HeartGroups Series; Part 5 of 5

For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. — Jesus (Mark 10.45)HeartGroups Series

Part 5

This week, I want to conclude our five-part series on our new HeartGroups, modeled after the function and form of the New Testament ekklesia. It still amazes me how deeply the nature of the New Testament church has been buried under 1,700 years of religious tradition. But this week, I am going to try and strike some middle ground between institutional “church” and the New Testament’s more organic gatherings. Something both institution and organic gatherings have—or should have, rather—is a strong sense of other-centered mission. This is rooted in the example Jesus gave us in the Jesus story itself.

For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. (Mark 10.45)

I have had some of the best conversations with our various HeartGroups coaches over these first two months, and one thing that comes out loud and clear, in perfect harmony with New Testament ekklesia, is that HeartGroups should also have a strong sense of Mission. I want to be clear, though. This is not the typical emphasis on “evangelism” we find in so much of evangelical Christianity today. Evangelism is not the goal of our mission focus; evangelism is the means to reach our goal. (I’ll explain this in a moment.) Turning people into mere believers was never the end goal (see Matthew 28.18-20). Helping others within the community become followers of Jesus and His teachings was!

Ever since the fourth century (with the Baptism of Constantine), we have witnessed a decisive shift (and successive drift) away from the teachings of Jesus to beliefs about Jesus as that which defines what a “Christian” is. Praise God for the few exceptions, but to a large degree, in our current culture, being a “Christian” simply means someone who holds certain beliefs about Jesus, and very rarely do those who call themselves “Christians” resemble the person or teachings of Jesus. Statistics today prove that although the worldview of those who “believe” in Jesus is different, the life of a person who sees him- or herself as a believer, in most cases (again, there are a few exceptions), is no different in reality (except for attending a weekly service) from those who are labeled unbelievers. Christians are just as prone to gluttony as non-Christians. Christians are just as prone to greed as non-Christians. Christians are just as prone to materialism as non-Christians. Christians are actually more prone to violence than non-Christians. Christians are more prone to pride and arrogance than non-Christians. And today, the divorce rate among Christians is for the first time higher than the divorce rate of non-Christians.

How did we get here?

I believe it began in the fourth century (actually probably a little earlier, but the fourth century is close enough), when those who bore the name of Christ made a clean break with the actual teachings of Christ. Those who called themselves Christians actually chose an ethic that marginalized Jesus and His teachings. Up until this time, what defined whether a community was following Christ or not was whether that community sought to follow the ethical teachings of Jesus. But once those ethics (non-violence being a key Christo-ethic) were abandoned, overnight, everyone in Europe became a Christian (literally). One of the fruits of focusing now on beliefs about Jesus rather then the teachings of Jesus was that Christianity became a hybrid of institutionalism and individualism (Clergy vs. Laity). And what determined whether a person was a Christian or not was no longer reflected in a set of principles by which a group sought to live their lives, but rather by a set of intellectual beliefs (theology) to which an individual person intellectually subscribed or not.

This epidemic remains with us today. Today, we see a religion that to a large degree is still using run-around logic to find ways to avoid applying the actual teachings of Jesus, and in those teachings’ place, we find division on top of division over beliefs about Jesus that define us. All the while, the world at large, all around us, is starving—both spiritually and physically. Today, we still witness a strong marginalization of the actual teachings of Jesus, followed by a community accompanied by a heavy emphasis on doctrinal beliefs about Jesus instead. (An example of this, especially during the time of year that is just upon us, is that we as Christians today can live lives of consumer-driven materialism in our American culture [a direct abandonment of the teachings of Jesus], but question the virgin birth for a moment [a belief about Jesus that is actually in only two of the four versions of the Jesus story that we have], and we are no longer considered “believers.”)

Please don’t misunderstand. Believing the right things about God is of vital importance for every one of us! But stop for a moment and consider whether this is the ultimate end or the means whereby we experience God’s end for us. Pay close attention to Jesus’s words in John 17:

“Righteous Father, though the world does not know you, I know you, and they know that you have sent me. I have made you known to them, and will continue to make you known IN ORDER THAT the LOVE you have for me may be IN THEM and that I MYSELF MAY BE IN THEM.” (John 17.25-26)

We can gather the following points from Jesus’s statement above:

1)Revealing the truth about God’s character was “in order that” an ultimate goal might be accomplished.

2)What was that goal? There were two. First, so that the Love of God might be restored in us. In short, if our picture of God doesn’t also change us into a more loving people, then no matter how correct we may be in our beliefs about God, we simply become resounding gongs, clanging cymbals, empty nothings, gaining nothing (see 1 Corinthians 13.1-3). I want you to also notice the word “Them.” Jesus never called upon His disciples to follow Him all on their own, but to do so in an authentic community of fellow followers! The Love that He wants to recreate in us is in just that location—us! This love cannot be experienced “flying solo,” so to speak. Other-centered love requires experiencing life with others, in addition to ourselves. But even in saying all of this, even these groups of Jesus followers, following Jesus together, were not only to strengthen, instruct, encourage, and build each other up. The groups themselves, as a united whole, was to have an outside-of-the-group focus. Together, they were to live communal lives that were radically self-sacrificial for the blessing and benefit of others, putting on display the beauty of God’s other-centered love to the world around them.

3)Goal number two was “That I myself may be [dwelling] in them.” We find “them” here again, now also as a dwelling place for Jesus Himself. We have been guilty of reading this statement through the lens of our Western, individualistic culture. Jesus was not praying that He would be able to dwell in His followers individually or uniquely as isolated little dwelling places (plural). NO, no! Jesus wants to take the plurality of individuals and, by restoring love among them through the revelation of the character of God, take this plurality and turn it into a singular community that becomes the home or dwelling place of Jesus. The group is the place Jesus desires to dwell. Let me illustrate this with the metaphor used by Peter.

Peter uses the imagery of taking living stones and assembling them together to become a living dwelling place for God.

As you come to him, the LIVING STONE—rejected by human beings but chosen by God and precious to him—YOU ALSO, like LIVING STONES, are being built into a SPIRITUAL HOUSE to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. (1Peter 2.4-5)

Let’s get back to my statements earlier about evangelism. Evangelism, according to the New Testament, is simply the telling of the Jesus story (i.e., the Gospel). Those who embraced the Jesus of this story would find new life born within them. It was if they have passed from death to life, they were no longer a dead stone. They had now become a LIVING stone. But then an apostle would take those living stones and put them together in such a way that they fitted together properly and would become an actual LIVING HOUSE built out of these living stones! It wasn’t enough to just bring someone from death to life. They must, in being brought to life, now be connected with a community marked by an open, mutually participatory communal nature that not only reflected the other-centered, self-sacrificial love of God, but thereby put on display to the world around them the beauty of this love for all to see. (I know this is a far cry from what history records as happening by the institutionalizing of a “religion” that today we call Christianity. But what this simply reveals is that what today is called Christianity might be the furthest thing from what Jesus intended His followers to become.)

Today, we embrace beliefs about Jesus as individuals. And even when we come together, we come together in such a way as to maintain our isolation from each other (the historical purpose for which pews themselves were actually invented in the sixteenth century). We gather together as isolated individuals to “participate”—which many times simply means remaining quiet and listening—in a program centered around the moment where we passively listen to a discourse with a heavy emphasis on doctrines about Jesus rather than the ethical teachings of Jesus. (Jesus spent precious little time addressing people’s “doctrinal” beliefs. Jesus spent a large portion of time revealing to us the truth about the Father’s character by giving teachings on how His followers should live.) Even in the songs we sing, the lyrics are too often marked by the pronouns “I” versus “we,” both older hymns and recent contemporary worship songs alike, which only further reveal how far we have drifted. Again, these are generalizations of what we find on the whole. There are beautiful exceptions to this that I have witnessed, but to a large degree, these exceptions are just that—they are exceptions to the overly common rule.

This leads me to the point of this week’s eSight regarding HeartGroups and Mission, and an honest confession of failure on the part of myself and the ministry of RHM in the past.

As a ministry, and as the director of this ministry, I have become convinced that it is not enough to simply uplift the truth about our Heavenly Father as it is revealed in Jesus and then leave those who have embraced this new picture of God in passive isolation. It is as if we have traversed the globe, turning dead stones into living stones, and then just left them strewn across the field, each alone and lying there. These living stones must be assembled together in such a way that they TOGETHER become a dwelling place for Jesus Himself.

This is the reason we at Renewed Heart Ministries have added to our ministry what we are now affectionately referring to as HeartGroups, equipped with insightful coaches to help those who feel more like isolated stones assemble together in a meaningful way to experience God and His love for us and to put on display to the world around us the beauty of who God is, together!

“But those who embrace your teachings, Herb, are usually connected somehow to a local church,” someone may object. And yes, that is true in a contemporarily defined sense. I want to be clear: there is nothing wrong with “going to church,” in my opinion, even as “church” has grown to be defined by us today. I speak in a different institutionalized church around the globe almost every weekend. But no matter how faithful one may be in his or her “church” attendance, one can attend what we in our culture call “church” seven days a week and still never experience or encounter the reality of what the New Testament referred to as the church.

Within New Testament Ekklesia:

A building is no longer the Temple. The Open Mutually participatory gathering of followers is now where God dwells among us, putting on display, through this group, the beauty of who He really is (see John 1.14 and 1 Peter 2.5; churches were not buildings in the New Testament).

An animal on an alter is no longer the Sacrifice; the Common Life of Believers, together following the teachings of Jesus with THEIR lives, lived out in self-sacrificial love, is now the “living” sacrifice (see Romans 12.1 and 1 Peter 2.5; gatherings were not centered around sacrifice, sacrament, or sermon in the New Testament).

A hierarchical male authority figure filling an “office” is no longer a Priest, Rabbi, or Teacher, but rather, we as followers of Jesus and members of His Kingdom have together become a priesthood (or priestesshood) of ALL believers alike! See Matthew 23.8-12 and 1 Peter 2.5: All believers alike, themselves, were what we today call “Pastors” and any leadership that did exist [Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Elders, and Teachers] was marked by servanthood, serving the larger mutually participatory group, in contrast to hierarchical authority (see Luke 22.25-27).

In the New Testament, Temple, Sacrifice, and Priest have been transformed by the coming of Jesus, making what these three where in the past obsolete, replaced by something far superior! (See the epistle to the Hebrews.)

What does all of this have to do with HeartGroups and Mission?

In perfect harmony with New Testament ekklesia, HeartGroups also have a strong mission focus. What is their mission? Not to go to church, but to BE the church by putting on display the radical, other-centered, self-sacrificial love of God as revealed in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, re-incarnated again as Christ’s body in visible form for all to continue to see.

If you are already meeting in a HeartGroup and you feel your group is in need of a more other-centered focus, this week, I want to challenge you to not just merely meet to encourage, instruct, and bless one another (although this too is vital and should not be belittled), but also spend some time, in prayerfully submitted brainstorming, considering how your group can possibly make a difference in the community around you. At bare minimum, find someone in your area who is in need and pool your resources together to make a difference in that person’s life. Jesus didn’t go around trying to get people ready to go to heaven when they died. On the contrary, Jesus went around doing good, setting captives free, making a difference in this age, creating change for the better in peoples’ lives NOW and then announcing, His Kingdom had come!

This is our mission too: to enlarge His Kingdom! Not merely by turning people into “believers” who believe differently now about certain topics. No, no! Once those stones are alive, we are called to assemble those stones together in a way that becomes a dwelling place for God Himself, incarnate once again—a living demonstration, putting on display the beauty of God’s character of love, once revealed in Jesus Christ and now revealed through His visible embodiment (Body, see Ephesians 4.16) for the world around US to see!

If you are currently not part of a HeartGroup and you would like more information on participating in a group or even hosting a group, please contact us at:

https://renewedheartministries.com/heartgroups.aspx

As always, keep living in love, loving like Christ, and together, let’s go enlarge the Kingdom.

This marks the end of this series. Next, we begin a special series based on the Jesus story, which we believe will prove especially relevant during this upcoming holiday season.

I love you guys, and I’ll see you next week.

Herb

HeartGroups Series; Part 4 of 5 – Appendix

Matthew 20.25-28—Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Matthew 23.8-12—”But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called ‘teacher,’ for you have one Teacher, the Messiah. The greatest among you will be your servant. For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.HeartGroups Series

Part 4 – Appendix

Due to a small number of objections and questions that have come in from last week’s eSight on how our rejection of hierarchical leadership styles within the church is one of the ways we put on display that the rule of The Powers has come to an end, I felt that this week, rather than progressing with this series, I would share a portion of the New Testament research that collaborates and supports last week’s statements.

What I am offering this week is a ten-page document that is a basic compiling of some of the best New Testament scholarly research that we have available to us today on what the New Testament ekklesia actually looked like and how it functioned. Again this document is a compilation of the brightest and best research out there that I have been able to find to date. I have simply re-structured this research for easier reading, so that it can be passed on to you and to others in a more easily digestible fashion. This document reflects not simply my own conclusions (only a small portion of this material is from my own personal research) but of a vast majority of other scholars as well. (In other words, for those of you who are saying I’m a dreamer . . . “I’m not the only one.”)

This document is too lengthy to be posted in this email. But for those who are interested in the scholastic evidence for last week’s eSight (where we rejected all forms of hierarchical leadership styles rather than baptizing them) please check out the pdf I have posted at this link:

Click to access 16hierarchy.pdf

(If this does not show up in your email as a link, please copy and paste this url into your internet browser.)

It is my prayer that as we continue to process this information, in the light God’s character of radical, other-centered, self-sacrificial love as revealed in the person of Jesus Christ, that God will have a people who finally reject Constantinian Christianity in favor of becoming those who look like their Master once again. 1700 years is far too long. The time has come for those who carry Jesus’ name to resemble, once again, what Jesus and His Kingdom where truly all about.

For those who were looking forward to a “devotional” this week, I want to offer you my humblest apologies. We will return to that format next week. This week, please take some time and give this information prayerful consideration. This is research our intellects can rest upon, so that our hearts can passionately embrace the “New Creation,” the Ekklesia, we have in Jesus (2 Corinthians 5.17).

