of the government all of the Christians, telling them that it was against their own laws to have held such positions to begin with. Julian, enemy of Christianity, was more in step with ante-Nicene Christianity on that point than were the Christians themselves. After Julian, however, another Christian emperor took the throne, and the church’s descent into Romanism was made complete.
Before Constantine, no Christian was permitted to use the sword. Any Christian who did so was either excommunicated or censured. Within one hundred years after Constantine, no non-Christian was permitted to be a Roman soldier. The process was gradual, but it was a real process that led from one position to its opposite. And no one was forced to convert, Chad. However, after Constantine, and except during Julian’s short stint, it was politically advantageous to be Christian. So while forced conversions didn’t come until much later, there was political pressure to become Christian in the new “Constantinian” era. Couple that with the fact, mentioned above, that conversion was a much easier process that paid little attention to ethics, and you can begin to get a picture of what led to the widespread abandonment of the ethics of the Sermon on the Mount. (It wasn’t just nonviolence that Christians were abandoning either. Converts to Christianity were just all kinds of wicked.) Most of this wasn’t Constantine’s fault, by the way. Sure, he used Christianity to solidify the unification of the Roman empire, and he used his political power to unite Christianity doctrinally. But apart from that, the vast majority of the blame falls on the Christian leaders themselves who, in order to continue to enjoy political privilege, became more focused on doctrine than on ethics. The designations “pre-Constantinian,” “post-Constantinian,” etc., refer more to the era than to the man himself. He just has the unhappy fortune of being the most controversial historical marker in church history.
Chad said: Part of the problem that we have in talking about this particular issue may be that I (and many others) have placed it into that nebulous category of opinion or personal conscience. To me, pacifism is an area where good Christians will disagree.
Thom says: This is where we were when we began the conversation, Chad. Our challenges have been primarily to this characterization of the issue. Who is the more Christian, Chad: the Amish girl who said, “Kill me and spare them,” or the security woman who said, “Drop it or I’ll shoot”? If you say that both are equally Christian responses, I need to know which “Christ” it is that’s controlling your use of the word “Christian.” If you say that the Amish girl is more Christian, then that is the same as saying that the security woman is less Christian. If the one is more and the other is less, then the one is better and the other is worse. Better and worse is good and bad.
“Well,” you might say, “the Amish girl didn’t have a gun. The situation is different.” Yes, precisely. The situation is entirely different, because as a matter of faith and principle the Amish don’t have guns. The difference in the two situations is precisely the point. The Amish don’t prepare for potential massacres by rounding up gunpersons. They prepare for massacres by praying for their enemies. Which mode of preparation is the more Christian? At what point, precisely, would Jesus lock and load?
Chad said: For many of you pacifism it seems has been placed in the category of essential – you cannot really call yourself a good Christian (or a Christian at all?) if you are not a pacifist.
Thom says: Jesus said, “Blessed are the peacemakers [i.e. pacifists], for they will be called ‘sons of God.’” He also said, “Love your enemies. Pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.” In both cases, Jesus predicates peacemaking, enemy-love, a readiness to suffer, on sonship. This is what the Father looks like. If you are truly a son, this is how you will look too. I’m not the one making it a Christian essential, Chad. It always has been. The fact that it isn’t considered an essential by a majority of Christians doesn’t make it less so. Now, there is a difference between a generally peaceable Christian who believes that in theory it might be necessary to use violence and a generally peaceable Christian who actually does use violence. The latter is a bad Christian. The former is a potentially bad Christian. The former has a deficient understanding of what it means to be Christian, and thus they are more prone to actually do what for a Christian is bad. But there is a bit of a difference, I think, between a Christian just-war theorist and a Christian warrior. The former sits on the sidelines and hypothesizes about being unchristian, and calling it Christian. The latter puts it all on the line and just goes out and acts like a pagan. I have more respect for the latter than for the former, although the sin of the latter is actual while the sin of the former is only potential. That said, most Christian warriors are not just-war theorists prior to being warriors. (Note that I do not call them “just-warriors.” That is because there has never been a war that has met just-war criteria.) Most of them aren’t just-warriors; they’re just warriors, and I have no respect for that. Most people assume “just cause” is sufficient to declare a war just, and so as soon as they get duped into thinking that this particular war is being fought for a “just cause,” they think they can go out and fight in good conscience. I’m getting off track.
Being pacifist is not all that being a Christian entails, but it is an integral part of what being a Christian entails. If you are not a pacifist thinker, then you are a deficient Christian. If you are a Christian who actively uses violence against violence, then you are an unchristian Christian. I’ll leave it to God to decide who gets resurrected and who doesn’t. As far as being saved, the liberation from the vicious cycle of violence is part of what the New Testament says we have been saved from. So in that very important regard, I would say that a Christian who thinks s/he can use violence against violence and still be Christian (in deed) is an unsaved person, because they have not been saved from the world’s form of life. God can have mercy on whom he will have mercy, but God’s mercy cannot be written into a Christian ethic as a way out of having to have Christian ethics.
85% percent of Americans call themselves “Christian.” Tell me, Chad, what are your criteria for widdling that figure down to reality?
Chad said: A person like me will accuse you of being arrogant (for which I apologize if that offended) or legalistic (for which I don’t really apologize).
Thom says: I don’t think you’re being very genuine, Chad. No one is offended, and you’re persistence in apologizing for “offending” us seems to me a clever way of making us look like babies. If we’ve objected to your calling us arrogant, it is not because we are offended, but because we disagree with you what constitutes arrogance. I, for one, am an arrogant person, but not at all for the reasons you’ve given. The way I see this issue does not make me arrogant. You believe that baptism is essential, or that belief in the resurrection is essential. That does not make you arrogant. If someone was in dialogue with you denying that belief in the resurrection is an essential part of the Christian faith, and if you told him flatly that it was and gave your reasons for it, and if he in turn turned around and called you arrogant, you would not get offended. You would correct it as a category mistake, just as we have.
Furthermore, your persistence in seeing our position as a legalistic one, even after you explicitly conceded to my refutation of that charge, says to me either (1) you are not interested in grasping the nature of our position or (2) you are not at present capable of grasping the nature of our position. I hope it’s the latter.
Chad said: I’m certainly not saying that we shouldn’t debate and even argue about non-essentials.
Thom says: What non-essentials? What are you talking about? This is the problem with that whole approach to Christian dialogue. Rarely do Christians agree on what the essentials and non-essentials are, and never in the really important conversations. What do you mean by “essentials” and “non-essentials” anyway? Are you talking about core doctrines? Or are you talking about ethics? Are you talking about the essential relationship between doctrines and ethics? Pacifism is more of an ethical question than a doctrinal question, though doctrinal views will often control our ethical imagination. For instance, the reduction of the cross to one or another atonement theory, particularly satisfaction atonement theories, is related to a subtle Donatism, the rejection of the full humanity of Christ. But it’s an ethical question nonetheless. If it’s an ethical question primarily then it’s not an essential in the same way that the belief in the pre-existence of Christ is an essential, or baptism for remission of sins. But the condemnation of adultery is not an essential in that way either, and yet it’s essential to the Christian faith. You cannot be a Christian and affirm adultery in certain limited circumstances. You can be a Christian and commit adultery, provided you repent of it as a failure, but you cannot be a Christian and affirm it, even if only in certain limited circumstances.
I find it baffling that you think the Old Testament presents a problem for Christian pacifism. You say, “If war is so wrong, then why did God command the Israelites to go to war?” Notice that you don’t say: “If genocide is so wrong, then why did God command the Israelites to kill women and babies?” Here’s another thing you don’t say: “If stoning to death adulterers and Sabbath breakers is so wrong, then why did God command that adulterers and Sabbath breakers be stoned to death?” You say, “Jesus changed all that.” And so say we.
