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.