Happy Reading and keep enlarging the Kingdom!

I love you guys,

I’ll see you next week.

HeartGroups Series; Part 4 of 5

“His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms . . .”— Paul, Ephesians 3.10HeartGroups Series

Part 4

Embracing The “Mission” of New Testament Ekklesia.

Far from being a whipping boy in an effort to appease an angry God, Jesus’s death (and resurrection) was the result of a life lived in utter rebellion against the Powers. These Powers had claimed that WE belonged to Them. And Christ’s life, death, and resurrection have brought to us salvation, redemption, ransom, reconciliation, and yes, even atonement (see Leviticus 16 for how atonement fits within a “Victory against the Powers” paradigm).

I want to challenge you to take some time and read through the entire New Testament, but not in the order we find it in within most of our Bibles. I’d like you to read it in the narrative order in which it was written (or at least the most likely order by the estimation of most scholars). There are some great tools out there for doing this. One of the many that has received much acclaim recently is Frank Viola’s The Untold Story of the New Testament Church. And though I never agree entirely with any author that I read, I believe this resource will prove itself invaluable to you in simply getting your head around the narrative order of the New Testament alone.

When we take Paul’s writings within the context of when, where, and why they were written, we see a series of terms that I would love to unpack for you this week.

These terms are:

“principalities and powers”

“thrones and dominions”

“angels and archangels”

“elements”

“heights and depths”

and even “law” and “knowledge”.

Paul’s words in his letter to the Ekklesia in Colossae, with these in mind, are astounding:

The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things IN HEAVEN AND ON EARTH, visible and INVISIBLE, whether THRONES OR POWERS OR RULERS OR AUTHORITIES; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. (Colossians 1.15-17)

The Greek word here for “hold together” actually means “systematizes.” There is an organizational structure, or “system,” to how Christ “created” this world to function. What we begin seeing in Paul’s epistles is that although there is a reign of order among creation, and it’s an order which in its original intention was a Divine gift, most of the references to the “Powers” in the New Testament consider them as now fallen from their original intent. They are still present, still ruling, but now in a fallen state. They are no longer active as mediators of the loving, creative purpose of God; now we find them usurping an unascribed authority, gained through humanity’s rebellion, and using both their original and newly gained authority as follows:

1) We find them seeking to separate us from the love of God (see Romans 8.38).

2) We find them ruling over the lives of those who live far from the love of God (see Ephesians 2.2).

3) We find them holding us in servitude to their rules (see Colossians 2.20).

4) We find them holding us under their tutelage or instruction (see Galatians 4.3).

And although the authority of these Powers is not limitless, we still find them, in the mind of Paul, exercising their power, again, within both their original ordered function and the usurped dominion gained through humanity’s fall.

C.S Lewis referred to this reality in the following words:

“I freely admit that real Christianity . . . goes much nearer to Dualism than people think . . . The difference is that Christianity thinks this Dark Power was created by God, and was good when he was created, and went wrong. Christianity agrees with Dualism that this universe is at war. But it does not think this is a war between independent powers. It thinks it is a civil war, a rebellion, and that we are living in a part of the universe occupied by the rebel.”— C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity.

Some today refer to this cosmic conflict as a Great Controversy.

It was to deliver us and to defeat these Powers that Jesus came, lived, died, and was resurrected:

“When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are safe. But when someone stronger attacks and overpowers him, he takes away the armor in which the man trusted and divides up his plunder.” (Luke 11.21, 22)

“Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil . . .” (Hebrews 2.14)

(I have written at length concerning this theme in our four-part Christus Victor series earlier this year. Please feel free to go back and reread that series if at any time you get “lost” while reading this week’s eSight.)

Notice the contrast between the Enemy’s words during the temptations and Christ’s words after the Resurrection:

“The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. And he said to him, ‘I will give you ALL THEIR AUTHORITY and splendor; it has been given to me [by Adam, See Genesis 3 and 1 Corinthians 15], and I can give it to anyone I want to. If you worship me, it will all be yours.’” (Luke 4.5-7)

“Then Jesus came to them and said, ‘ALL AUTHORITY IN HEAVEN AND ON EARTH HAS BEEN GIVEN TO ME. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.’” (Matthew 28.19-20)

Jesus had come to gain this authority back for us, but not by bowing to these Powers as the Enemy had tempted. Jesus would gain back this authority rather by the long and slow process of living a radically subversive, other centered life, dying a cruel self sacrificial death at the hands of these Powers, and then through the final, glorious climax of a resurrection. By these methods and these methods alone, Jesus would establish His Kingdom in the place of Theirs. (A Dominion that at its core exists as a new way of doing life based on the character of God itself, i.e., the radical, other-centered, self-sacrificial love of God as revealed through the person of Jesus Christ. See Daniel 7.9,13-14 cf. John 12.31; Matthew 26.64)

Jesus’s message was:

“From that time on Jesus began to preach, ‘Repent, for THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN HAS COME near.’” (Matthew 4.17)

The message Jesus sent His disciples out with was:

“As you go, proclaim this message: ‘THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN HAS COME near.’” (Matthew 10.7)

Jesus’s last words to Pilate were:

Jesus said, “MY KINGDOM is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now MY KINGDOM is from another place.” (John 18.36)

Paul’s message till the end of his life was the same:

“He proclaimed THE KINGDOM OF GOD and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ—with all boldness and without hindrance!” (Acts 28.31)

The life, death, and resurrection of Jesus had been victorious! Paul’s letter to the Colossians again tells us of this victory:

“For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into THE KINGDOM of the Son he loves . . . ” (Colossians 1.13)

“. . . having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed THE POWERS AND AUTHORITIES, he made a public spectacle of THEM, triumphing over THEM by the cross.” (Colossians 2.14,15)

Again the words of Jesus in reference to the purpose of His own death and resurrection:

“Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the PRINCE OF THIS WORLD will be DRIVEN OUT.” (John 12.31)

And lastly the words of John:

“Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say: ‘Now have come the salvation and the power and THE KINGDOM of our God, and THE AUTHORITY of his Messiah. For THE ACCUSER of our brothers and sisters, who accuses them before our God day and night, has been HURLED DOWN.’” (Revelation 12.10)

But how does this relate to HeartGroups and New Testament Ekklesia?

This is the most exciting part of this week’s eSight!

“His intent was that now, THROUGH THE CHURCH [the Ekklesia], the manifold wisdom of God should be made known TO THE RULERS AND AUTHORITIES IN THE HEAVENLY REALMS . . .” (Ephesians 3.10)

WE, plural, together as the Ekklesia, in it’s original New Testament form, have been called to put on display, the accomplished reality of Christ’s defeat of the Powers on the Cross (God’s manifold wisdom; See 1 Corinthians 1.23,24). We have been called to put on display the radical beauty of God’s character of love which is at the core of this New Kingdom, to put on display the defeat of God’s (and our) enemies (see Epheisans 6.12), and that under this new Kingdom there is a new way of doing life!

But what does how we do Ekklesia have do with putting on display the Character of God and God’s Divinely accomplished defeat of the Powers? (In other words, what we are really asking is, “How does our form really relate to our function?)

Let’s start slow.

Ephesians 3 is at bare minimum, clear that we have been called to make known this “manifold wisdom of God,” (God’s accomplishment on the Cross) together, IN COMMUNITY to these Rulers and Authorities for all, both on earth and in heaven to witness.

I want to submit to you this week, something that I know is challenging to many, but if we are to be honest about taking the teachings of Jesus seriously we must take, even this into consideration. Please remain open minded. Even the form in which our gatherings take, in light of the God ordained function that we as His Body are called to, really does matter more than some realize.

Let me explain.

The Ekklesia is made up of Jesus’ followers that are announcing to The Powers that their reign has ended. Their very existence is to announces to the Stoicheia (Greek for “The Elements”, or rather The Powers: Galatians 4.3 and Colossians 2.8) that we who “used to live when [we] followed the ways of THIS WORLD and of THE RULER OF THE KINGDOM OF THE AIR” (see Ephesians 2) are now free from Them, because of Jesus, to live out our original design once again. What was that original design? Follow carefully:

Then God said, “Let US make humankind in OUR IMAGE, according to OUR LIKENESS; and let THEM have DOMINION . . .” (Genesis 1.26, NRSV, See also John 17.)

Remember from part 1 of this series:

“Within the Godhead we discover mutual love, mutual fellowship, mutual dependence, mutual honor, mutual submission, mutual dwelling, and authentic community. In the Godhead, there exists an eternal, complementary, and reciprocal interchange of divine life, divine love, and divine fellowship. There is an absence of command-style leadership. There is an absence of hierarchical structures. There is an absence of passive spectatorship. There is an absence of one-upmanship. And there is an absence of religious rituals and programs.”

When we mimic the Godheads form, when we return to the original intent of what the New Testament Ekklesia was supposed to be, we are rejecting a form that by contrast mirrors the power structures of the kingdoms (and thus the “Powers” behind them) of this world.

This is why Jesus so strictly forbid the church from, even in it’s form, looking anything like this world:

“Jesus said to them, ‘The kings of the Gentiles LORD IT OVER THEM; and those who exercise AUTHORITY OVER THEM call themselves Benefactors. [Remember we do not find this among the Godhead itself] BUT YOU ARE NOT TO BE LIKE THAT. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. (Luke 22.25-26)

“But you are NOT to be called ‘RABBI,’ for you have only one Master and you are all brothers [equal]. And do not call anyone on earth ‘FATHER,’ for you have ONE Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called ‘TEACHER,’ for you have ONE Teacher, the Messiah. The greatest among you will be your servant. For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted. (Matthew 23.8-12).

We find in these passages a stern forbiddance of hierarchal, “power over” structures within those who claim to part of Christ’s new Kingdom. Remember in Jesus kingdom, temple, sacrifice, and priest are no more. (We, as a living Ekklesia, are God’s dwelling place, how we do life, modeled after Jesus, is a living sacrifice, and we together as equals are a “priesthood” of all believers.) The Old Testament Levitical system is NOT what we are to patterned after, but rather, we are to be patterned after the original design of the Godhead itself (See Genesis 1.26) of mutual love, service, and participation. Christ came to restore us to this.

Again, we are not to have among us the hierarchal, power over, power structures we find all round us among the kingdoms of this world. We are called to put on display something radically different. We are called to the open, mutually participatory nature of the Godhead (our original Parents) Itself!

Our FORM in itself is a proclamation, a sign, a token to the Powers that their unbroken dominion, Their way of doing life, has come to an end! The Ekklesia, done properly, does not function under Their hierarchal power structures anymore (with passive spectators who passively submit, mirroring the kingdoms of this world which in turn mimick the Powers of this world.) The Ekklesia even by its form is to put on display that WE ARE UNDER NEW MANAGEMENT! We are now under the direct Headship of Christ, marked by mutual, open, every-member-functioning-participation like what we find within the Godhead and thus a demonstration of the Kingdom that is rooted in Their Love. Just the very existence of Ekklesia, when our form is in harmony with the teachings of Jesus, is an aggressive act against the Powers in a world still claimed to be ruled by those Powers. Ekklesia is an act of protest, saying we are no longer Their slaves, but freed ones, following a NEW rule, the rule of Christ. Just the mere presence of the Ekklesia is a sign to the Powers of the coming end, of Their emerging encirclement and Their imminent and final defeat.

Paul continues in his letter to the Ephesians:

“For our struggle is NOT against flesh and blood, but against THE RULERS, against THE AUTHORITIES, against THE POWERS of this dark world and against THE SPIRITUAL FORCES OF EVIL IN THE HEAVENLY REALMS.” (Ephesians 6.12)

This is a new kind of community (Kingdom/Ekklesia) conceived within the Godhead (John 17), given birth on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2), established and enlarged by the Cross (both Christ’s and ours; Luke 9.23) Genuine Ekklesia is a far cry from being “religious.” True Ekklesia is about putting on display the radical, other-centered, self-sacrificial love of God! But how we do Ekklesia is not mysteriously exempt from any of this.

Seeing that how we do “Church” is itself a protest against the “Powers” is loaded with meaning for those who are seeking to return to a more New Testament form of Ekklesia. All resistance and every attack against the “gods of this age” will be unfruitful, unless the Ekklesia, itself, IS resistance and attack. It is imperative that the Ekklesia itself demonstrates, in its own life and fellowship, how believers can live freed from the Powers. We can only “make known” the manifold wisdom of God to the Powers if our communal life together displays something radically different than how the Powers themselves demand life should be done. We do this, together, in so many ways. But NOWHERE is this more evident than by our absolute rebellion against the hierarchal power structures of this world and the “Powers” behind them. When we deliberately choose NOT to pattern our gatherings after the kingdoms of this world, but after the Godhead itself, when we choose to conduct our gatherings with an open, mutually participatory nature, under the Headship of Christ, this again put’s on display the Victory of Christ and that a NEW Kingdom has arrived!

(To be fair, I want to express again, this is not the only way we put on display Christ’s victory, but it is foundational to all else that we do. To be fair, we also do this too when we, as a community, choose to live radically self-sacrificially so that we might reach out in our larger communities to make a difference with our resources. (We put on display that we are now freed from “Mammon’s” clutches.) We do this when, in our gatherings, we no longer recognize any difference between peoples, whether by class, economic status, race, gender, or nation. (Galatians 3.19; James 2.1-4; Ephesians 2.13-16) We do this when justice, mercy and love prevail in our own gatherings and social differences (or any other differences for that matter) lose their power to divide us. Our manifestation of the manifold wisdom of God to the Powers is meaningful only insofar as it springs from an Ekklesia whose inner life is itself a proclamation and demonstration of a new way of doing life together. Through all these ways, it is as if we are screaming to the Powers, “This world is under NEW management! And we are the PROOF!”)

But let’s be careful not to go too far. Our duty is NOT to bring the Powers to their knees. Christ has already done this through His Cross! Our duty is to simply but firmly put on display Their already accomplished defeat! Our duty is to put on display, as a community, that we are no longer under Their rule! Ours is to put on display the beauty of our new King’s character of Love and His way of doing life. We are, together, to put on display what this NEW kingdom, NEW reign looks like. And, in the face of Their empty claims, which are now nothing more than a grasping at straws, to declare the reign of the Powers has come to an END!