Chad said: I just think a lot of times we are not connecting in our discussion because we aren’t seeing this issue on quite the same level. I don’t really know how to solve this problem except that we need to tolerate each other with patience and allow ourselves to continue to be taught by each other.
Thom says: I wholeheartedly agree.
Chad said: Was Jesus non-violent in his salvific agenda? Yes.
Thom says: What do you mean be Jesus’ “salvific agenda”? Do you mean that Jesus was only nonviolent because he had to die for our sins, and that since we can’t die for anyone’s sins, his nonviolence doesn’t apply to us? If that’s the case, then why did he command us to be nonviolent? Why did Peter command us to follow Jesus’ example of suffering? Why did John in Revelation command the same, and say that our suffering coupled with his is what saves us? I think that in your statement there’s an implicit reduction of Jesus’ “salvific agenda” to some kind of satisfaction theory of atonement, and I worry about you in that case.
Chad said: Was Jesus a “pacifist?” I’m not sure. The problem is that when you assign a title like “pacifist” to Jesus, you are also assigning to him all of the baggage that comes with contemporary or not-so-contemporary expressions of pacifism.
Thom says: Pacifist means “peace-maker.” Pacifism is also shorthand in Christian circles for nonviolent, suffering servanthood, belief in the resurrection of the dead, enemy-love, overcoming evil with good, etc. etc. As far as the baggage goes, that’s your baggage, not ours. We’ll help you shed it, but you can’t blame us for your own baggage as a part of your argument against us. When we say that Jesus was a pacifist, we don’t mean, Jesus was Tim Robbins. That said, he was a hell of a lot more like Gandhi and Martin Luther King than you might think. Anyway, all of us pacifists had to figure out what Jesus’ pacifism entails and what it doesn’t entail. Some of us are still in good, healthy debate about it. If you want to call yourself a pacifist, as you have done, then you’re not exempt from that journey. And I hope you figure out soon that Jesus’ pacifism doesn’t entail carrying a gun to church and/or going to war for peace.
Chad said: With which type of modern-day pacifist would Jesus most identify?
Thom says: Not you.
Chad said: The fact is that we don’t exactly know Jesus’ mind on so many specific contemporary questions (pacifism aside).
Thom says: Pacifism not aside. We do know his mind on that “contemporary question.” You may not, but we do. This is your favorite evasive tactic, Chad: the reductio ad ambiguum, to coin a phrase.
Chad said: And so we run the risk of whittling down some very complicated and complex issues to a simple WWJD statement.
Thom says: No. Rather, we recognize that Jesus’ historical/political situation was just as complicated and complex as our own, if not in many ways more so, and that within that situation he said a simple and firm “no” to violence, even while many of revolutionaries like him were saying a great big “yes.” We also recognize that Jesus’ simple and firm “no” to violence was not based in some otherworldly spirituality in which the kingdom becomes “spiritualized” and “internalized.” We recognize that Jesus’ nonviolence was a thoroughly nuanced political strategy, and it was designed to deal with evil head on, and it was passed on to Jesus’ followers as a normative political strategy for the political entity we have come to call “church.” If our pacifism seems to you like a simple WWJD statement, maybe that’s because you aren’t taking Jesus seriously enough as a fully-human historical figure. Have you considered that?
Chad said: After all, you could read the NT and assign Jesus any number of titles depending on the theological presupposition of the day (which the third-questers have been so apt to do) – Jesus as cynic philosopher, social prophet, eschatological prophet, spiritual guru, ethical pacifist, etc.
Thom says: Reductio ad ambiguum. The existence of a multiplicity of diverging views does not make the discovery of the right one/s impossible or unlikely. I’ve no doubt you’ve done some third quest research, but Dan and Tyler and I have probably read more than you have, and Mark Moore has read more than all of us put together times eight, and he, and we three, are historically convinced that Jesus was an eschatological prophet, Hebrew king, and an ethical/political pacifist all rolled into one. And we also believe that the politics of Jesus are for us and you and anyone who calls him or herself a Christian. N.T. Wright thinks the same way, as does Richard Hays, Ben Witherington and on and on and on.
Chad said: You still want specific examples of those who work from within the system? I’m afraid you’ve rejected all of my examples a priori. You simply have the assumption that peace cannot be accomplished by someone who carries a gun.
Thom says: Chad, you still owe us the examples. Aside from that, define “peace” for us. Are the “peacemakers” that Jesus blesses in Matthew 5:9 soldiers and police officers? Yes, that’s what Rome called its soldiers—peacemakers. The U.S. invades a country and calls its occupying forces “peacekeepers.” Is this what Jesus is talking about in his sermon? You chastise Tyler for having the “assumption that peace cannot be accomplished by someone who carries a gun.” Think about that for a second, Chad. That doesn’t seem counterintuitive to you, Bible instructor that you are? “Put your sword back in its place. For he who lives by the sword… makes peace?” Don’t you see that’s just what Peter was attempting to do? To right a wrong, to overturn an injustice, to make peace. Don’t you see that that’s just what Jesus was tempted to do in the wilderness, and again in the garden? To make peace through military conquest, through force? Every corrupt regime in Latin America that has overthrown the prior corrupt regime did so on the grounds that they were making peace. Were their intentions all ignoble from the outset? Or is it that violence itself corrupts? Is it that violence itself is not what God intended and is not in God’s character?
Chad said: Adding to the frustration is that Jesus when asked about this issue [the government] just kind of blows it off.
Thom says: Uh, ballocks. He doesn’t “just kind of blow it off.” He gave an answer that amazed everybody, according to the text. Maybe your reading of Jesus’ answer is deficient, and that’s why you’re so confused and frustrated with the question. I for one am not confused and frustrated with the question, because I see Jesus’ answer as an ingenious double-entendre: an evasion of the political trap that both undermines that integrity of the ones who set the trap and the authority of the government who is supposed to be the threat at the end of the trap. Jesus calls the Pharisees and the Romans idolaters, and gets away with it! That’s amazing! And it fits right in with everything we know about the exilic prophets’ view of pagan government.
Chad said: There’s no doubt that pacifism is firstly a personal ethic (turn the other cheek), but in a comprehensive ethical system, questions of institutional violence become inevitable.
Thom says: Neither is there any doubt that it’s a comprehensive political ethic for a people loyal to Jesus as their one and only King. There’s no doubt in my mind. For 250 years, the Sermon on the Mount was the most quoted part of the Bible, and “turn the other cheek” was not interpreted merely interpersonally. The majority of the time, “turn the other cheek” was used in discussions of why Christians do not fight in war, or resist persecution en masse. Your reading of the Sermon, I think, is deficient, precisely because you see the “interpersonal” as the obvious meaning. A Jewish reader of Matthew would have read the entire sermon in the same way they read the Decalogue: as national law. Matthew spends his first four chapters preparing his readers to read the Sermon in just that fashion. Moses=Jesus. The death of the male children=the death of the male children. Pharaoh=Herod. Israel=Jesus. The Red Sea=Baptism. 40 Years in the Wilderness=40 Days in the Wilderness. All that’s missing is the giving of the Law. And then, “Jesus went up on a mountainside and sat down.” No Jew is going to read the Sermon and think about it as an individualistic ethical exhortation. They are going to read it as Law, as a political manifesto, not for the person, but for a people. That is how the early Christians read it, for hundreds of years. Moreover, you really should read Wink’s essay, “Jesus and Nonviolence: A Third Way,” and Stassen’s “Fourteen Triads of the Sermon on the Mount.” In the former you’ll learn that “turn the other cheek,” “give your tunic also,” and “go the second mile,” are subversive, nonviolent strategies of resistance with a view to conflict transformation, that only make sense as an alternative to militant revolution. Jesus is teaching an oppressed people how not to be oppressed without resorting to violence. This is not an “interpersonal ethic,” although it certainly applies equally to interpersonal relations. This is a message for a nation on how to resist an occupying force. Questions of institutional violence are precisely what “turn the other cheek” is providing an answer to.