Wherever the Cross is genuinely preached, the unmasking and disarming of the Powers takes place. And wherever genuine Ekklesia is accurately practiced through open participatory gatherings, the church demonstrates to other realms that Jesus Christ—God’s manifold wisdom (see 1 Corinthians 1.23, 24)—is alive enough to lead a fallen race who used to belong to God’s enemy.

Genuine Ekklesia is much more than simply how one does “church”. It’s about doing life, together, in such a way as to put on display the radical character of our God and the defeat of His Enemies, even to those very Powers themselves, for all both in Heaven and on Earth to see.

Lastly, this cannot be done by individualistic, personal, solo efforts, but rather by communities that mirror the relationship the Triune God, Itself, of mutual love, acting as one. (See John 17.20, 21.) Too many of us are still living as if we are just passing through. We are living as if our goal is to accept Jesus as our “personal” Savior (i.e., “get saved”) before we die, so we, individually, can “go to heaven.” This is a far cry from the New Testament’s paradigm. “Heaven” is not our home. THIS EARTH is our home! ITS DOMINION has been given back to us through Christ’s life, death, and resurrection! I’m sorry to have to say, we aren’t going anywhere. In the age to come, God is NOT taking us “home” to be with HIM! No, no. God is coming HERE to make His home WITH US via Return and Resurrection! (See Revelation 21 and 22 and 1 Corinthians 15.)

What does all of this mean? It means simply this:

1)The Cross declares that Jesus is already the Savior of the World! God’s Enemies have been defeated!

2)We, as the Ekklesia, have been called to embrace Him now as Lord, and to live out the radical beauty of His NEW Kingdom in community with one another, and by thus putting His Character and Kingdom on display, to declare God’s enemies are defeated, a new Kingdom has arrived, and we are to enlarge the borders of this New Kingdom, His Kingdom, one humble, loving relationship at a time.

This is EXACTLY what Jesus taught in the parable of “the mustard seed.” The Gardener planted it in HIS garden till it grew, subversively underground, sometimes even unnoticeably, and un-measurably, until it took over “the whole garden.”

“Then Jesus asked, ‘What is THE KINGDOM of God like? What shall I compare IT to? It is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his garden. It grew and became a tree, and the birds perched in its branches.’” (Luke 13.18,19)

“He told them another parable: ‘THE KINGDOM of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field. Though it is the smallest of all seeds, yet when it GROWS, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds come and perch in its branches.’” (Matthew 13.31, 32)

Remember, we have not been called to conquer the world for Jesus, but to simply love the world (and one another) like Jesus, via Ekklesia!

So in light of God’s Victory on the Cross against the Powers, and His Glorious purpose for His Ekklesia, His Bride, in putting that Victory on display, go forth this week, and as community, live like Christ, think like Christ, serve like Christ, and love like Christ and thereby, go enlarge the Kingdom.

I love you guys.

We’ll see you next week.

For information about our new Renewed Heart Ministries’ HeartGroups please look us up on the web at:

https://renewedheartministries.com/heartgroups.aspx

HeartGroups Series; Part 3 of 5

Let the message of Christ dwell among you richly as you teach and admonish one another . . . – Paul, Colossians 3.16The HeartGroups Series

The Sufficiency of Christ

This week, I want to move even closer to communicating the New Testament basis for Renewed Heart Ministries’ new HeartGroups, especially in the context of the Sufficiency of Christ. Again, we are basing the nature of HeartGroups on the nature of the New Testament Ekklesia (which was really just an extension of the relational nature of the Godhead itself. See Part 1).

To the early church gatherings, Christ was EVERYTHING!

Christ was their FOCUS.

Christ was their HEAD.

Christ was their PURPOSE.

What does each of these mean? Let’s take a closer look.

Christ as Focus

These small groups (early New Testament churches, the “ekklesia”) were rooted and grounded in the story of Jesus (the Gospel). They were not focused on a person with a charismatic personality, nor were they elitist, gathered around some nifty doctrine. Jesus, His story, His resurrection, and His Kingdom became EVERYTHING to these gatherers. Jesus was the central focus of each of their gatherings. Even when they studied together, the subject they studied was the story of Jesus. Why?

It’s simple. First, Jesus was their doctrine. Anyone who sought to share with these gatherers a “new” doctrine faced the test of the story of Jesus. In Paul’s letter, notice his definition of a sound doctrine. A sound doctrine is one that conformed to the story of Jesus as they heard it from him.

“…the sound doctrine that conforms to the gospel [i.e. the story of Jesus].” – 1 Timothy 1.10,11

Second, Jesus was their NEW moral standard. For the Jews, their standard of morality was no longer the law of Moses but the teachings of Jesus as revealed within the Jesus story (i.e., the Gospel). The Gentiles were also called to leave their immorality and idolatry to follow the teachings of Jesus. However, JESUS was their new definition of morality, not their culture (Gentiles) or the Law of Moses (Jews); Jesus Himself was the new standard by which they sought to understand how they were to live their lives. (Reread Galatians, James, and Hebrews. Yes, the entire letter, each of them. When you read these letters in one sitting, the point of each letter becomes overwhelming. Jesus was the new standard of morality.)

The Story of Jesus (the gospel) was everything to the early church!

Christ as Head

As we covered last week (see Part 2), nowhere in the New Testament does Paul or any other author state that any other person is to be the Head of their gatherings. Their only Head was to be Jesus Himself. Therefore, these early gatherings were not glorified Bible Studies in which the same person led out each week. Nor were they simply, “Honey I shrunk the church,” as we know that term today, where we gather simply to hear a sermon. No no! These early gatherings were marked by the open, mutually participatory, every member sharing, functioning, and expressing whatever gift Jesus, through the Holy Spirit, had given to edify the group as a whole. (Please see last week’s eSight for more on this topic.)

Paul makes this clear:

Instead, speaking the truth [to one another] in love, we will in all things grow up into Him who is the HEAD, that is, Christ. From him the whole body, joined and HELD TOGETHER BY EVERY SUPPORTING LIGAMENT, grows and builds itself up in love, AS EACH PART DOES ITS WORK. Ephesians 4.15,16

Some will ask, “But didn’t the early church have leadership?” Of course! However, notice its style of leadership. The overseers (the older, more experienced individuals in each group, i.e., the elders) were simply to serve the group (for Jesus’s command of servant leadership, see Luke 22.25,26) by making sure the Headship of Christ was not hijacked by any one person, a group of persons, or even themselves during their gatherings.

Christ Himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors, and the teachers, to EQUIP HIS PEOPLE FOR THE WORK OF MINISTRY so that the body of Christ may be built up … Ephesians 4.11,12

These early gatherings were marked by a group of people coming together (assembling, the ekklesia) in an authentic community in an open, mutually participatory manner, an every member functioning, priest (or priestess) hood of all believers’ style, (Jesus had done away with Temple, Sacrifice, and Priest) coming under the Headship of Christ and letting HIM lead each of their gatherings. (Note that Paul never writes to individual believers about what they need to do to grow in Christ. On the contrary, Paul always writes to the assembly, the ekklesia, encouraging the body in regards to what the body needs so that each “member” might grow up into Christ, who is their Head. More on this in upcoming weeks. Maybe.) No hierarchical leadership existed in these gatherings save for the Headship of Christ Himself.

Christ as Purpose

Today, we are a conglomeration of church hoppers and church shoppers. We are a community that has been culturally conditioned by the paradigm of our functioning, first and foremost, out of our consumer-driven needs. Although this may or may not be acceptable in other forms of our life (that debate is still raging), a consumer needs-based drive is never acceptable as a motive for ekklesia. We are not gathered together to meet our own needs or desires but the eternal purpose and strong desire of Christ Himself (see John 17, as well as Part 1 again).

Again, this means that, first, these gatherings are not times for glorified sermonizing or bible studies during which only one person’s agenda each week is being pursued and the rest of the group simply spectates for the entire time. Again, the gatherings of the early church were not marked by the same person sharing each week while the rest just listened and then went home. Not at all! These gatherings were marked by each person taking turns listening and sharing, within the same gathering, as they together came under the direction and Headship of Christ. (They actually allowed HIM to direct their gathering.)

What happens when someone in the group has a truth or a doctrine, or something lengthy, that they feel is important and would like to share with the group?

Such a situation may be handled in many ways. For me to simply tell you what to do would be so easy right now. However, I’d like to suggest, instead, that first and foremost, at this moment the group needs to stop and pray together. Submit the idea to the Headship of Christ and ask how He wants your group to handle this. (Recently, I saw a group handle their dilemma with “child care” during their gatherings this way and the solution that God gave that group was beautiful!)

All that said, one possible solution could be (again, this is just one possible way, submit it together and see what your HEAD, Jesus Christ says to the group) as follows:

If someone in your group has a pet doctrine or a theological hobbyhorse that he or she continues to peddle in your meetings, and that detracts everyone else from Christ, you can try this. Set aside a special meeting (one event) during the week at which this person presents his or her doctrine to the group without interruption. Make an agreement with this person ahead of time. After this person has shared his or her heart, the group will react. If the person has convinced everyone about his or her doctrine, then he or she must agree to no longer bring it up during your meetings. Everyone is convinced, so there is no need. If the person does not convince everyone, then he or she must agree to stop talking about it altogether. Remember, your meetings are centered on the story of Jesus; in other words, the Gospel and Christ IS sufficient. These gathering are not to be used as a platform to expound your favorite doctrine. Therefore, leave any other specialized doctrine that does not conform to the Story of Jesus (i.e., the Gospel) at the door and do not monopolize your gatherings with them.

Again, these gatherings in the New Testament were neither bless-me clubs (where people came to have their own needs met) nor were they elitist by nature. Nothing even close. These groups were assembling to fulfill, together, the strong desire and longing of Christ Himself that reaches back all the way to the beginning.

Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness …” (Genesis 1.26)

“I ask not only on behalf of these, but also on behalf of those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.” (John 17.20,21)

As we have covered in previous weeks, this is God’s strong, original, and eternal desire. It was lost through humanities’ belief in lies about the Father. Jesus came to restore to us this life of Love. THIS is the eternal longing within God; for us to experience His radical, other-centered, self-sacrificial love in a community that lives and breathes the very ebb and flow of the love found within the Godhead. Just as this was lost through lies about the Father, Jesus would restore to us this experience by revealing to us the truth about God’s character of Love (see John 17.25,26 and John 8.32).

Again, God’s strong desire is that we will, together, as ekklesia, enter into the pleasure of His eternal ebb and flow of self-sacrificial, other centered, radical Love, the very love of the Triune God. This He longs for us to experience with Him and with each other. This is HIS Desire. His eternal purpose! And thus the PURPOSE of our gatherings.

When we come together, we are to hold Christ’s desire for ourselves to enter into the Godhead’s love (see John 17) as paramount above all other possible agendas. Through our expressed love for Christ and our expressed love for one another, we are gathering to give to Christ Himself the fulfillment of His eternal desire. Our aim is that HE will feel overjoyed as we too become simultaneously the conduits for and the recipients of Their other centered love. In our gatherings, we are there to testify OF HIM. We are there to, together, give praise TO HIM. We are there to, through mutual prayer, engage the enemy on behalf of those whom we know, and who have inestimable value TO HIM. (And to help and bless those very same ones as we have means and opportunity.) We are there to “teach” and even “instruct” one another (Ephesians 2; Romans 15), sharing with each other HIM as He has, and continues to, share Himself with each of us.

We are assembled to practice the “one anothers” of the New Testament in an authentic community, not to meet our own needs or our own desires, but through entering into the very “one another” love of God, the “one anothers” of the New Testament, again, that God Himself might feel over-loved and overjoyed, as He sees His strong desire for us experienced, encountered, and fulfilled in our ekklesia! Christ is not simply our focus, He is not simply our head, but He and His desire actually is the very PURPOSE for which we have gathered.

We become the ekklesia, the assembly, the dwelling place [house] of God, His LIVING sanctuary, His LIVING temple, His body, the living manifestation of God’s dwelling among us for all to see. (As a side note, the evangelistic power of these kinds of gatherings is astounding! But that is an entirely different topic. See 1 Corinthians 14.24,25)

Does a gathering of this nature by a group of mutual Jesus followers in someone’s living room resonate with you this week? It does with me! If you would like to hook up with a HeartGroup in your area, or if you are interested in hosting a gathering like this in your own living room, drop us a line here at Renewed Heart Ministries. (304.520.0030 ext. 100 or heartgroups@renewedheartministries.com)

As always, keep living in love, loving like Christ, and together let’s enlarge the Kingdom.

I love you guys.

We’ll see you next week.

Herb

HeartGroups Series; Part 2 of 5

“What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up” (Paul, 1 Corinthians 14.26, emphasis added).

HeartGroups Series

Part 2

Mutual, Open Sharing in Living Rooms versus Passive Spectatorship in Auditoriums

This week, I want to build upon what we looked at last week: the relationship that exists among the Godhead (as taught by Jesus) is the clearest example we have been given of the God-intended nature of our gatherings.

From the very beginning, I want to say that this in no way a critique of any church fellowship, tradition, denomination, or institutional church. HeartGroups (as introduced by our Ministry Update news email last week) are not in competition with, nor meant to be a replacement for, whatever institutional religious experience someone may (or may not) already be engaged in. HeartGroups are only intended to be supplementary. HeartGroups are modeled after the early New Testament-era church gatherings. Yet, this should not be taken to mean that God cannot or is not working through other modes of gathering together as well. At Renewed Heart Ministries, we have modeled our HeartGroups after the early church, simply because 1) we have the clearest instruction for this type of gathering from the text of the New Testament, and 2) we have seen it to be the most holistic way for followers of Jesus to experience real and mutual growth, within the context of genuine fellowship and an authentic community.

But enough about all of that! Let’s dive right in to our topic this week by looking briefly at a few texts.