Chad said: So, at the risk of repeating myself, is justice and civil order a godly ethic?
Thom says: Justice is precisely the concern of the Christian community, as a community. Justice can be fought for and won without recourse to violence, as Martin Luther King, Jr. showed, following the example of Jesus. The kind of stuff King did is exactly the kind of stuff Jesus was telling his people to do when he said, “Turn the other cheek,” “give the tunic also,” and “go the second mile.” (Read the short essay by Wink, "Jesus and Nonviolence: A Third Way." It’s on EbscoHost.)
The role of the government to preserve civil order by the sword is not a godly ethic, even if God permits it. It is a sinful ethic that exists because of sin, and those that participate in it are, according to the OT prophets, condemned. In a post-Constantinian environment, Christians always ask: Why would Christians leave civic order to pagans if they didn’t have to? That’s backwards. The exilic Hebrews and the early Christians saw it the other way around: why would God’s people take over a pagan state, ordained because of sin? Remember that kingship even within Israel was opposed by God in 1 Samuel 8 because it would make Israel like all the other nations. The call for God’s people is not to be rulers but to be ruled by God. The early Christians saw the pagan government as a necessary part of God’s rule for pagans. But that kind of rule is precisely the kind that Jesus renounces for himself and his followers in Mark 10:42-45. It leads to corruption, and it is contrary to God’s own nature. Christians are to be ruled by God and the rulers of none, and they are to be subordinate to the worldly rulers for the sake of the unruly world. Our contemporary question, “Why would Christians leave the governing to pagans?” betrays our unjewish thinking on the matter. God is in control of the pagan governments, all of whom do not even acknowledge God. It is not our place to try to obtain that control. It is our place to be an alternative politic that is structurally capable of and actually witnessing to the New Creation in which war, and injustice, and enmity, are no more. The church certainly does have a higher calling. And the early Christian and exilic Hebrew logic was that all the people of God constituted a holy nation that was separate from the nations.
Chad said: If civil justice is a godly ethic, might Christians actually participate in the system that works for such justice always reserving the right to withdraw from the system (even under penalty of death) if it clashes with their primary loyalty? Didn’t so many in the military actually take this approach in early Christian centuries?
Thom says: If you’ll check out my series of 30 posts on the early Christians’ nonviolence, you’ll see that they saw the use of the sword as an issue of “primary loyalty,” not just idolatry. Christians who wished to become soldiers were denied. Soldiers who became Christian were permitted to stay in the military provided that they dispense with their use of the sword, as well as idolatry and the taking of oaths. This was possible because there were a number of tasks soldiers were assigned to perform when Rome was not on campaign, including firefighting, and administrative work. Christians generally resigned from the military when wartime came around, and some of them did so upon pain of death.
Chad said: You say ordering society is not the job for Christians. Why? If you mean that Christians have a higher calling, I would agree. But in my opinion that higher calling does not necessarily mean that I cannot function as a kingdom agent in that position.
Thom says: The early Christians disagreed with you, so long as the “civic order” required the Christian to use violence. You’re understanding of the church’s “higher calling” is based on a bifurcated view of reality. You’re unbiblically and unfaithfully separating the spiritual/religious from the physical/political. You see salvation as a spiritual issue, and not as a political one. For Jesus, there was no distinction.
Chad said: Now, given your argument that creating order and safety is not the Christian’s job, at what point do we become complicit in the system? When we pay taxes (which seems to be a Christian ethic)? When we vote? When we accept government benefits or handouts?
Thom says: The early church generally drew the line at complicity with bloodshed. Christians neither participated in nor were present during bloodshed. That does not mean they closed their eyes to the reality of it. They critiqued the violence in the government, through their writing, and, they believed, by their alternate lifestyle. Their refusal to participate in violence was not simply a way for them to escape personal guilt. It was that, but a hundred times more than that it was a protest. I’ve already dealt with your tax problem (yours not mine). You ignore my answer, as you do most of my answers. As for the vote, in most cases it’s useless. There are some votes that count, especially votes on things like abortion and the like. But as for voting for president, that doesn’t really affect much. Moreover, again, you're painting us as legalists, but the legalism problem is yours, not ours. I think you’re a legalistic thinker, because I’ve never run into an opponent to pacifism (which you are, like it or not) that forces these kinds of questions so frequently and so stubbornly on our position. Most laypersons/non-theologians I’ve talked to about these issues grasp our position much quicker than you seem to be capable of doing. I’m not name-calling. I’m saying that I think that when you call us legalists or argue that our position requires such legalistic questions, you’re really just projecting your own problems onto us.
Say I voted for Bush in 2000 (I did not). He ran on an (militarily) isolationist program. He said America should not be into “nation-building.” He said the American military should not be used to create democracies. He said all sorts of things like that which I agree with. (He also said some things I don’t agree with, but let’s pretend for the hypothetical that I agreed with virtually everything he said in 1999). Hell, he even said that Jesus was his favorite political philosopher! Jesus is my favorite political philosopher too! Couple that again with his statement that he opposes using the U.S. military to turn dictatorships into democracies and wow! What a winner! So I vote for him, not because I think Bush is going to restore America back to its Christian principles. Not because I think he’s going to be our savior. Not because I think he’s so much better than all the other candidates because he says “God” and “Jesus” a little more. But simply because I think it’ll be good for the world if the rising imperial power starts repenting of its nation-building ventures of the past four decades. I vote for him because he’s against something Christians should be against, and that’s a limited good. In my determination, that’s a more important issue than health-care, and all that jazz (for purposes of the hypothetical at least). So Bush becomes president, and a year and a half later he starts crying apocalypse, and the world is epistemologically changed after 9/11, and he starts doing all the very things he said he was against on his 2000 ticket, and he proves definitively that he doesn’t have a clue what Jesus’ political philosophy was about. Who’s to blame? Me, or Bush? Well, Bush went back on his promises, but I still oppose the use of military for nation-building. Still, I played a small part in getting Bush elected. So I own up to my share of the responsibility, I repent of having voted for him, and I start actively opposing Bush’s “War on Terror.” Does this make me an inconsistent pacifist? Of course not. What would make me an inconsistent pacifist, or an inconsistent Christian, is if I continued to support him after it was apparent he was a liar and just as corrupt as most politicians, only because it would somehow be a betrayal of Evangelical Christianity to begin to oppose Bush.
Christians (should) understand that the government serves a limited role and that is ordained because of sin. We do not expect the government to be a representation of the New Creation like we expect the church to be. But the church is, among other things, the servant to the state. We serve the state first and foremost by modeling a politic that is rightly ordered by faith in and the worship of God. We serve the state secondly by encouraging it to continue to do right what it is doing right. And we serve the state thirdly by opposing it when it does wrong. If, for instance, the U.S. wages an unjust war, like this war in Iraq, or the prior one in Afghanistan, or the one in Kosovo, Viet Nam, Korea, etc. etc. etc., as well as its illegal strategies in WWII and in South America, Greece, etc. etc. etc. and here I mean “illegal” buy U.S. and international standards), the church should be the first in the U.S. and around the world to stand up unified in opposition to such evil. Or, off the topic of war, we oppose free-market globalist capitalism that serves the interest of a rich minority at the expense of a destitute majority, both at “home” and abroad. We oppose abortion. We oppose a corrupt education system. We oppose a medical system that leaves the majority of U.S. citizens uninsured, or insured though uncovered. We do all of this not because we think that the state is the answer for the world, but because the state is sadly necessary in a world that does not know God. Yet, we do not think for a moment that the task of the state and the task of the church are two different tasks. On the contrary, the church’s task is the same—to create peace and fellowship and friendship where there formerly was war and segregation and enmity. The church has a better way of accomplishing this task, because it creates a more thoroughgoing justice, and also because it is representative of God’s character. The state would not be necessary if it did not exist by the rebellious will of humanity. Men (usually men) set themselves up as rulers and consolidate power to serve their own interests and to create gods out of themselves. Consolidated human government preceded God’s ordination of it. Babel was the first one, and God upset it. Nevertheless, men just kept on doing it, and so God continued to frustrate the imperialist pretentions of men, restraining and limiting their evil, while using their evil to restrain further evil. If men did not keep making consolidated power systems, there would be no need for them. God uses the state to protect the world from the state. (That’s partially why Babel was broken up into different nations, but also because God loves diversity.)