1 Corinthians 14.26: What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up. (Some have suggested that this was the problem with the Corinthian church, but a quick survey of the entire New Testament disproves this. This was how all churches in the New Testament operated. Paul, in his letter, does not seek to squelch the open, mutually participatory nature of the Corinthian gatherings that turned the majority of those gathered into spectators. On the contrary, Paul gives guidelines on how to exercise mutual respect, so that the mutual, openly participatory gatherings will be done orderly and respectfully.)

Romans 15.14: I myself am convinced, my brothers and sisters, that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with knowledge and competent to instruct one another.

Colossians 3.16: Let the message of Christ dwell among you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom through psalms, hymns and songs from the Spirit, singing to God with gratitude in your hearts.

Hebrews 10.24, 25: And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds, not giving up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but encouraging one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching.

Matthew 20:25, 26: Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant.”

Matthew 23.8, 9: “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.” (This is not a gender exclusive statement. The early church included sisters too, some of whom were Apostles themselves; but at this stage, Jesus is talking, literally, to twelve “men.”)

Ephesians 4.15, 16: Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the head, that is, Christ. From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.

Meditate on these passages, if you will. This week, I want you to notice that, in each of the above passages, the nature of the early New Testament church is clearly described. They were open, mutually participatory gatherings where each person was free to share. They were not marked by command-style leadership. There were no hierarchical structures; no passive spectatorship; no one-upmanship; and no religious rituals and programs. Rather, just as we witnessed among the Godhead last week, these groups were marked by complementary and reciprocal interchanges, love, and fellowship.

These early New Testament gatherings were marked by mutual love, mutual fellowship, mutual dependence, mutual honor, mutual submission, mutual dwelling, and authentic community.

This actually explains that the role of a New Testament Apostle is so unique from anything we have today. (Apostles were church planters, but in a very unique fashion; see Ephesians 4.12, 13). After the Gospel had been preached and there were those who had genuine encounters with God through the person of Jesus, the Apostle would stay in the area for a temporary time, with one goal in mind: Establish and develop a group with an open, mutually participatory nature, and once it’s off and running, leave it! These fellowships were not to be led by the Apostle. No, no! They were to function with mutual participation, with Christ as their head (Ephesians 2.14, 15).

With the help and encouraging of the Apostle, those within the group who had a natural tendency to take over would have to learn, over time, to listen more to others in the group and to submit more to the headship of Christ Himself in each gathering (Ephesians 4.15, 16). Those who were not comfortable sharing needed time, encouragement, and support from the group, as they became more comfortable, and over time, confident, in sharing and edifying the group with the ways in which Jesus was leading them as well. From a human view point, the work of the Apostle was about teaching those who like to share to also listen more, and for those who are not comfortable sharing to become more comfortable. From a Divine viewpoint, it was about teaching a group to, together, submit to the Headship of Jesus Himself; it was not just having a gathering about Jesus, but actually allowing Him to sit in the driver’s seat and serve as the leader of each gathering (Again, see Ephesians 4.15-16).

The early church was marked by the very traits that we find in the triune God, particularly mutual love, mutual fellowship, mutual dependence, mutual honor, mutual submission, mutual dwelling, and an authentic community. The church’s gatherings were marked by:

•face-to-face community

•the functioning of every member

•open-participation meetings (as opposed to preacher-to-spectator services)

•non-hierarchical leadership

•the centrality and supremacy of Jesus Christ, not just as the central subject, but the functional leader and head of each gathering as well.

It’s such a paradigm shift to discover that almost all of Paul’s letters (Ephesians is the only exception) were written to open participatory “churches” that were in crises. He never addresses the “clergy” or “leadership offices” of those churches but always the churches themselves:

Galatians 1.1: Paul, an apostle . . . to the churches in Galatia.

1 Thessalonians 1.1: Paul, Silas and Timothy, to the church of the Thessalonians.

2 Thessalonians 1.1: Paul, Silas and Timothy, to the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Corinthians 1.1,2: Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and our brother Sosthenes, to the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be his holy people, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ—their Lord and ours.

2 Corinthians 1.1: Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, to the church of God in Corinth, together with all his holy people throughout Achaia.

Romans 1.1-7: Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God . . . to all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be his holy people.

Colossians 1.1, 2: Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, to God’s holy people in Colossae, the faithful brothers and sisters in Christ.

Ephesians 1.1: Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, to God’s holy people in Ephesus, the faithful in Christ Jesus.

Philippians 1.1: Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus, to all God’s holy people in Christ Jesus at Philippi, together with the overseers and deacons. (This is the only letter that includes “overseers” (plural) in whom the letter is addressed to, and even this occurrence mentions them only in passing. Following this greeting, Paul talks to the church about its present problems. And he never again mentions the overseers. This trend is highlighted in the book of Hebrews. Throuought the entire epistle, the writer addresses the entire church. Only at the very end does the writer offhandedly ask the believers to greet their “overseers.” Hebrews 13.24 We’ll talk about “leadership” in just a moment.)

Why? Because there were no “clergy” as we know it today in these small gatherings. Why? Because there were no laity in Paul’s headspace, but rather a priesthood (today, it would be called “pastorhood”) of all believers.

Today, we are at the tail end of centuries of teaching the members of God’s church to simply function as weekly “spectators.” This is so deeply ingrained and has been done to such a degree that many don’t even have the confidence to embrace a gathering where they could take a more active, participatory role in exercising their own spiritual gifts. Many don’t even know what their gifts are (Some, on the other hand, are dying for this kind of mutual fellowship). But the mere fact that we have to resort to “tests” to discover our spiritual gifts, rather than letting them become obvious to everyone in an open, mutually participatory gathering, is proof within itself of how far off the path we have strayed.

Let’s take a look at another revealing passage that tells us how these gatherings were conducted:

Acts 2.42-47: They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship; to the breaking of bread and to prayer…They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God…

In light of this passage, one possible “HeartGroup” format (and I want to stress, ONE! Each HeartGroup will be a mixture of folks with different spiritual gifts; no two HeartGroups will ever look the same, just like the early church), is as follows:

Meet ahead of time for prayer. Mutually open, participatory gatherings require more prayer, not less. Then, as more people begin to show up, take time to actually eat together. Each person should bring a dish. This breaks the ice and gets things started. It’s what Acts 2.42 refers to as the “Breaking of Bread” together. Then, once everyone has eaten, you could move into a mutual sharing or praise time. Although this will be done in a way that respects each person (no one interrupting another), this is a time of spontaneity and open sharing, whether through song, something Jesus has shown you in his word that week, an experience where Jesus has taught you something that week, or periods of mutually participatory prayer. A unique but fun example would be if someone wrote a song about Jesus this week and wanted to share it with the group. This could easily become a sing-along. Or, if someone had some cool insight into one of the Gospels, then the group could openly discuss it, or even some life experience that Jesus was speaking to them through. Most of all, we want God’s direction to be first and foremost and for ours to always be held as secondary. Each person is open to share or even stop and pray. This is when we practice the 52 “One Anothers” of the New Testament.

One exercise I am extremely fond of that binds a group together is what I call “Encouragement and Affirmation Time.” This is a time where each person is, in turn, affirmed and encouraged by the group. This is the unique time when we get to, in a very unique and purposeful way, express our love for one another, encourage one another, and build each other up (1 Thessalonians 5.11).

Again, many of us don’t even know what our gifts are. For many of us, it’s going to take time for us to even work up the courage to share. Let’s face it; we have spent our lives, most of us, in training to be nothing more than weekly spectators. But, as each week passes, we will get closer to the mutually participatory nature that the gatherings of Jesus’ followers were originally intended to possess. Be patient with yourselves. This will not happen overnight. It’s a journey, not a destination. Enjoy it!

Over time, leadership will evolve in your group. (This is not a leadersless model.) But even when leadership evolve, this leadership is NOT hierarchal. It’s not top-down. It’s not one person leading out and everyone else “spectating”. New Testament “leadership” was “servant” leadership. The role of a leader/overseer was to protect the group’s mutual open sharing from being taken over by one or a few. The role of an “elder” or “overseer” in a group was not how they are defined in many churches today. Rather, overseers were to serve the group by protecting the mutual, open sharing of each gathering. (This was the role of the New Testament Elders. This was not an office in the early church, but a function of the older more experienced (i.e. “elders”) followers of Jesus in the group. This is our hope for HeartGroups as well. When leadership arises, and it always will, that those leaders realize they are simply overseers, theirs is a “role”. They do not hold an “office” but serve a “function.”)

Let’s finish up this week with a look at just three more texts:

Romans 16.5: Greet also the church that meets at their house.

1 Corinthians 16.19: The churches in the province of Asia send you greetings. Aquila and Priscilla greet you warmly in the Lord, and so does the church that meets at their house.

Colossians 4.15: Give my greetings to the brothers and sisters at Laodicea, and to Nympha and the church in her house.

Without entering into the endless debate about the necessity of “church” buildings, the fact the early church met in the homes of followers of Jesus is a point that must not be overlooked (For the first three hundred years of Christian history, followers of Jesus met exclusively in “homes.” The first “church” buildings did not appear until the fourth century after the “conversion” of Constantine. This, too, was a time when the church was growing exponentially). Why is this noteworthy? A HeartGroup can meet anywhere, but I personally know of no other environment that is more conducive to open, mutually participatory gatherings than a living room. It’s informal. It’s designed around relationships. And, it’s where the early church met too! There is no other setting that encourages, in my experience, a gathering of this nature to simply just “happen” as effectively.

This week, I also want to add that this type of gathering not only requires that one’s picture of God looks like Jesus, but also, like no other gathering to my knowledge, the fostering of fellowships and gatherings that, by their very nature, demonstrate most effectively the radical, other-centered, self-sacrificial love of God, as revealed in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Remember, we demonstrate the truth about God, not just by our beliefs, but how we “do life” too! When it comes to how we do life “together,” this is no exception.

If you would like to try a HeartGroup on for size, or if you are already gathering in early New Testament style, please drop us a line (heartgroups@renewedhearministries.com). We’d love to spend some time either encouraging you, helping you start a HeartGroup in your area, and/or just listening to how God is blessing your already existing group. Remember, just like the children of every parent, (See last week where we discussed how the early churches were simply the “children of the Godhead.”) each HeartGroup is going to be just as unique from one another as two children can be who are from the same set of parents. But no matter how unique those children are, they will carry within them the same DNA. What is the common thread, DNA for a HeartGroup, that we also find in each of the early churches? The “One Anothers” of the New Testament. The every-member-lovingly-sharing, mutually open participatory (verses passive spectatorship) nature of the Godhead itself! No two HeartGroups will look the same. But what all HeartGroups should have in common, is what we have covered in this eSight at the very minimum. These are not glorified Bible Studies (although each person is sharing from their Bibles) where the same person leads out each week. Nor are these just “church” on a smaller scale. (Think of it like a church “Potluck” where everyone brings a “dish.” This is just Christ centered, praise and fellowship, Potluck style, where everyone has prepared and brought something (Not a whole meal (i.e a Sermon), but just a dish remember, of what Jesus has been teaching you that previous week) to share and edify the group with. Again, this is a gathering where Christ Himself is the head, and any human leadership that is present is simply ensuring that that Headship is not taken over by anyone else.

“But speaking the truth [to one another] in love, we must grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by every ligament with which it is equipped, as each part is working properly, promotes the body’s growth in building itself up in love.” Ephesians 4.15-16

It’s a new paradigm for some to think about, for sure. But, you don’t have to think too hard. Try starting a HeartGroup in your area and see where Jesus leads it. You don’t have to be in charge; He’ll take care of that. You simply provide the location. The group itself, through the leadership of Jesus Himself, provides the food, the fellowship, and the mutual teaching, instruction, encouragement, and edification.

As always, keep living in love, loving like Christ, and keep enlarging the Kingdom, one relationship at a time.

I love you guys,

I’ll see you next week.

The Active Nonviolence of Jesus: Taking Up The Cross (12 of 12)

PART 12 OF 12

Taking Up The Cross

BY HERB MONTGOMERY

Then he said to them all: “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me. For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will save it. What good is it for you to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit your very self? If any of you are ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of you when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels. Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God” (i.e. the Cross). (Luke 9.23-27)

This is it! This is the last installment of our 11 part series on the Active Non-violence of Jesus. I’m quite sure there is so much more that could be said, but I’m quite confident that for now, at bare minimum, enough has been said. Over the course of this series, I have watched many come on board to partner with RHM in the Picture of the Father we are endeavoring to proclaim and demonstrate to the world. (Sadly, I’ve seen a few walk away too.) We’ve had such positive feedback from so many of you.

This week, let’s begin by taking a moment to define some terms, as we wrap things up. So many of you have shared the wonderful paradigm shift you have encountered by seeing your “enemies” as someone Christ died for too. Some of you have embraced Jesus’ teachings on “non-violence” through this series for the very first time. Non-violence, at ground level, means non-LETHAL force. Please don’t think for a moment that, through this series, we have defined non-violence as also including other forms of “force” that preserve the value, worth, and life of the assailant. This is why I have gone to great lengths to define Christian pacifism as still doing SOMETHING (it’s NOT passive!). But we must also allow the fact that Jesus died for all parties involved to govern HOW I stop whatever violence I encounter. Do I respond to violence with more violence, or do I, as a Christ follower, endeavor to overcome evil with good (See Romans 12). My goal, again as a Christ follower, is twofold—not just to stop the violence, but to do so in a way that leaves open the redemption of the one who is committing the violence as well.

Now, that doesn’t absolutely leave us in the clear yet. What types of non-lethal force are appropriate for a Jesus follower? As you read authors on this topic, you will find a whole gamut of opinions out there on what sincere Christian pacifists believe is acceptable. I’m going to be very transparent with you—I’m not saying that I’m right, I’m simply saying that I’m in the process of finding out what forms of non-lethal violence are acceptable and what are not. I’m convinced that the answers are still out there. These are the very questions that we need to be asking as followers of Jesus.

What forms of “non-lethal” force are acceptable to a Christ follower and what forms are not? To say we believe in non-violence is only saying that we don’t believe LETHAL force is acceptable for a Christ follower. But what forms of NON-LETHAL force are acceptable? And this is where we can agree, disagree, discuss, argue, and go back and forth. (While I personally have no problem with a Taser, in certain situations, I do have significant issues with a gun. More times than not, guns lead to lethal force, even when not intended.) I have no problem with restraint or Aikido, but (and this is just me personally) I do have a problem with physically striking someone, and I would be quick to say that you and I are perfectly fine to disagree on what forms of non-lethal force we deem to be appropriate.

Yet, even if we disagree on some of the finer details, please be careful to note where our disagreement actually lies. It’s on what TYPES of NON-LETHAL force is acceptable for a Christ Follower! I’m ecstatic that we have even gotten to the place where THIS is the question that we are wrestling with! This is exactly why I did this series. Until we, as Christ followers, reject LETHAL force, we don’t even move to ask the questions of which forms of non-lethal force are acceptable or not. If “Christians” would truly embrace just this (stop killing each other), there would have to be deep repentance to the world for YEARS of “killing others” in Jesus’ name. Untold damage has been done to the world’s picture of God (producing atheism, agnosticism, etc.) much more through Christianity’s ethics than through its theology (although I do believe one produces the other and vice versa). But, this is the point of the series.

Christ’s teachings in Matthew 5 (see part 3 and part 10) clearly illustrated nonviolent ways of “forcing” the assailant in each example to come to terms with what they were doing. Therefore, Christian pacifism is NOT about never “forcing” a situation. No, no! It is about doing so in a way that leaves open the chance to redeem the assailant too! Therefore, Christian pacifism IS most definitely about non-LETHAL force. So, if your opinion about “killing” has changed through this series—and so many of you have freely admitted that it has—I’m stoked! Whether you actually like the term or not, each of you have, like me, become a Christian pacifist (which can be different from other forms of pacifism). You have become a Christian pacifist who, like other Christian pacifists (including me), is now in the process of answering the questions revolving around “what forms of non-lethal force is acceptable and what forms are not?” (The fact that we are even wrestling with this question, rather than whether it is ok to kill or not, IS THE POINT!) So let’s wrestle on!

It doesn’t matter whether we all agree on what forms of NON-LETHAL force are acceptable or not. Those who reject LETHAL FORCE (i.e. pacifists) have NEVER agreed on the fine details of how to apply NON-LETHAL force (and I have no desire to split hairs on that one now). My burden is simply to get those who claim to follow Jesus to stop killing others in Jesus’ name, including other Christians and, hopefully, even their enemies. Then maybe, just maybe, we can rediscover what it actually means to LOVE our enemies. I know that goes far beyond not killing (I cannot kill someone and still hate their guts), but I don’t see how we can love our enemies while still feeling that it’s ok to end their life. We have to start somewhere. I believe that just getting followers of Jesus to say that “killing someone is never acceptable” to a Christ follower (and that we would rather suffer death than inflict it) is where the early church was and where we must return.

Again, if you, through this series, have come to embrace the reality that, for a Jesus follower, killing our enemies is opposed to what Jesus’ kingdom is all about, then whether we like the term or not, you have embraced Jesus’ teachings on pacifism. Now, we can move forward to wrestling with determining which forms of non-lethal force are acceptable and which forms are not. You know, we may never agree on that one (we’d be the first in history to, if we did). I will be perfectly open and honest that I, too, am in the process on this, just as many of you are, and I’m ok with that.

If you would like to purse this topic further, then let me share with you some great material that I believe you will find helpful:

The Politics of Jesus—John Howard Yoder (Not an easy read.)

A Faith Not Worth Fighting For—Various Authors (A much easier read.)

The Myth of a Christian Nation—Gregory Boyd (Excellent!)

Non-Violent Atonement by Denny Weaver (Profoundly challenging.)

There are others, but these are a great place to start.

Let me also address just a few other comments that have come in regarding this series. Some have responded with, “Usually the love of God has been your thing; why are you now talking about non-violence?” I want you each to know that I hear you loud and clear. Please let me explain what is taking place. It’s not that I “usually” focus on the love of God and now I’m talking about something else. I have been over this ground before. What you may be used to from me is a focus on Jesus’ revelation of God’s character of love and how that revolutionizes our “theology.” In this series, I have simply sought to focus on Jesus’ revelation of God’s character of love and how that revolutionizes our “ethics.” The picture of God that Jesus gives us radically affects BOTH.

I remember the strong objections by some that I received years ago when I began truly allowing what Jesus reveals about the Father (on the Cross) to be embraced and fleshed out “theologically” among us. I remember many people saying, “We are so used to you presenting God’s love; why are you trying to apply that to our other beliefs?” (They were quite upset.) Some of you today have experienced profound blessings through our efforts to stick with it and truly flesh out what the Cross is saying about other theological beliefs.

What I want you understand, and hopefully see, is that we are traversing that same, exact ground in this series too, but not with how Jesus’ revelation of God turns our “theology” on its head. What we are dealing with in this series is how the truth about God’s love, as revealed in the person of Jesus, also turns our “ethics” on their head too. And really, theology is important, but our actions speak way louder about the God we believe in than our words and ideas ever will. When Jesus spoke the loudest about God’s character, it was not in a Bible study or a sermon. It was when He was actually hanging on a cross, being put to death by His enemies. This is how Jesus won back humanity’s dominion from the devil and gave us back dominion of this Earth. God’s plan for humanity has never been translation, but redemption, restoration, and transformation.

I want you to each know that, on a deeply relational level, I’m truly sorry that some (and, I emphasize, only some) feel the subject of the truth of God’s character and the ethics of non-violence are unrelated, or at minimum, separate topics. This is fruit, or evidence, if you will, once again of the changes that took place in the fourth century. Just as a person’s picture of God and their theology cannot be separated, as they are intimately related to each other, so too are a person’s picture of God and their ethics. The subjects of God’s love and non-violence are more interconnected and intimately related than, I’m afraid, many have yet to realize. The Cross was God’s nonviolent act of defeating His enemy in the great cosmic conflict (see the podcast series entitled Christus Victor and the new book coming out next fall entitled Whom Do You See?). God’s love, when one truly encounters it, doesn’t just revolutionize our beliefs (our theology); it also revolutionizes how we live (our ethics).

I know it’s way more comfortable to just sit around and debate theology, but at some point, the world has to SEE that we have a different picture of God, not because of how we preach, but because of how we live. The early church did not grow through multiple evangelistic series, but through simply loving their enemies. Again, we are all in process. None of us have all the answers. But, if I have simply challenged someone to think about and begin living in a way that reflects the Jesus we claim to be following, I feel it’s all worth it. At some point in Christian history, those who bear the name of Christ have to not only “believe” like their Jesus, but actually live as he did too (1 John 2.6).

Let’s wrap things up with a look at a few of Jesus’ statements, which I believe really demonstrate that Christian pacifism is more central to communicating the truth about God’s character than many have yet realized.

Matthew 10.38:

Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me.

Matthew 16.24:

Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me.

Matthew 27.42:

“He saved others,” they said, “but he can’t save himself! He’s the king of Israel! Let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him.

(Again, Jesus was not passive. He continually went around “saving others,” but not by violence; He always interposed His own safety and well-being. See John 8. It’s pacifism, NOT passive-ism.)

Mark 8.34:

Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me.

Luke 9.23-27

Then he said to them all: “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me. For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will save it. What good is it for you to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit your very self? If any of you are ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of you when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels. Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God” (i.e. the Cross).

Luke 14.27

And whoever does not carry their cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.

Luke 14.33

In the same way, those of you who do not give up everything you have cannot be my disciples.

John 15.20:

Remember the word that I said to you, “Servants are not greater than their master.” If they persecuted me, they will persecute you.

What does it mean for you to want to be like Jesus?

What does it mean for you to, in your own everyday life, take up the cross as not just your message, but also your way of life, as your method of relating to others?

What does it look like for you to choose to be mentored (be a disciple) by the one you want to be like?

Isim: A distinctive practice, system of belief, philosophy, or ideology.

Ismatic: Someone who thinks according to, and lives by, a certain “-ism.”

Cruc: Cross.

Crucsim: The only “-ism” worth dying for (Christianity and the world has been victim of too many other “-isms”).

Crucismatic: Someone who lives by the practice, system of belief, philosophy and ideology of the cross.

A Crucismatic movement: A group of 2 to 12 people placed all over the world who seeks to influence society, not through wielding a sword, but through the practice, the system of belief, the philosophy, and the ideology of a cross instead.

What both the world and the church need today is a decidedly Crucismatic movement. May it start with me! May it start with you! Who’s with me?

I have a HUGE announcement to make soon in October! This is going to be BIG. We, at RHM, have been praying and working out all the details. Please pray that God will give us wisdom as we endeavor to know how to move forward into what it really means to follow Jesus and proclaim and demonstrate God’s radical, other-centered, self-sacrificial love.

Keep living in love; keep enlarging the Kingdom. Vive la Révolution! Lift high the Cross!

I love you guys.

The Active Nonviolence of Jesus: Domestic Violence (11 of 12)

PART 11 OF 12

Domestic Violence

BY HERB MONTGOMERY

But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. (Matthew 5.39)

This week, we discuss a topic related to Jesus’ peace teachings for which we have received many requests to address. The topic is domestic violence.

I have witnessed significant abuse to both women and children because of a complete misunderstanding of Jesus’ meaning in the passage above. Now, I want to say from the very beginning of this week that I have not been trained in counseling. I do not have a PhD in psychology or psychiatry. Therefore, I will not approach this topic academically. I believe that my qualifications for speaking on this topic go much deeper than mere academic training. (Moreover, those very qualifications may have caused me to drag my feet on this topic. For me, the topic is very personal.)

As many of you know, I grew up in a broken home. I share a little of my story in the first chapter of my book, Finding the Father. However, the part that I have yet to share publicly is the story of the next man that my mother married after my father. He is not the man to whom she is married now. Her current husband is the most humble, self-sacrificing, gentle man I have ever met. However, her marriage after her divorce from my father was a quite a different story.

I have memories—some of which are fuzzy and I have purposely pushed them away—of a time when my mother and I went to live with my grandmother across town because of a beating that my mother received from my stepfather. My grandmother was a quiet, other-centered follower of Jesus. She was a praying woman whom I pictured as never able to hurt anyone. I was quite shocked on the night that this story took place. I remember my stepfather attempting to break down my grandmother’s back door to storm in and get to my mother. I remember being very scared. I was hiding just around the corner, able to see only a little—but I saw enough. I too often experienced my stepfather’s temper, and I knew that if he got through that door, something terrifying would happen. Then, I remember my little grandmother appearing out of her bedroom and striding toward the door. She unlatched the chain and then the dead bolt. She swung open the door and put a bullet in the wall next to the door. (I didn’t even know my grandmother owned a gun!) I heard her say in a tone of voice I had never heard from her, “You touch my daughter tonight and the next bullet will be in you. You just think long and hard about what you do next. Jesus loves you, son, but you’re real close to meeting him personally.”

I remember that my stepfather backed up and left. I never looked at my grandmother the same after that day.

I remember being eight years old and seeing my stepfather’s temper again. My mother’s back was turned to him. She could not see what was coming but I did. I remember jumping over the kitchen counter to intercept his blow in mid-air. The blow intended for her fell on me. He then turned his rage on me and left bruises on my back that took more than a month to heal.

I remember spending a year on the road, living out of the trunk of our car and in and out of one women’s shelter after another. I was often afraid. I also went to six different public schools that year. Sometimes we stayed in women’s shelters, some nights we slept at the home of friends, and other nights we just slept in the car. When my stepfather found us—and he always did—we moved on.

Finally, my mother left when I was twelve. I remember my stepfather leaving for work and then, ten minutes after he was gone, the movers showed up. Previously, my mother was left with nothing, and she was not going to find herself in that situation again. The movers packed up all of her belongings and we left. We moved back to West Virginia to live with my grandmother, but this time things were different. My mother was finally done with him and she never returned to him.

I have personally seen well-intending pastors and friends use the previously described passage to justify women staying in dangerous domestic situations. I have seen this passage used in ways that make the woman living with a violent husband feel like a doormat. I have seen this verse abused in ways that only enables violent husbands to inflict years of emotional and physical damage on the women and children in their lives. I want to say, first and foremost, right now, if you are in danger and are being victimized at home, get out! Take yourself and your children to safety.

What does the passage really mean? I want to be clear. Nowhere in Jesus’ words in Matthew 5 does He belittle the worth of a person who is being abused at home, and His words never encourage her to just “take it.” In fact, Jesus is teaching quite the opposite. Jesus’ words in Matthew 5, when understood correctly and applied to domestic violence situations, are about responding to violence—even domestic violence—in ways that do not belittle the value of either party involved; instead, the parties should respond in ways that respect and restore the value of both individuals. Typically, we see within domestic violence situations only one party who needs to be rescued, and although Jesus’ teachings do not deny that, Matthew 5 calls on us to see not just one party in need of being rescued, but two.

Again, let me share with you what I shared in part 3 of this series, but with special application to domestic violence:

We must be clear. In Matthew chapter 5, Jesus is showing that the goals of His Kingdom cannot be accomplished by violence. Rejection of violence, however, ought not be interpreted as passivity. Far from counseling a woman who is being abused by her husband to simply become passive, Jesus’ statements about turning the other cheek, giving the cloak, and going the second mile actually teach an assertive and confrontational nonviolence that provides her abuser with an opportunity for transformation. With suggestions such as these, the oppressed woman has the potential to seize the initiative, and if taken literally, sometimes even shame her offender (not in the heat of the moment though mind you), and strip her abuser of the power to dehumanize her. Let me show you how.