All that aside, nowadays the reason government handouts are necessary is because the governments support systems that impoverish masses of people and take them off the land and make it nearly impossible to enjoy a healthy subsistence existence. Government handouts are a problem insomuch as they are treating symptoms not problems. But states are usually always going to happily impoverish people and then pay them back a bit to hide the fact, especially the bigger states. And the smaller states, of course, are dependent on the bigger ones because the bigger ones tend to use them up as “national resources.” That is why the church is supposed to embody a real political/economic alternative to, in our case, free-market capitalism. But in the absence of such an alternative, poor Christians sometimes are forced to turn to government handouts. So long as the government continues to steal from the powerless, the government should give back, and the poor are not to be blamed for receiving a bandage, even from the schizophrenic enemy that made the wound in the first place. That said, whether or not they are accepting government aid, the poor should unite in one voice to oppose those economically oppressive systems for which government aid is a cover-up. The government should outlaw credit-card companies and put a cap on interest rates for bank loans. The government would save money on handouts if it did, but if it did a powerful minority in the government would lose substantial financial support.
For some reason, Chad, despite the fact that I’m a pacifist and you’re not, I don’t think like you do on these issues--that is, I don't think like a legalist.
Chad said: Is there really a huge difference as you say between the judge and the marine?
Thom says: Not really. You can be a Marine and never kill anybody, and you can be a judge and be responsible for dozens of deaths. The early Christians did not permit Christian magistrates to pronounce a capital punishment on anyone.
Chad said: In summary I ask, what is the Christian’s role in government? Should we withdraw, should we revolt, should we ignore, should we reform from within?
Thom says: Yes.
Chad said: If I were in any way responsible for the well-being of thousands of people – many of whom are non-Christians and innocent children – it would be foolhardy for me not to take steps to ensure their safety.
Thom says: Then tell everybody to go home if their safety is what you’re worried about. Don’t bring in guns. What if your security guards fail? They fire, miss, the gunman kills them all and then, now even more pissed and jazzed, starts targeting children. Nevertheless, the early Christians were not only prepared to die themselves, they were prepared to let their wives and children die too. You see, they didn’t believe that women and children were exempt from being Christians, and, for that matter, neither did the women or the children. Even still, send all the women and children home, or hide them somewhere and have only men come out for the concert of hugs. If you’re worried about the unbelievers, send them home. Tell them that only those should stay who are committed to nonviolence because of discipleship. Or else, have the Christians surround the unbelievers so that only the Christians get killed. Or do any number of things.
Chad said: OCC has a hired security guard (who is not armed to my knowledge) and a relationship with the JPD – are these safety measures un-Christian or is it wise to protect students on campus?
Thom says: There is little wrong with an unarmed security guard, except that the security guards are usually not Christian and do not share Christian priorities in dealing with possible aggressors or criminals. Having a relationship with the police is unnecessary, and potentially undermines opportunities for unique witness to the gospel. If a car is stolen, the school should announce in the paper that it is giving the car to the thief, and that it is buying the student or the professor or the visitor a replacement vehicle. If that leads to an influx of stolen cars on campus, then we get to walk more. If the police want to do their thing, and stakeout, or tell us they don’t like how we’re dealing with it, that’s up to them. If they say we’re encouraging crime, we reply that we’re encouraging generosity.
Chad said: I don’t see safety as a concession to the world. I see it as wisdom.
Thom says: I see that as a blanket statement. And I see the wisdom of the world as folly, and the folly of the cross as wisdom. Furthermore, I think you idolize safety so much because you're a U.S. citizen, born and bred, and I'm sure that if you grew up in an environment similar to the kind Jesus grew up in, you would not be as concerned about safety as you are. Talk to a contemporary Palestinian Christian and ask them how high their personal and family safety is on their list of priorities.
Chad said: Now, how would I respond if there was a tragedy? Probably with as little words as possible. We usually get into the most problems when we open our mouths (see Job).
Thom says: I’m sorry to learn that you see being a pastor in a public tragedy as comparable to being one of Job’s friends. The Christian leader should speak up and tell the world what it means to be a Christian in the midst of tragedy.
Chad said: I would weep and pray for all the lost life especially the mad-man who initiated such evil and attempt to find moments of redemption and reconciliation and euangellion in the tragedy.
Thom says: I’m shocked and disappointed that after DeFazio’s challenge to you, you continue to dehumanize the young man who did this. Have you put any thought at all into what it was that led to him decide to target these Christians, and why he chose the missionary training center and the megachurch? Bush II carpet bombed Iraq, killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians, many of whom were Christians. I bet you’re not willing to call him a mad-man.
Chad said: What I would not appreciate is the peanut gallery thousands of miles away telling me (and all those who read his web-site) that the way I handled the situation was wrong and un-Christian (even if I did not in fact handle it in the best way possible).
Thom says: First, this thread is no peanut gallery. We’re not heckling anyone. I did not write the letter in that spirit, and that is clear from a cursory reading of the letter itself. And the comments have not been disrespectful, or juvenile, or any of the like. In fact, the first comment was a stipulation that those kinds of comments be avoided.
Second, if I were a pastor and I fell short of the gospel big time, in private or in public, I WOULD appreciate it if someone rebuked me for it. I know, because I’ve been privately and publicly rebuked before, and I like it. I’m sorry to hear that you wouldn’t appreciate it, and I hope that’s not true of Brady Boyd. I give him more credit than that, although, realistically I don’t imagine he’s even read my letter. I sent it in faith.
Chad said: If a non-Christian becomes a Christian at your church and he is also a gun carrying police officer who loves his job and does it well, will you instruct him that he must eventually give up his position?
Thom says: I would tell him outright that I believe the Scriptures require of all Christians the renunciation of violence, and I would tell him that I am not out to judge him, but that we need to meet together on a regular basis to examine the Scriptures together in their historical context. I would tell him that eventually the church would require him to take a desk job or some such within the police force, or else to resign, or else to leave the church. I would also stress that I understand how that position might anger him, or threaten him, and that our meetings together would allay that anger and those fears.
Chad said: How hard will you insist?
Thom says: As hard as becomes necessary, in fraternal love.
Chad said: If a godly woman in your church has a son who is also a Christian, and this son is sent to Iraq (a situation I’ve dealt with), will you send the family a letter of “prophetic rebuke” in response?
Thom says: Uh, why would I do this? First of all, unless she’s the minister or an elder, she’s not responsible for her interpretation of the Scriptures. Second of all, she’s not responsible for her son’s actions, even if she approves of them. Third, I wouldn’t blame the son either, and I wouldn’t send him a letter of rebuke. Notice, Chad, that I didn’t send the security guard a letter of rebuke. I sent the leader of the church a letter of rebuke. He’s the one responsible for training his church in faithfulness to the gospel. That doesn’t mean the security guard or the son have no responsibility for their actions, but by far the heaviest weight falls on those with the responsibility of faithfully teaching the Scriptures. So, in the case of the son in Iraq, I would blame you, or whoever the minister was or the teaching elders were during the boy’s decision to go to war for the U.S.