Jesus said, “But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also.” The only natural way for a blow to land on the right cheek is with the back of the hand. Such a blow would be a show of insult by a superior to an inferior. Jesus was using this example in a culture that did not accept one to strike an equal in such a humiliating way. Doing so carried an exorbitant fine. Picture the scene in your head. In that culture, because the left hand was only used for unclean tasks (have you been to a developing country?), hitting a person’s right cheek with the left hand did not occur. One never touched another with the left hand. However, with respect to striking another using the right hand, several options existed. Using a closed right fist indicated that the person being struck was viewed as an equal and the blow landed on his or her left cheek. Again, the blow was from a closed right fist onto the left cheek, acknowledging that the striker viewed the person being struck as an equal. Thus, a supposed superior—master over slave, husband over wife, parent over a child, Roman over Jew, man over woman—specifically did not want to strike an inferior with a fist. To be struck on the right cheek, to which Jesus referred, required the striker to strike not with a closed fist but with an open, backhanded slap. The backhanded blow to the right cheek was done specifically to humiliate, and a blow in retaliation invited retribution. However, notice that Jesus did not say to just roll over and take it. Jesus told us to respond by turning and, in rebellion, offering your oppressor the proper cheek, or the left cheek, as proof of the supposed inferior’s refusal to be humiliated. With the left cheek bared, the striker was left with two options: a left-handed blow and thus be regarded as unclean, or a blow with the right fist to imply that the person being struck was an equal. Because neither option was acceptable to the supposed superior, he lost the power to dehumanize the other. Therefore, Jesus not only taught the theory of non-violence, but He also gave us real examples of how to apply the theory in a way that does not dehumanize the victim. Notice that the response is still a nonviolent one and restores the dignity of the one being struck. This simple example does not even begin to look at how He then modeled this theory throughout His entire life and, ultimately, His death.

Let’s look at Jesus’ next example. A court of law constituted the setting for Jesus’ injunction regarding giving the cloak or undergarment along with the outer coat. The law allowed a creditor to take the coat (or outer garment) from a poor person who had no means to pay a debt as a promise of future payment (Exod. 22:25-27; Deut. 24:10-13, 17). Only the poorest person had just an article of clothing to surrender as security. Because the coat was likely the debtor’s sole remaining article of clothing, the wealthy creditor had to return it each evening for the owner to sleep in. Further, in that society, the shame of nakedness fell more on those viewing it and causing it than on the naked person. (Remember Noah’s son, Ham?) Recall that most people had only two articles of clothing and they did not wear underwear in those days. Thus, stripping off the undergarment in the public setting of the court, along with the required outer garment, effectively turned the tables on the wealthy creditor. Such action put the poor person in charge of the moment and exposed the exploitative system, shaming the wealthy and powerful person who took the last object of value from a very poor person. Yes, Jesus is actually endorsing public nudity! Such an act was a radical but non-violent protest! Whether we like it or not, Jesus recommended streaking with a cause as a viable option rather than returning violence with more violence.

Let’s look at Jesus’ third example. Going the second mile had great power to embarrass the soldier who compelled the first mile. Roman law allowed soldiers to command at will the forced labor of carrying burdens for one mile, but limited to one mile. The limitation provided some protection for the occupied people. However, if one followed Jesus’ words and cheerfully carried a burden beyond the required first mile, the soldier was put in the awkward position of not complying with the limit posed by his superior. As a result, the soldier ended up in the embarrassing position of begging the civilian to put down the burden lest the soldier be disciplined. Imagine a follower of Jesus saying, “No, no, I’ll cover for you. If you get in trouble, I’ll vouch for you that I volunteered!” Then, imagine the discussion that took place between the soldier (remember that the soldier was a Roman soldier deeply despised by the Jewish people; get your head around what Jesus is actually teaching here) and the follower of Jesus for that entire second mile.

In these cases, Jesus’ instructions are NOT commands of passive nonresistance. The phrase “resist not an evildoer” may be problematic if Jesus did not then demonstrate in these stories exactly what He meant. The actual Greek word for “resist” is anthistemi, which indicates resistance by returning violence for violence, overcoming evil with evil instead of overcoming evil with good. Anthistemi indicates violent resistance. However, Jesus was teaching that, in rejecting violent responses, we should not resist evil in any way! He was not telling His followers to simply do nothing! Absolutely NOT! Jesus was teaching nonviolent methods that enabled the oppressed to take the initiative, to affirm their humanity, and to expose and neutralize exploitative circumstances. Jesus demonstrated non-violent methods for people at the bottom of society or under the thumb of imperial power—and, I would add, even precious people abused by their spouses—to learn to recover their humanity while simultaneously reaching out to redeem and even restore those who, although “oppressors,” are also victims of the systemic evil and violence of our culture.

Let me be clear. If your spouse is abusing you, get yourself and your children to safety. I cannot say this strongly enough. You MUST get others involved! You cannot do this alone. Let me also add that you should not respond to your abuser with violence. Violence will only escalate. A violent response to your abuser will only fuel his or her anger and make matters worse. However, remember that Jesus did not teach that you should just “take it.” Although you should not respond with more violence, their abuse of you demands a response. Love demands that you respond and dictates the manner of your response. Jesus demonstrated in principle the ways to force the abuser to recognize your worth and value. His illustrations cause the abuser to face the ways they dehumanize you, even through means that may cause them shame and embarrassment. However, please remember that Jesus died for you. You must submit to the value that Jesus places on you, regardless of your spouse’s treatment of you. I know that you love him, and I know that this part is very difficult, but Jesus also died for them. If your motive is to help your spouse, you must set in motion realities that will enable them to see their own victimhood in their temper, their own addiction to violence, and their own enslavement through their acts of belittling and dehumanizing women and children through their treatment.

Again, you cannot do this by yourself. You need help from others. At the very minimum, get a counselor involved. Stop protecting and enabling your abuser and begin today to move in a direction that will make him accountable and, hopefully, even rescued and redeemed from his own behavior. (At the same time, you must be careful not to take on guilt if he fails to respond. You are not to blame.) Remember, two people need to be rescued. (If children are involved, then even more people need rescuing. Please see the note at the end of this eSight.*) As a victim of domestic violence, I can say from first-hand experience that the one who is the conduit of the abuse needs to be rescued just as much as the ones who are being abused. However, you must respond in a way that truly rescues and does not allow further abuse. You are right to remember that your spouse is not the enemy; instead, the enemy is simply using him to hurt you (Ephesians 6.12). If you truly love the spouse who is hurting you, you must respond in a way that makes him accountable. I have witnessed too many women who continued to put themselves and their children in harm’s way because they “cared” about protecting their husbands. If Jesus’ words in Matthew 5 mean anything in the context of domestic violence, he is calling you to: 1) protect yourself and your children, and get to safety; 2) do not respond with violence, but do not allow yourself to be dehumanized, and 3) set in motion realities that will cause your spouse to wake up, become accountable, and embrace change, even if doing so shames and embarrasses him. If doing so requires beginning with separation from your spouse, then so be it. Your spouse must come to terms with the reality that he is destroying his family. When you stick around, it only hides the situation and allows your spouse to pretend that things are what they are not.

I have seen abusive spouses change with Jesus’ help as a result of the steps they take. I have also seen spouses who were unwilling to change. (Again, see the note at the end of this eSight.) Regardless of the outcome, Jesus never taught that women and children should passively allow themselves to be dehumanized by domestic violence and abuse. I know that doing so takes courage. I know that change is scary. Do not do this alone. Involve others you trust. You are of infinite worth to Jesus. He gave everything for you. I know that you love your spouse, but you are also Jesus’ most prized and precious daughter. Wherever these words find you today, embrace how much you are truly worth. Get help without denying the worth of the one who is hurting you and with God’s strength given to you through Jesus Christ. Break the cycle, for you, for him, and for your children.

Wishing each of you who are reading this the restorative and nonviolent peace and love of the Kingdom.

I love you guys,

I’ll see you next week.

Herb

*Without negating the sanctity of marriage, for children to live in a peaceful home with one loving parent is better than living in an abusive home with two parents. An abusive parent is a horrible burden for a child to bear. Moreover, for the parent being abused to give tacit permission for such abuse to continue by not doing whatever is possible to prevent it—even at the cost of separation—sends a message to the child that abuse must be normal and, very likely, that child will grow up to abuse your grandchildren or allow himself or herself to be abused. I know that change takes courage. I know that you love the spouse hurting you, but you must also teach your children that abuse is clearly not acceptable, even—and especially—at the hands of a parent. You can stand for the sanctity of your marriage and your vows without allowing physical or verbal abuse to hurt yourself or your children. You can communicate to your spouse that you love him and want your family together, but because the abuse is damaging the family, you and your children need to live separately from him. You must set and keep boundaries. If your spouse insists on defending rather than turning from his abusive behavior, then he is the one who is breaking up the marriage, not you. Don’t take on that guilt. God also has experience with domestic violence. Sometimes when we set healthy boundaries and then reach out to an abusive spouse, even with the best intentions of reconciliation, we get the same response that God did when He reached out to Pharaoh. Sometimes, the act of calling attention to the situation causes the abusive spouse’s heart to harden. However, again, whether his response is to dig in his heels and become more entrenched or to embrace, restore, redeem, and reconcile, you are not called to be “passive.” Christian Pacifism is about pacifying, not being passive! To pacify means to bring peace, restoration, and redemption. When domestic violence exists, peace is not present.

The Active Nonviolence of Jesus: The Church Fathers (10 of 12)

Part 10 of 12

The Church Fathers

BY HERB MONTGOMERY

“When Christ disarmed Peter, He disarmed every soldier.” – Tertullian, Apology

I must apologize this week. I’m going to be sharing an appendix to Part 9 of last week. I freely admit that there is not much devotional value to this week’s eSight. This is a history lesson for sure. But we must address some very passionate objections to what was shared last week. Let me explain.

Beginning in the 70’s and 80’s here in America, we see a concerted effort to counter the pacifist narrative of the early Christians. Some have taken the material produced from this group and endeavored to paint a radically different picture of the early Church than what I presented last week. This is more than debate, more than argument. Taking the peace teachings of Jesus seriously is what is at stake. And I know if there is one out there raising these objections, there are also many out there too who have these questions. So I feel, that although this week is going to be heavily weighted on the “information” side rather than the “devotional” side, sometimes, it is necessary. If you’re like me, your heart has trouble getting behind something your head has questions about. So this week, I admit, I’m focused on our heads, but please know it’s with a sincere desire to liberate our hearts so that they can run free in the peace teachings of Jesus. Let’s begin.

There are really only two main prongs to this approach that work well as sound bites, but fall apart, for me personally, when actually tracked down and honestly researched.

First is the sound bite: As early as the late second century we begin to see evidence that there were “Christians” who were serving in the Roman military.

Second are a few select statements by Tertullian (160-220) and Origen (184-254, estimated), distantly removed from their immediate context.

I really want to do my best to present the side of those who believe Christians can or should participate, in certain circumstances, in some sort of redemptive violence (bloodshed) with these two prongs, first, and then take you back to the actual evidence and have you see how quickly the arguments begin to break down.

Again, before the 70’s and 80’s there was broad agreement that existed among scholars across the spectrum on this issue regarding the historical thought and practice of early Christians in respect to military service. Beginning in 1980 we see a number of earlier works on Christians in the military either being republished or translated into English for the very first time. Foremost among these are:

1981: Harnack’s Militia Christi (first published in German in 1905, did someone say German?)

1982: C. John Cadoux’s The Early Christian Attitude to War (first issued in 1919)

1980: Jean-Michel Hornus’s It is Not Lawful for Me to Fight (first published in French in 1960)

New volumes on this topic began to be published as well. New authors, such as Helgeland-Daly-Burns (1985) and Johnson (1987), began offering revisionist readings of the sources and critiques of the older scholarly literature. These authors represent a new fundamental réévaluation of early Christian attitudes towards military service. Both of these author’s work and their extreme biases deserve serious consideration, when one considers the Christian militaristic fruit these works have produced in American over the last three decades. I’m not going to be addressing their critiques of the “older scholarly literature” here. What I am most concerned with is their revisionist readings of source material from which we discern what the early Christian attitude toward military service honestly was.

Up until this time, again, there was broad agreement among scholars regarding the historical thought and practice of the early Christians in regards to military service. Both those who believed that Christians can participate, given certain circumstances, in redemptive violence as well as those who held the pacifist position agreed on three basic conclusions when the early source material was evaluated:

1) That the early Christians who addressed the matter directly during the first three centuries, most notably Tertullian and Origen, condemned warfare and military service on the basis of an aversion to bloodshed, being essentially pacifistic.
2) That at least from the end of the second century, some Christians participated in the military and that the number continued to grow throughout the third century.
3) That by the end of the fourth century, a “just war ethic” had developed, largely due to the work of theologians such as Ambrose and Augustine, which met the new need for a Christian accommodation to a changed political and social situation.

They differed widely, of course, in their ethical and theological applications of these three points. But these were the three points both pacifist scholars and scholars that saw just causes for, under certain circumstances, participating in redemptive violence, agreed on.

This point must be remembered.

Let’s look first again, at the two arguments used by those who subscribe to the redemptive violence position. The first is that the early church could not be pacifists because there were Christians who served in the military.

Again, beginning in the late second century we do have well documented accounts of how Christians were beginning to be found in Rome’s military. We have two examples that I am aware of. One is from Tertullian’s own account of a specific occurrence of Christians (in the military) praying for rain (which we will actually look at in a moment) and the other is the legend of the Theban Legion, who according to the story, was decimated and then slaughtered without exception for not being willing to kill other Christians. The occurrence of this story is generally accepted while the details of this story are strongly debated among scholars. It has proven difficult to discern how much of this story is based in history and how much is legend. At the bare minimum, it’s debatable.

But what are we to make of this? How can we say the early church were pacifists when we find these two examples? Sounds pretty convincing doesn’t it? We’ll get to this in a moment, I promise.

Second, I want to share with you the few statements, removed from their context, that are used to prove that there was dissention over pacifism in the early church. Again, as a sound bite, at first glance, it looks pretty convincing:

“Looking up to Him, we Christians with hands extended, because they are harmless, with head bare because we are not ashamed, without a prayer leader because we pray from the heart, constantly beseech Him on behalf of all Emperors. We ask for them long life, undisturbed power, security at home, brave armies, a faithful senate . . .” Tertullian, Apology (emphasis supplied.)

“We are sailors along with yourselves; we serve in the army; we engage in farming and trading; in addition, we share with you our arts; we place the products of our labor at your service. How we can appear worthless for your business, when we live with you and depend on you, I do not know.” Tertullian, Apology (emphasis supplied.)