Chad said: If one of your elders is an officer in the Army (as was the case for me in Illinois – he is a godly man and one of my dear friends who has been a contagious disciple of Christ as a leader in the military), will you ask him to step down as an elder?
Thom says: I would require him not to wear any medals or colors he’s received for honor in battle, and I would require him not to go to war again if called, as well as to discourage other Christians under his command from going to war. I would require him to renounce his allegiance to the U.S., and never again to say the pledge of allegiance. I would not require him to officially retire from the military, but I would encourage it. I would, of course, meet with him regularly to go over the Scriptures so he’ll understand why this is so. If after a sufficient period of time he fails to be comply, I would most certainly ask him to step down as an elder.
Chad said: On what scriptural grounds?
Thom says: On the grounds that an elder is to be fully devoted to the ministry of the Word and to prayer.
Chad said: If a woman in your church was raped, will you instruct her not to prosecute?
Thom says: I will help her to forgive her rapist, and to entrust justice to the Lord. I will point her to many examples of women who were raped, repeatedly raped, or raped and murdered in which the response of those involved was non-prosecution, forgiveness, and enemy-love. I would tell her the story of the young woman who was raped and murdered, and whose family refused to prosecute, and how the young man was sentenced to 25-to-life for murder, and how her family visited him in prison and won him to the Lord, and adopted him as their son, and took his children into their home as grandchildren. I will try to help her to see the greater benefits of such an approach, and that if she can play a part (wisely, from a distance) in winning her rapist to the Lord, then he would be instructed to turn himself in. I would also fly in some women I know who have experienced rape and have successfully overcome the desire to prosecute and to hate. I would ask them to be with her, and to be her support, and to lead her in constant prayer for her rapist, until she experiences a breakthrough and is able to see him through the eyes of Jesus. I would hope that is what any pastor would do. (I’ve had an extensive discussion over just this question with Jason Fry on Mark Moore’s blog. Check it out if you’re interested.)
Chad said: If you discover a child in your church is being physically beaten, will you not intervene – legally and maybe even violently if necessary – to save that child?
Thom says: Of course I would intervene. Of course I would not intervene violently, because that is not necessary. If restraint is necessary, then ten men should do the trick. (I’ve never said being a pacifist means being opposed to restraint, in certain situations.) But there are probably other ways to intervene. There usually are, if you’re imaginative enough. If the violent man is a Christian, a different route would be taken than if he were an unbeliever. In the latter scenario, child services would most definitely be involved. In the former scenario, the process Jesus prescribed would be followed. If the man refused the help of the church, he would be banned and child services would become involved.
Chad said: Will you withdraw financial support from a children’s home in the Philippines that employs armed guards at the gate to protect the home and the children (my own sister was adopted from such a home)?
Thom says: No. But I would stipulate that the money I'm contributing not go to pay the guard, and I would appeal to them to consider unarming the guard, or unloading his weapon, so long as they are a Christian facility. If they are not a Christian facility, I would just stipulate not to use my money for payment of the guard.
Chad said: In my admittedly post-Constantinian, pre-Yoderian reading of Ecclesiastes, I observe that wisdom leaves the door open for the complexities of life.
Thom says: You’re being a smart-ass again. That's all very well, but your smart-ass remark is also a trifle confused. There is a post-Constantinian, pre-Yoderian reading of the Sermon on the Mount, Romans 13, and a host of NT texts. That language doesn’t really apply to Ecclesiastes. Nobody expects Solomon to think like Jesus. We do expect the NT writers, who came after Jesus, to think like him. If you think the OT perspective always agrees with the NT perspective, and never disagrees, that’s just unfortunate. I don’t know that you do think that, but if you did, I’d say that you’re allowing a doctrinal view of inerrancy to obfuscate a historical/grammatical reading of the Scriptures. In a few places, the OT denies a bodily resurrection. Jesus subverts and changes the meaning of several of Daniel’s apocalyptic images. The gospel writers, Peter, the author of Hebrews, and many other NT writers subvert and change the original meaning of Psalms 2 & 110.
Of course Solomon thought there was a time for war and a time for peace, a time to destroy and a time to build. He was a king, and the son of a warlord, with a lot of vested political interests. Anyway, if ever there was a time for war, Jesus announced that for Christians that time is officially over. If ever there was a time to destroy, Jesus inaugurated the time to build up. Remember that Solomon once killed a man because the guy heckled David from a distance. Clearly, Solomon thought it was time to destroy at least one too many times.
Your appeal to Ecclesiastes to say that wisdom leaves room for the complexities of life is a red herring. Your comment assumes that pacifism is a reductionistic ethic, and that our pacifism does not leave room for life’s complexity. And yet, I’ve found that consistently your objections have been based on a too-simplistic understanding of our pacifism. You projected problems onto us we don’t share with you, and then you’ve said, “See, you’re not dealing with life’s complexity because your pacifism has these problems.” From our perspective, the resort to violence is a short-circuiting of a very complex ethical process that begins long before the ethical dilemma itself is at hand. Those who resort to violence too often do not take into account the complexities of life that consistently defy just-force calculations. The principled Christian pacifist always takes into account the possible consequences of his nonviolent action, but hopes and prays for the best of them. If that is a limited comprehensive ethic, it is limited only by the logic of faith. Furthermore, the principled Christian pacifist is forced to take more serious consideration of ethical options and consequences because s/he is forced to find workable, nonviolent strategies for peacebuilding. It is usually those looking for nonviolent means that spend more time in cause and consequence deliberation, and who discover better, more effective measures. The Quakers are strong examples here, as are contemporary Mennonites. But if not, the Christian is content to suffer or to die in the face of injustice, shouting justice, on the example of Jesus, with no hope other than in the resurrection and in God’s infinite ability to rein in the violence of the principalities and powers.
Chad said: In conclusion, I have nothing against pacifism. Who would have anything bad to say about non-violence or peace? It’s like speaking badly against Mr. Rogers. Who in the world would do that?
Thom says: I would, if Mr. Rogers was what it meant to be a Christian pacifist. There’s a place for Mr. Rogerses, but I don’t think it’s in the prophetic line of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Jesus, Paul, and so on. Moreover, I think you do have a lot against pacifism. I don’t think this claim of yours is entirely honest. You have a lot to say against non-violence, whenever, for instance, it would prove impotent in the face of a violence that threatens women, children, or non-Christians. In the end, you believe—or so you write—that the wisdom of safety trumps the virtue of nonviolence. We would say that the testimony of the early Christian martyrs and the early Anabaptist martyrs (and a host of others) stands in stark contrast to your position.
Chad said: But this is not a flippant issue for me. It is a very serious issue – and that is part of the reason I have taken a more nuanced position.
Thom says: I am glad to hear that you take this issue seriously. I think your language sometimes betrays that sentiment, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that’s it’s just your language and not your heart. I would just say that your position is no more nuanced than ours. I think in many respects it is less so. It’s just that it goes in a different direction than ours, and ultimately ends up being an advocacy of redemptive violence. I would encourage you to change your bloody mind, pun intended.
per chad and thom's latest exchange, i was reminded of something wink said in an interview:
"I guess I always had this one little qualification that if all else fails, you can use violence then. Be non-violent until the last minute. A friend of mine characterizes this as not non-violence, it is not yet violent."
wink said a trip to africa was a catalyst for him to repent of his "not yet violent" position.
for me, it's probably a major issue of eschatology. if it's possible, i'd like to know how, but, i for one can not truly hope for a person or group to be included in the Resurrection and simultaneously give the green light to their destruction.
ps - thom, thanks for the (too) kind words about my essay.
Wow, that last comment took longer to read than most term papers take to write.
Thom, you certainly dealt with Chad's comments in a thorough manner. It looks to me as though the online discussion isn't going much further, but I am still glad you took the time to address his thoughts/arguments.
I've been reflecting over this for a while and have a two thoughts:
(1) As we saw in Chad's arguments, one difficulty with a non-violent stance towards faithful discipleship is that it requires much of those in the Church. Certain people will have to leave their professions, others might have their commitment to forsake their commitment to the way of life handed down to them by their family, others might have to forsake their commitment to a pagan nation and all would have to forsake their commitment to an action/way of life that Jesus forbade. This is a huge claim to make on people, and because it is such a claim, many are unwilling to make it or even give those who call for such a commitment much of a hearing. I know at least one rather prominent leader in the Restoration Movement who is a pacifist, but he does not claim to be so publicly because of the ramifications. This seems strange to me given the fact that Jesus was also a rather prominent leader who had many following him and he didn't mind making claims that would upset people because it required them to leave their (a) professions (b) families (c) a pagan nation/religion (d) actions that were inconsistent with the character of God. If our ministries are to look more like Jesus' we may have to incorporate into our ministries a message that contains the thrust of Matthew 10:34-39 as much as we have incorporated a message that contains the thrust of Matthew 11:27-30.
(2) As I mentioned much earlier in this post, one of the issues that has re-surfaced in my thinking pertains to the means through which we come to our ethical and ecclesiological conclusions. I know several "Christian" couples, including ones who are close to me, who are getting divorces. They are claiming to be Christians yet doing something explicitly forbidden by Jesus (in each of these cases, there has been no affair). Regardless of what Jesus said or what the New Testament witnesses to, they are going through with their divorces, and they have rationalized their actions through other means. My point is this: many people I talk to don't seem to prioritize the example of Jesus and the council of the New Testament when coming to conclusions on this matter of non-violence. In the same way Jesus' teachings on divorce are ignored, swept under the rug, or re-prioritized for people who really want a divorce, many Christians I know seem to have done the same thing with the issue of non-violence. Chad himself has said that his reading of the New Testament would cause him to be a pacifist. I assume his reading of the life of Jesus' life would cause him to be a pacifist as well. So what is the disconnect? It comes from the other elements in our decision making that we give the highest priority to. Do we allow our reading of the New Testament and our understanding of the life of Jesus to have the trump card over ethical matters or do we allow our commitment to safety, practical wisdom, our nationalistic way of life, or our supposed need and inherent right of self-protection to trump our reading of the New Testament and deputize us to make hermeneutical stretches that allow the commitments which we had before we approached the text/Jesus (and thus, our way of life) to stay the same.
I have read too much literature in this field (still, admittedly, far less then Thom) and I have yet to find anyone who makes a valid or even half-way sustainable position for violence from the New Testament and life of Jesus.
To be honest, I'd like to read one because I'd rather be able to use force to protect myself and my loved ones than intangible weapons like love and prayer. The problem for me is that Jesus has armed us with no other weapons. Granted, this doesn't make the most sense. But I just don't know that a Christian's life and decisions are supposed to make a ton of sense. Maybe they're actually suppose to place us on a trajectory that could lead towards doing crazy, ridiculous, even stupid things like selling our processions and laying down our lives, which, while being unfathomable for many Christians, was not so far removed from Jesus' original message…at least not as I recall it. I have most certainly digressed. But the point is simple, what will be the primary determining factor for our decisions? Will it be the narrative of the life and the cross/resurrection of Jesus found in the gospel and witnessed to throughout the rest of the NT or will these be sidelined for more practical and pragmatic arguments.
Here is my conclusion, the battle that has to be waged by pacifists is not exegetical. Honestly, it isn't hard to see what the NT says. The battle is epistemological in nature because it is hard to see what the NT says if you don't want to and if other commitments prevent you from doing so. The question that has to be asked is: how is it that we can elevate Jesus and the NT to the place of highest prominence in the decision making process of Christians? This is the question that must be answered. But perhaps the hardest part of this battle will be helping people to see that it is not currently the NT and Jesus that is at the top of their epistemological pyramid. Nobody likes to admit this, and it will most certainly take a lengthy time for the light to come on and for lives to change (after all, most people have held to their convictions for their entire adult lives, they were educated under this system of thinking and they have counseled others along the same lines. This is not the type of shift that is going to take place over night.). That does not mean it is a discussion not worth having, but it does mean that it is going to be a long discussion and that it will probably require the likes of Thom to have it, regardless of whether people like him or not.
On a second note, I have been surprised to hear how wide this post has been read from people in the Joplin community. I wonder what it is about this issue that draws in so many people, rustling feathers from both sides and either intriguing or upsetting almost everyone. Maybe 20 or 30 years ago people would be posting about baptism for salvation and the gifts of the Spirit…what is it about his generation and our cultural/ecclesiological experience that has caused this issue to surface at this time?
JPB,
Your essay was really good, and it was helpful to think about Paul's conversion in that light. I, a pacifist, hadn't made that connection before, but after reading your paper it seemed so obvious.
Your framing the issue in terms of resurrection hope reminds me of the early Christians' mantra: "We cannot kill a man for whom Christ died."
For the record, I will be responding to "TommyJoe"'s good questions in a new thread, sometime very soon.
Here's some more in response to Chad on the Constantinian shift, from David Bercot, Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up: A New Look at Today's Evangelical Church in the Light of Early Christianity (Scroll Pub, 1989)
Christianity had grown rapidly in the first three centuries, but after the conversion of Constantine the church mushroomed. At the time of the Edict of Milan (A.D. 313), probably about a tenth of the Roman Empire had converted to Christianity. But that had taken nearly three hundred years. In less than a hundred years after the Edict of Milan, nearly all of the other 90 percent had been "converted." The church believed that this rapid growth was a sure sign of God's approval. Having accepted this premise, the church quickly adopted virtually any practice that resulted in growth, including the use of images in worship -- a practice utterly loathsome to the early Christians. (p. 129)
Constantine soon became worried that this division in the church [over the issue of the Divine nature of the Son] would cause God to withdraw His blessings from the Roman Empire. When the old methods of the church failed to quiet this controversy, Constantine suggested a new approach: a church-wide council [Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D.] attended by representatives of every congregation in the empire. Although there had been meetings of church leaders in the past, such councils had always been on a smaller, localized scale. The various church representatives traveled at state expense to Nicaea, the site set for the meeting... The state also housed, fed, and entertained the representatives once they arrived in Nicaea. Constantine himself chaired the two-month long conference and actively participated in the discussions... Constantine persuaded the group to draw up a church-wide creed that specifically addressed the Divine nature of the Son. This was something quite new, for in the past each congregation used its own individual creed. (pp. 131-132)
Constantine himself proposed the wording of the new church-wide creed. To exclude the viewpoints of Arius, Constantine argued that the Greek term homoousios should be used to describe the relationship of Jesus and His Father. This term is usually translated into English by the phrase, "being of the same substance." ... In fact, several pre-Nicene Christian writers had used that term to describe the Deity of the Son. However, the term doesn't appear anywhere in Scripture, and it had never been included in any of the early congregational creeds. (p. 132)
Nevertheless, as a result of Constantine's persuasive skills, all but five of the church representatives at Nicaea eventually signed the newly-established creed. Constantine then banished into exile the five who wouldn't sign, one of whom was Arius. Constantine also decreed: "... If anyone shall be detected in concealing a book written by Arius, and does not instantly bring it forward and burn it, the penalty for this offense shall be death."... (p. 132)
Nicaea didn't bring about the church unity Constantine had hoped for. Actually, there was more division and fighting after Nicaea than there was before... Christians took up the sword and began viciously slaughtering one another over doctrinal differences. As the fabric of Christianity began to fade and tear, the emphasis continued to shift from the Christian life [ethics] to Christian doctrine. (p. 135)
Before I began studying the early Christian writings, I had read in church history books that the early Christians generally refused military service. Those books said the early Christians weren't opposed to bloodshed; rather, they rejected military service in order to avoid participating in idolatrous practices. But that's not true. In their writings, the early Christians clearly stated they opposed war because they literally followed Jesus' commandments to "love your enemies" and "turn the other cheek." They viewed war as morally wrong... (p. 93)
At a time when military valor was considered to be the greatest of virtues, the early Christians stood alone in declaring that war was simply murder on a grand scale... (p. 94)
Consistent with its position of not legislating righteousness in other areas of life, the early church made no law that Christians could not serve in the army. The Scriptures only commanded a Christian to love his enemies and not to return evil for evil. Neither Jesus nor the apostles ever strictly forbade Christians to serve in the military. Since the Roman Empire was at peace during this early period of Christianity, it was quite possible for a Christian to spend his entire life in the army and never be required to shed blood. In fact, during this period, soldiers primarily served in a capacity similar to American police officers. Generally speaking, the church did not permit a Christian to join the army after his conversion. However, if a man was already a soldier when he became a Christian, the church did not require him to resign. He was only required to agree to never use the sword against anyone. One reason for this flexibility was that the Romans did not normally allow a soldier to leave the army until his time of service was completed. (pp. 97-98)
This is my response to what happened at New Life and to the discussion on Thom’s blog. I read Dan say that some people he knew and respected were upset at him for taking such a “radical” view of the thing (the stance that Christians should not have killed the gunman). I also heard that some people read Thom's post and concluded that it was written in an unchristian or unloving manner.