“We, on the contrary, bring before you an emperor who was their protector. You will see this by examining the letters of Marcus Aurelius, that most serious of emperors. For, in his letters, he bears witness that the Germanic drought was removed by the rains obtained through the prayers of the Christians, who happened to be fighting under him.” Tertullian, Apology (emphasis supplied.)

When you take these statements out of their context and place them in the context of our current Christian militarism here in America today, it looks pretty convincing; the early church weren’t pacifists. But wait, we’re not done. We’ve seen Tertullian. We have to look at the statements the redemptive violence argument uses also from Origen.

“But we ought to admire the divine nature, which extended even to irrational animals the capacity, as it were, of imitating rational beings, perhaps with a view of putting rational beings to shame; so that by looking upon ants, for instance, they might become more industrious and more thrifty in the management of their goods; while, by considering the bees, they might place themselves in subjection to their Ruler, and take their respective parts in those constitutional duties which are of use in ensuring the safety of cities. Perhaps also the so-called wars among the bees convey instruction as to the manner in which wars, if ever there arise a necessity for them, should be waged in a just and orderly way among men.” Origen, Against Celsus (emphasis supplied.)

“But in the case of the ancient Jews, who had a land and a form of government of their own, to take from them the right of making war upon their enemies, of fighting for their country, of putting to death or otherwise punishing adulterers, murderers, or others who were guilty of similar crimes, would be to subject them to sudden and utter destruction whenever the enemy fell upon them . . .” Origen, Against Celsus (emphasis supplied.)

That’s it. That’s all. But even with this, it can seem pretty convincing. Now let’s look at the actually facts surrounding this information.

Here is what Tertullian actually wrote regarding that first statement.
Remember, Tertullian’s Apology was a defense of Christianity directed at the Emperor. Follow carefully.

“Thither we lift our eyes, with hands outstretched, because free from sin; with head uncovered, for we have nothing whereof to be ashamed; finally, without a monitor, because it is from the heart we supplicate. Without ceasing, for all our emperors we offer prayer. We pray for life prolonged; for security to the empire; for protection to the imperial house; for brave armies, a faithful senate, a virtuous people, the world at rest, whatever, as man or Cæsar, an emperor would wish. These things I cannot ask from any but the God from whom I know I shall obtain them, both because He alone bestows them and because I have claims upon Him for their gift, as being a servant of His, rendering homage to Him alone, persecuted for His doctrine, offering to Him, at His own requirement, that costly and noble sacrifice of prayer dispatched from the chaste body, an unstained soul, a sanctified spirit, not the few grains of incense a farthing buys — tears of an Arabian tree,— not a few drops of wine,— not the blood of some worthless ox to which death is a relief, and, in addition to other offensive things, a polluted conscience, so that one wonders, when your victims are examined by these vile priests, why the examination is not rather of the sacrificers than the sacrifices. With our hands thus stretched out and up to God, rend us with your iron claws, hang us up on crosses, wrap us in flames, take our heads from us with the sword, let loose the wild beasts on us, – the very attitude of a Christian praying is one of preparation for all punishment. Let this, good rulers be your work: wring from us the soul, beseeching God on the emperor’s behalf. Upon the truth of God, and devotion to His name, put the brand of crime.” – Tertullian, Apology, Chapter 30 (Emphasis supplied.)

Did you catch it? Tertullian’s claim that Christian’s were praying for Caesar to have “brave armies” was not an endorsement of redemptive violence. Quite the contrary, Tertullian is saying, even while you hang us upon crosses, wrap us in flames, and behead us, we will still be praying for you, the Emperor, and for blessings upon Rome. This isn’t an endorsement of redemptive violence, it’s an example of Christian Pacifism if there ever was one.

Please take note of exactly what Tertullian says next in context:

‎”But we merely, you say, flatter the emperor, and feign these prayers of ours to escape persecution. Thank you for your mistake, for you give us the opportunity of proving our allegations. Do you, then, who think that we care nothing for the welfare of Cæsar, look into God’s revelations, examine our sacred books, which we do not keep in hiding, and which many accidents put into the hands of those who are not of us. Learn from them that a large benevolence is enjoined upon us, even so far as to supplicate God for our enemies and to beseech blessings on our persecutors. Matthew 5.44 Who, then are greater enemies and persecutors of Christians, than the very parties with treason against whom we are charged? Nay, even in terms, and most clearly, the scripture says, “pray for kings, and rulers, and powers, that all may be peace with you.” 1 Timothy 2.2 for when there is disturbance in the Empire, if the commotion is felt by it’s other members, surely we too, though we are not thought to be given to disorder, are to be found in some place or other which the calamity affects.” Tertullian, Apology, Chapter 31 (Emphasis supplied.)

Powerful! Powerful! THIS is Tertullian’s voice. Here we do not find a voice dissenting against some sect of pacifism within Christianity with an argument of justified violence instead. What we find is that Tertullian is here leveling the early Church’s actual Pacifism as one of his greatest apologetics of how Christianity is not against Rome. Beautiful!

Now this next one is long, and I apologize, but I share it so you can truly get a flavor for where Tertullian really was in his headspace on this, and I have to include the whole thing so you can see it’s not taken out of context. This is from a different volume of work by Tertullian, The Chaplet or De Corona. Some have argued that in this work Tertullian argues against Christians in military service simply because of the “religious” allegiance to Caesar that would be involved. And although Tertullian uses that argument as well, it is not used exclusively, but in addition to Tertullian’s use of Christian Pacifism as a reason Christians should not enter the military.

“To begin with the real ground of the military crown [pagan religious implications], I think we must first inquire whether warfare is proper at all for Christians. What sense is there in discussing the merely accidental, when that on which it rests is to be condemned? Do we believe it lawful for a human oath to be superadded to one divine, for a man to come under promise to another master after Christ, and to abjure father, mother, and all nearest kinsfolk, whom even the law has commanded us to honour and love next to God Himself, to whom the Gospel, too, holding them only of less account than Christ, has in like manner rendered honour? Shall it be held lawful to make an occupation of the sword, when the Lord proclaims that he who uses the sword shall perish by the sword? And shall the son of peace take part in the battle when it does not become him even to sue at law? And shall he apply the chain, and the prison, and the torture, and the punishment, who is not the avenger even of his own wrongs? Shall he, forsooth, either keep watch-service for others more than for Christ, or shall he do it on the Lord’s day, when he does not even do it for Christ Himself? And shall he keep guard before the temples, which he has renounced? And shall he take a meal where the apostle has forbidden him? [Yes, this is a religions argument, but please note it is in addition to the pacifist arguments he used previously, not instead of.] And shall he diligently protect by night those whom in the day-time he has put to flight by his exorcisms, leaning and resting on the spear the while with which Christ’s side was pierced? Shall he carry a flag, too, hostile to Christ? And shall he ask a watchword from the emperor who has already received one from God? Shall he be disturbed in death by the trumpet of the trumpeter, who expects to be aroused by the angel’s trump? And shall the Christian be burned according to camp rule, when he was not permitted to burn incense to an idol, when to him Christ remitted the punishment of fire? Then how many other offences there are involved in the performances of camp offices, which we must hold to involve a transgression of God’s law, you may see by a slight survey. The very carrying of the name over from the camp of light to the camp of darkness is a violation of it. Of course, if faith comes later, and finds any preoccupied with military service, [Those who embrace Christ while already serving in the military!] their case is different, as in the instance of those whom John used to receive for baptism, and of those most faithful centurions, I mean the centurion whom Christ approves, and the centurion whom Peter instructs; yet, at the same time, when a man has become a believer, and faith has been sealed, there must be either an immediate abandonment of it, which has been the course with many [He said many, not all, we’ll mention more about this in a moment]; or all sorts of quibbling will have to be resorted to in order to avoid offending God, and that is not allowed even outside of military service; or, last of all, for God the fate must be endured which a citizen-faith has been no less ready to accept. Neither does military service hold out escape from punishment of sins, or exemption from martyrdom. Nowhere does the Christian change his character. There is one gospel, and the same Jesus, who will one day deny every one who denies, and acknowledge every one who acknowledges God,—who will save, too, the life which has been lost for His sake; but, on the other hand, destroy that which for gain has been saved to His dishonour. With Him the faithful citizen is a soldier, just as the faithful soldier is a citizen. A state of faith admits no plea of necessity; they are under no necessity to sin, whose one necessity is, that they do not sin. For if one is pressed to the offering of sacrifice and the sheer denial of Christ by the necessity of torture or of punishment, yet discipline does not connive even at that necessity; because there is a higher necessity to dread denying and to undergo martyrdom, than to escape from suffering, and to render the homage required. In fact, an excuse of this sort overturns the entire essence of our sacrament, removing even the obstacle to voluntary sins; for it will be possible also to maintain that inclination is a necessity, as involving in it, forsooth, a sort of compulsion. I have, in fact, disposed of this very allegation of necessity with reference to the pleas by which crowns [taking place in the pagan religious ceremonies connected with being a soldier] connected with official position are vindicated, in support of which it is in common use, since for this very reason offices must be either refused, that we may not fall into acts of sin, or martyrdoms endured that we may get quit of offices. Touching this primary aspect of the question, as to the unlawfulness even of a military life itself, I shall not add more, that the secondary question may be restored to its place. Indeed, if, putting my strength to the question, I banish from us the military life, I should now to no purpose issue a challenge on the matter of the military crown. [the aspect of being a Roman soldier that demands loyalty to pagan religious elements as well].” – Tertullian, The Chaplet, or De Corona, chapter 11

Wow, powerful again! But I want you to note that Tertullian does mention Christians in the military service of Rome who came to Christ while already in the military. This posed a special problem for the early church. This was not something looked on as something acceptable because they weren’t pacifists, but as a problem because they were!

What is a Soldier to do who comes to Christ while already serving in Rome’s Military?

Tertullian offers one solution above, “martyrdom endured that we may get quit of offices.” Tertullian was offering one solution of even being willing to embrace death so as not to continue serving in Rome’s militia. So far, I stand by my statement that within Christianity for the first three hundred years, there is not one dissenting voice among the Church leaders. They could disagree on anything and everything, but on this, they were unified with one voice. The accounts we find of Christians in the military during this time are simple examples of the Church wrestling with how to apply Jesus’ peace teachings rather than just abandon them. An example of this is found within some churches today that hold the position that if someone is drafted into military service, they should take the classification of non-combatants. The early church had to face this same dilemma. Beginning in the later part of the second century, we find indentured slaves who were Soldiers, who were required to be in the military in the place of an owner or an owner’s son, who came to Jesus while in the military. What are they to do? That is the dilemma. I’m submitting THAT is why we find Christians in Rome’s military. Not because they subscribed to redemptive violence, but because their pacifism was winning over the world, even Roman Soldiers. We’ll see this is quite evident in our next passage from Tertullian. I know this is long, but bear with me. It’s worth the time in the end. This is the statement many who subscribe to participating in “redemptive violence” use to prove Christians were in the military. Let’s look at the context. This, again, is from Tertullian’s Apology, His defense of Christianity to the Emperor.

“To say a word about the origin of laws of the kind to which we now refer, there was an old decree that no god should be consecrated by the emperor till first approved by the Senate. Marcus Æmilius had experience of this in reference to his god Alburnus. And this, too, makes for our case, that among you divinity is allotted at the judgment of human beings. Unless gods give satisfaction to men, there will be no deification for them: the god will have to propitiate the man. Tiberius accordingly, in whose days the Christian name made its entry into the world, having himself received intelligence from Palestine of events which had clearly shown the truth of Christ’s divinity, brought the matter before the senate, with his own decision in favour of Christ. The senate, because it had not given the approval itself, rejected his proposal. Cæsar held to his opinion, threatening wrath against all accusers of the Christians. Consult your histories; you will there find that Nero was the first who assailed with the imperial sword the Christian sect, making progress then especially at Rome. But we glory in having our condemnation hallowed by the hostility of such a wretch. For any one who knows him, can understand that not except as being of singular excellence did anything bring on it Nero’s condemnation. Domitian, too, a man of Nero’s type in cruelty, tried his hand at persecution; but as he had something of the human in him, he soon put an end to what he had begun, even restoring again those whom he had banished. Such as these have always been our persecutors,—men unjust, impious, base, of whom even you yourselves have no good to say, the sufferers under whose sentences you have been wont to restore. But among so many princes from that time to the present day, with anything of divine and human wisdom in them, point out a single persecutor of the Christian name. So far from that, we, on the contrary, bring before you one who was their protector, as you will see by examining the letters of Marcus Aurelius, that most grave of emperors, in which he bears his testimony that that Germanic drought was removed by the rains obtained through the prayers of the Christians who chanced to be fighting under him [Tertullian uses the word here “chanced”. Again, beginning in the late second century, between 161-180, we find indentured Soldiers who were in Rome’s military because it was required of them by law and while in the military they became Christians. What’s also notable, is that these Christians were now praying once again for their enemies (Rome) so that they might have water to end their drought. This is in perfect harmony with Paul’s words in Romans 12, “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.” (Romans 12.20) Also, please see Marcus Aurelius’ own report of this event, at the end of this eSight. This is the actual report from the Emperor himself of the occurrence Tertullian is here mentioning. It is clear from Aurelius’ own words that these soldiers were something similar to what we, today, would call “consciencious objectors” or “non-combatants.”*] And as he did not by public law remove from Christians their legal disabilities, [possibly a status similar to our today’s “conscientious objector”] yet in another way he put them openly aside [exempt], even adding a sentence of condemnation, and that of greater severity, against their accusers. What sort of laws are these which the impious alone execute against us—and the unjust, the vile, the bloody, the senseless, the insane? which Trajan to some extent made naught by forbidding Christians to be sought after; which neither a Hadrian, though fond of searching into all things strange and new, nor a Vespasian, though the subjugator of the Jews, nor a Pius, nor a Verus, ever enforced? It should surely be judged more natural for bad men to be eradicated by good princes as being their natural enemies, than by those of a spirit kindred with their own.” Tertullian, Apology, Ch 5 (Emphasis supplied.)