I’m not one who normally comments on these posts but my mind is ill at ease. I don’t think there’s anything I can say that hasn’t already been said somewhere in this long thread of comments. I’ll just contribute this. I know, better than any one of you out there that Thom knows how to confront and he knows how to be harsh if necessary, and sometimes even when it's not necessary. But I was one of the first to read Thom’s letter and I saw immediately that it was not coming out of his harsh side. He wrote it with empathy and compassion. That very compassion is what compelled him to confront.
I guess I’m just having a hard time understanding the Christian opposition to calling the Church to right action.
“TommyJoe” (TJ) said: Although I have generally avoided commenting on this blog, I am thankful to those who have. I have gained valuable insights. I do regret some of the strident and combative language in the exchange. Coarse or disdainful language seems oxymoronic in a discussion on peacemaking.... To be honest, it is disturbing to hear, with some regularity, frustrations about combative and contemptuous language used in defense of pacifism. Perhaps, as I can see in my own life, we can be drawn most passionately to ideals that are particularly challenging for us.
Thom says: Speaking out against unfaithfulness within the people of God is always going to sound combative, especially to those who are trying to defend that unfaithfulness as faithfulness. I read the Gospels, and I see Jesus using all kinds of combative and disruptive language all the time, exactly as an outgrowth of his justice-building, peace-making program. When you come face-to-face with those at the center of a power-structure, and you come representing the marginalized and disempowered, there is no way to make peace without using combative language. Jesus himself was worse than any pacifist you’ve come across in this regard. He used ad hominems all the time. For instance, he told one group of religious leaders that their hermeneutics were off-base because, well, because they were the spawn of Satan. I’m fairly certain that kind of talk wouldn’t be very conducive to healthy, friendly debate, Son of God or not. I’d ask whether you’d prefer to be told that your argument (none in particular) is bullshit, or that your argument is what it is because you and the Devil are “tight.” My personal inability to go quite that far in dialogue with others is just evidence that not even pacifists are always faithful followers of Jesus. We have our struggles too! Despite that I’m convinced that the creeping into the church of militarism and violence is no less than devil’s work, I just can’t bring myself to call it, as Jesus did, like I see it, in dialogue with those representing the devil’s position.
Is “coarse or disdainful language” oxymoronic in a discussion on peacemaking? I s’pose it could be, if, for instance, the coarse or disdainful language were being used to exclude rather than to invite, if it was being used to condemn rather than to excite. Let me throw a scenario in front of you. Put yourself in South Africa under the Apartheid regime. A white leader gets up in front of a crowd of black men, women, and children, and reads to them Romans 13:1-7, and then pronounces a blessing on them and all who heed the words of the apostle Paul. A black populace leader, from the back of the crowd, raises a megaphone and shouts: “Do not listen to that son of the devil. He is spewing shit and lies, distorting the word of truth.” He then turns to the white leader and says, “Repent! The judgment of almighty God is upon you!”
Which man is closer to being a peacemaker?
In my experience, pacifists are more “strident” as you say, because they have a clearer vision of the kind of evil with which the church is complicit. As I pointed out in another place, Jesus is the model of Christian pacifists, not Mr. Rogers. Based on your comments, I don’t think you’d be very impressed with Jesus’ rhetorical tactics if you were a teacher of religion in his day.
TJ said: I believe the amount of attention I focus on situations outside my sitz im leben is only somewhat helpful. For example, I have, thank God, never seen a weapon drawn against another human being (except in the media). But, I have felt and voiced anger toward brethren. While the former is more intriguing to debate, the latter seems more where the teachings of Jesus would have us focus. I think it is in the “these you ought to have practiced without neglecting the others” category.
Thom says: I’m sorry, but this is wrong. First of all, Jesus’ own logic on this subject is the reverse of your own. Jesus said that the easy thing to do is to love those close to you, while the hard thing to do is to love your enemies. Your application of the “these you ought to have practiced without neglecting the others” statement is also a reversal of Jesus’ use of it. We are advocating “justice, mercy and faithfulness” precisely where the church is failing in that regard, covering over its injustice, contempt and unfaithfulness with lots of worship, theologizing, and teetotaling, to name just a few of the cover-ups. The reason that for people like us (North Americans) it seems that loving those closest to us is the more difficult task is because we are products of a privileged class in an empire that has learned that the best way to keep its citizens oblivious to the death and destruction that supports their habits is to make the nuclear family the center of attention. The U.S. is not the first to play this game, but it may well be the best at it. The only thing Jesus ever said about the family is that he came to break it up! And the family is only one of many things Jesus said the proclamation of his gospel would threaten. In fact, this only saying of Jesus on the family sits squarely in the middle of Jesus’ exhortation to his disciples to be prepared to suffer at the hands of their enemies.
TJ said: There seems little question that the primary call we have been given to peacemaking is with our parents, our oikos, and the brothers and sisters we interact with on a day to day basis. So, as someone still processing the issues, I would make a plea for a kinder, gentler pacifism.
Thom says: You say there seems “little question,” and I say that this claim of yours begs a very big question. I had thought, until you said there was little question to the contrary, that Jesus said very little on these issues and said a great deal about crossing the ordinary lines of allegiance for the sake of the gospel. I guess I’d ask you to do up a list of everything Jesus says on parents, one’s oikos, and the local community, that wasn’t in response to somebody else’s question. Then, in response, I’ll do up a list of everything Jesus said about enemies and gentiles, and things of that nature, that wasn’t in response to somebody else’s question, and we’ll see whose list is bigger. Then I’ll be satisfied that there’s little question.
TJ said: I recall a public debate between two Christian professors on these issues. As the debate unfolded, the pacifist grew increasingly strident, eventually giving way to ad hominem jibes at his opponent (at one point scornfully accusing him of burying his head in a fantasy land). The just-war supporter, already known for an exceptionally gentle demeanor, never grew angry or spoke despairingly of the other. And it was he who went over to shake hands with the other at the end of the debate. It goes without saying which view seemed to resonate with most of the listeners.
Thom says: This is anecdotal and irrelevant. I’ve read dozens of debates between just-war theorists and pacifists in which the just-war theorists are combative and the pacifists are polite. This just doesn’t prove anything. Your last point, that the just-war view “seemed to resonate with most of the listeners” is not some sort of surprise. The vast majority of humans throughout world history has been comfortable with violence. You can politely say all kinds of gross heresies. You can be a dictator known for gentility in debate. It doesn’t make a lick of difference. Conversely, you can be a foul mouthed asshole and be the sole representative of gospel truth and justice. Like, for instance, Isaiah, or Jeremiah. This aversion to “combative and coarse language” seems to me to be nothing more than a conservative ethic that serves to legitimate the status quo and dismiss voices that challenge the present power structure. Ethics from the center always focuses on externals like that as a way of avoiding the real issues on the margins. If people get pissed off because a pacifist says stuff like “pissed off,” their getting pissed off is just an excuse not to have to listen. I’m not saying this is necessarily what you’re doing. But no doubt this is what’s happening with many of the people you’ve seen complaining of strident pacifists who don’t practice what they preach in the way they preach it. Well, I call bullshit.
TJ said: While I do believe the case for early Christian pacifism is strong, the evidence from the AnteNicene era does not support claims of a complete consensus.
Thom said: As I have said, there were Christians who were soldiers, but there was no theologian/ecclesial authority prior to Constantine that commended Christian soldiering. Every theologian/ecclesial authority who spoke on the matter condemned it.
TJ said: Your summary of the AnteNicene period is entirely accurate. By the second half of the second century, there is undeniable evidence of the presence of Christians (genuine or so-called) in one or more of the Legions. But, to my knowledge, no leader seems to have written anything to support or commend this. But, as the opening of De Corona illustrates, it was certainly not a rarity.
Thom said: First, it was not until 170-180 that there is evidence. Second, as I’ve argued extensively in my 30-part series, Early Christian Nonviolence, there were a lot of Christians in the military, but the evidence indicates that they were still pacifists. The churches permitted new converts to remain soldiers, so long as they could avoid using the sword. Read my series for further documentation and argumentation.
TJ said: So, the question remains (and may be unanswerable) as to whether or not the state can or even should operate according to Kingdom-of-God principles? If yes, then are we back in the mindset of "Christendom?" If no, then on what basis can we castigate the state according to Kingdom (as opposed to purely judicial, nationalistic, and pragmatic) bases? Is that not true to its inherent nature?
Thom says: Well, the literature from the early Christians indicates that they believed the spread of Christianity could help prevent war, in addition to a commitment on the part of the empire to face the truth about its wars of expansion.
The question is, would God honor a people that chose to act in a certain way because it would be consistent with God’s character. The answer is an obvious yes, and the early Christians thought so too. Moreover, the lie is that violence is a necessary evil in the world. The truth is that there is a greater power in nonviolent agape, and that, in the words of John Yoder, “those who carry crosses are going with the grain of the universe.” Violence is not built into the cosmos. It is a disconfiguration. If nations would be less self-invested and more invested in building justice-based cultures through economic reform and other measures, the vast majority of wars would be prevented. If the U.S. would stop selling arms all over the world to insurgents, dictatorships, etc. etc., and if other powerful nations would follow the U.S.’s lead (actually, the U.S. would be following the lead of many others), wars would be prevented. There is no question that the nations have a lot to learn and a lot to gain from attention to the nonviolent, conflict transforming teaching of Jesus. It’s not that Jesus’ nonviolent principles wouldn’t work in the real world of global politics. (They have worked when tested.) It’s that most nations, especially nations like the U.S., simply aren’t interested in that sort of thing. They’re more interested in what they call “power.”
TJ said: Here pacifism takes two very different paths. One, the path of social involvement for the betterment of society (Quakers among the classic examples). The other, an identity as separatistic counterculture (The Amish may be an example of this). In the first, you have pacifists passionately involved in the political discourse and even holding public office. But, is this on a "slippery slope" (don't you hate that expression) toward quasi-Christendom? In the other, those communities invest little energy in prophetic denunciation of the operations of world powers? They are what they are.
Thom says: The Anabaptists (Amish) were originally forced into separatism by widespread persecution from other “Christians” like the ones we revere in church history class. The early Anabaptists were constantly trying to speak in the public forum for the betterment of society. The separatist theology of the Amish whom we know is the product of centuries of religio-political persecution. Their theology has been forced on them by the constantinian sword. They are somewhat similar to the monastic orders that arose at about the same time as Christian militancy. But even in their separatism, they are an embodied protest.
As for Christians in public office, I’m not saying a Christian can’t be. Just because a Christian might take public office does not mean it’s automatically the same thing as the constantinian phenomenon. It depends upon the type of office held, and a whole range of issues. But public office questions aside, the Quakers (as well as contemporary Mennonites) work tirelessly to prepare policy proposals for the U.S. and other nations in order to encourage nonviolent, justice-building approaches to foreign and domestic problems. On a few occasions, these proposals have been influential.
TJ said: Here we face the reality that the NT and early church was an era when these options were [not] clear. They seem to have existed largely as separatistic counter culture. The AnteNicene church, for example, gives no evidence of programs to feed starving pagans or reform pagan society. These emerge only post-Constantine. In some cases they did rescue infants from infanticide or respond to a local plague. But, those were episodic and reactive. They otherwise seemed content to let the pagans alone (absent conversion) to live, and even suffer, as pagans.
Thom says: I’m not sure exactly what your point is here. However, as I’ve shown in my series on Early Christian Nonviolence, the early Christians were anything but quietistic. Not infrequently they leveled prophetic critiques against the destructive economic and foreign policies adopted by Rome, and then pointed to the Christian community as an example of the alternative with which Rome was faced. These kinds of critiques are found even among the more pro-Roman of the early Christian writers. Moreover, you fail to see the reality of the church as a counter-imperial political community. It’s not that the church didn’t have a response to the widespread injustice throughout the empire. It’s that the church, as a political body, was the response. It was an attempt to create a just space within an unjust space, and given that the vast majority of Christians for the longest time were extremely poor, and powerless within the Roman system, the formation of the church as a counter-imperial body was a miraculous accomplishment. Later, of course, as more and more wealthy and prominent figures began to enter the church, the church structure began to look more and more like Roman governmental structure (as you well know). By that time, the marginalized which were empowered in the earlier communities were already beginning to be marginalized again, within the church. The process was gradual, but eventually the church fell headfirst into Romanism.
Thom-
i just wanted to tell you how much i appreciate your letter. reading it was one of the most intellectually and spiritually provoking experiences i've had in a while. i agree with your position with as much certainty as i can muster and i think it is very brave of you not to sugarcoat or water down your truth to make it 'nice enough' or 'pastoral enough' for others. truth can only ever be truth- as bitter as it may seem. i commend your courage in sending the letter. i also saw your baby at applebees the other day. cute. and. i still get in movies free in your name. so.
Krystal,
It's great to hear from you! Thanks for the encouragement, and I'm glad you're still too street-wise to pay for a movie.
Peace.
BTW,
What was my baby doing at Applebees?
hey Thom,
in case you noticed this post getting a few more hits than your normal blog, it may be partly because I added your blog to the list of links covering the shooting:
Full Coverage of Shootings at YWAM-Denver and New Life Church
Maybe not though--I don't get that much traffic. Anyway, I more-or-less disagree with your analysis of this situation--which has been tragic, though God has somehow used it for good as well.
we can agree to disagree though.
peace,
-joshMshep
blog.myspace.com/joshmshep
Hey, Josh.
Yes, I noticed a hit or two from your blog a few weeks back. Thanks for the link!
I fully expect most people to disagree with "my analysis" of the situation. But my primary concern is taking this issue up with church leaders.
Post a Comment
<< Home