I’ll end our section on Tertullian with Tertullian’s most famous passage from his work Apology.

“In that last section, decision may seem to have been given likewise concerning military service, which is between dignity and power. But now inquiry is made about this point, whether a believer may turn himself unto military service, and whether the military may be admitted unto the faith, even the rank and file, or each inferior grade, to whom there is no necessity for taking part in sacrifices or capital punishments. There is no agreement between the divine and the human sacrament, the standard of Christ and the standard of the devil, the camp of light and the camp of darkness. One soul cannot be due to two masters—God and Cæsar. And yet Moses carried a rod, and Aaron wore a buckle, and John (Baptist) is girt with leather and Joshua the son of Nun leads a line of march; and the People warred: if it pleases you to sport with the subject. [these same arguments, by the way, are being used today.] But how will a Christian man war, nay, how will he serve even in peace, without a sword, which the Lord has taken away? For albeit soldiers had come unto John, and had received the formula of their rule; albeit, likewise, a centurion had believed; still the Lord afterward, in disarming Peter, disarmed every soldier. No dress is lawful among us, if assigned to any unlawful action.” Tertullian, Apology, Chapter 19 (Emphasis supplied.)

Powerful, powerful, powerful. I’m blown away. Now wait, don’t get carried away. Could there have been some Christians, who rebelled against the church’s teaching, and joined the military of their own volition? I’m sure that’s possible. (I don’t know how probable though.) But stop and consider alone the oath to Caesar a Roman soldier would have to make to even join the military. Upon enlisting, a Soldier would have to swear allegiance to their Lord and Savior, Caesar, emperor of Rome. This alone, calls into question how truly representative that person is of the church at that time. Again, so far as the evidence we do have, we have no evidence of Christians voluntarily joining Rome’s militia. Again, we find, among the leaders of the Christian church during this time, not one dissenting voice.

Now let us turn our attention to Origen’s statements, previously used by those who subscribe to participating in redemptive violence, but include context. These are taken form Origen’s Against Celsus. Celsus was actually leveling arguments against Christians because they were refusing to serve in the military. Here is Origen’s response. Again, for honesty and transparencies sake, I want to include a good portion of the context, but that makes this passage really long. Please bear with me.

“Our noble opponent, however, not observing how many philosophers there are who admit the existence of Providence, and who hold that Providence created all things for the sake of rational beings, overturns as far as he can those doctrines which are of use in showing the harmony that prevails in these matters between Christianity and philosophy; nor does he see how great is the injury done to religion from accepting the statement that before God there is no difference between a man and an ant or a bee, [this is the contextual argument of this section] but proceeds to add, that “if men appear to be superior to irrational animals on this account, that they have built cities, and make use of a political constitution, and forms of government, and sovereignties, this is to say nothing to the purpose, for ants and bees do the same. Bees, indeed, have a sovereign, who has followers and attendants; and there occur among them wars and victories, and slaughterings of the vanquished, and cities and suburbs, and a succession of labours, and judgments passed upon the idle and the wicked; for the drones are driven away and punished.” Now here he did not observe the difference that exists between what is done after reason and consideration, and what is the result of an irrational nature, and is purely mechanical. For the origin of these things is not explained by the existence of any rational principle in those who make them, because they do not possess any such principle; but the most ancient Being, who is also the Son of God, and the King of all things that exist, has created an irrational nature, which, as being irrational, acts as a help to those who are deemed worthy of reason. Cities, accordingly, were established among men, with many arts and well-arranged laws; while constitutions, and governments, and sovereignties among men are either such as are properly so termed, and which exemplify certain virtuous tendencies and workings, or they are those which are improperly so called, and which were devised, so far as could be done, in imitation of the former: for it was by contemplating these that the most successful legislators established the best constitutions, and governments, and sovereignties. None of these things, however, can be found among irrational animals, although Celsus may transfer rational names, and arrangements which belong to rational beings, as cities and constitutions, and rulers and sovereignties, even to ants and bees; in respect to which matters, however, ants and bees merit no approval, because they do not act from reflection. But we ought to admire the divine nature, which extended even to irrational animals the capacity, as it were, of imitating rational beings, perhaps with a view of putting rational beings to shame; so that by looking upon ants, for instance, they might become more industrious and more thrifty in the management of their goods; while, by considering the bees, they might place themselves in subjection to their Ruler, and take their respective parts in those constitutional duties which are of use in ensuring the safety of cities.” – Origen, Against Celsus (Who was criticizing Christians for not participating in military service) Chapter 81

Next Origen writes:

‎”Perhaps also the so-called wars among the bees convey instruction as to the manner in which wars, if ever there arise a necessity for them, should be waged in a just and orderly way among men. But the bees have no cities or suburbs; while their hives and hexagonal cells, and succession of labours, are for the sake of men, who require honey for many purposes, both for cure of disordered bodies, and as a pure article of food. Nor ought we to compare the proceedings taken by the bees against the drones with the judgments and punishments inflicted on the idle and wicked in cities. But, as I formerly said, we ought on the one hand in these things to admire the divine nature, and on the other to express our admiration of man, who is capable of considering and admiring all things (as co-operating with Providence), and who executes not merely the works which are determined by the providence of God, but also those which are the consequences of his own foresight.” – Origen, Against Celsus (Who was criticizing Christians for not participating in military service) Chapter 82

In this statement Origen is arguing for differences between man and beast. One of the differences he suggests is the nature of war between bees and humans. If anything, this statement is a plea to become more humane in how war is carried out. This is, apologetically, the most we can make of this statement. Nowhere is Origen even concerned with the pacifism vs. redemptive violence debate. On the contrary, he is speaking to someone who is criticizing Christians for not participating in war. Origen is defending, at most, looking at bees to understand, “perhaps” how wars, if they are deemed necessary by the Roman empire, should even be carried out. I want to remind us this week of what I said in part nine. (I believe I actually said this twice.) Jesus’ peace teachings, and therefore Christian Pacifism is not a condemnation of war for wars sake alone. It is not a call to Governments to become more peaceful. It is a call to those who are claiming to follow Jesus to become more peaceful. The early church was not concerned with attacking “war” per say, on the basis of war alone. No, they were concerned with those who were bearing Christ’s name ever participating in war. This distinction is missed by so many, so often, who subscribe to Christians participating in some sort of redemptive violence, that one wonders if some are doing it on purpose. This was Paul’s counsel in Romans 13. Civil powers are to wield, at times, the sword. But Paul is very clear in Romans 12 and 13 both, that although we are not to condemn a civil authority for wielding the sword, neither are we to enlist and participate with that authority in wielding the sword. It is a position of neither condemnation nor participation. This is not to say that the sword cannot be used in ways that are unjust. And in those cases, that specific wielding of the sword could be condemned, but wielding the sword, just on the basis of sword wielding alone, was neither condemned, nor participated in by the early church. This is what made the early church pacifists; their refusal to participate in war. To make Origen’s words above mean that Origen believed in and taught that it is acceptable for Christians to participate in redemptive violence is a “taking a statement out of context” to a degree that challenges the integrity of any who would use it in this manner. This becomes overwhelmingly evident when one looks at exactly what Origen has written just a few chapters earlier:

“In the next place, Celsus urges us “to help the king with all our might, and to labour with him in the maintenance of justice, to fight for him; and if he requires it, to fight under him, or lead an army along with him.” To this our answer is, that we do, when occasion requires, give help to kings, and that, so to say, a divine help, “putting on the whole armour of God.” And this we do in obedience to the injunction of the apostle, “I exhort, therefore, that first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; for kings, and for all that are in authority;” and the more any one excels in piety, the more effective help does he render to kings, even more than is given by soldiers, who go forth to fight and slay as many of the enemy as they can. And to those enemies of our faith who require us to bear arms for the commonwealth, and to slay men, we can reply: “Do not those who are priests at certain shrines, and those who attend on certain gods, as you account them, keep their hands free from blood, that they may with hands unstained and free from human blood offer the appointed sacrifices to your gods; and even when war is upon you, you never enlist the priests in the army. If that, then, is a laudable custom, how much more so, that while others are engaged in battle, these too should engage as the priests and ministers of God, keeping their hands pure, and wrestling in prayers to God on behalf of those who are fighting in a righteous cause, and for the king who reigns righteously, that whatever is opposed to those who act righteously may be destroyed!” And as we by our prayers vanquish all demons who stir up war, and lead to the violation of oaths, and disturb the peace, we in this way are much more helpful to the kings than those who go into the field to fight for them. And we do take our part in public affairs, when along with righteous prayers we join self-denying exercises and meditations, which teach us to despise pleasures, and not to be led away by them. And none fight better for the king than we do. We do not indeed fight under him, although he require it; but we fight on his behalf, forming a special army—an army of piety—by offering our prayers to God.” – Origen, Against Celsus, chapter 73 (Emphasis Added.)

Wow!!!! Again, these words are so powerful. Neither condemnation for wielding the sword, nor participation in wielding the sword. They would pray, but they would not fight. This is Christian Pacifism as defined by Jesus, Paul, the Apostles, and the Early Church Fathers. Again, Jesus’ peace teachings are not aimed at telling a kingdom of this world how to govern its affairs, but rather how those who bear Christ’s name are to live. We, just like the early church, abstain from killing simply because it was commanded by our Lord Jesus.

Before the above passage, Origen wrote the following in Chapter 26. This is the most powerfully written passage on why Christians refused to wield the sword against Rome’s enemies.

“However, if we must refer briefly to the difference between the constitution which was given to the Jews of old by Moses, and that which the Christians, under the direction of Christ’s teaching, wish now to establish, we would observe that it must be impossible for the legislation of Moses, taken literally, to harmonize with the calling of the Gentiles, and with their subjection to the Roman government; and on the other hand, it would be impossible for the Jews to preserve their civil economy unchanged, supposing that they should embrace the Gospel. For Christians could not slay their enemies, or condemn to be burned or stoned, as Moses commands, those who had broken the law, and were therefore condemned as deserving of these punishments; since the Jews themselves, however desirous of carrying out their law, are not able to inflict these punishments. But in the case of the ancient Jews, who had a land and a form of government of their own, to take from them the right of making war upon their enemies, of fighting for their country, of putting to death or otherwise punishing adulterers, murderers, or others who were guilty of similar crimes, would be to subject them to sudden and utter destruction whenever the enemy fell upon them; for their very laws would in that case restrain them, and prevent them from resisting the enemy. And that same providence which of old gave the law, and has now given the Gospel of Jesus Christ, not wishing the Jewish state to continue longer, has destroyed their city and their temple: it has abolished the worship which was offered to God in that temple by the sacrifice of victims, and other ceremonies which He had prescribed. And as it has destroyed these things, not wishing that they should longer continue, in like manner it has extended day by day the Christian religion, so that it is now preached everywhere with boldness, and that in spite of the numerous obstacles which oppose the spread of Christ’s teaching in the world. But since it was the purpose of God that the nations should receive the benefits of Christ’s teaching, all the devices of men against Christians have been brought to nought; for the more that kings, and rulers, and peoples have persecuted them everywhere, the more have they increased in number and grown in strength.” Origen, Against Celsus, chapter 26 (Emphasis supplied.)

Origen was clear. Yes, in the Old Testament, violence was not only permitted, but commanded. But now, something different has come. God, in the person of Jesus, has come. The law was given through Moses, but Grace and Truth has come from Jesus. God did speak through the prophets in different ways in the past, but now He has spoken to us through His Son who is the exact revelation of what God is really like. John said, after seeing Jesus, truly no one had ever even seen God until Jesus. Strip away all the concessions and accommodations of the Old Testament, and you get a God who looks like Jesus. (John 1, Hebrews 1, and part 7 of this series)

Again, even if all of this weren’t true, even if the early church were not pacifists, my arguments for embracing Christian Pacifism are not based on their history. It’s based on the actual teachings of Jesus Himself. It just so happens that the early Church, for the first three hundred years, without one dissenting voice got it! Can you take certain records and statements out of context and bend them to say otherwise? Sure. Always. I’m submitting this week, that for 1700 years, on the whole, the world has not seen Jesus as a result of our embracing and participation in, as Christians, some form or another of redemptive violence. Before Jesus can return to this world, we must allow Him to return to those who bear His name.

“Behold I stand at the door and knock.” Revelation 3.20

I know this was long. I’ll shut up now.

Much to ponder.

Go build the Kingdom.

I love you guys,
See you next week.

* Epistle of Marcus Aurelius to the senate, in which he testifies that the Christians were the cause of his victory.

“Having then examined my own position, and my host, with respect to the vast mass of barbarians and of the enemy, I quickly betook myself to prayer to the gods of my country. But being disregarded by them, I summoned those who among us go by the name of Christians. And having made inquiry, I discovered a great number and vast host of them, and raged against them, which was by no means becoming; for afterwards I learned their power. Wherefore they began the battle, not by preparing weapons, nor arms, nor bugles; for such preparation is hateful to them, on account of the God they bear about in their conscience. Therefore it is probable that those whom we suppose to be atheists, have God as their ruling power entrenched in their conscience. For having cast themselves on the ground, they prayed not only for me, but also for the whole army as it stood, that they might be delivered from the present thirst and famine. For during five days we had got no water, because there was none; for we were in the heart of Germany, and in the enemy’s territory. And simultaneously with their casting themselves on the ground, and praying to God (a God of whom I am ignorant), water poured from heaven, upon us most refreshingly cool, but upon the enemies of Rome a withering hail. And immediately we recognised the presence of God following on the prayer —a God unconquerable and indestructible. Founding upon this, then, let us pardon such as are Christians, lest they pray for and obtain such a weapon against ourselves. And I counsel that no such person be accused on the ground of his being a Christian. But if any one be found laying to the charge of a Christian that he is a Christian, I desire that it be made manifest that he who is accused as a Christian, and acknowledges that he is one, is accused of nothing else than only this, that he is a Christian; but that he who arraigns him be burned alive. And I further desire, that he who is entrusted with the government of the province shall not compel the Christian, who confesses and certifies such a matter, to retract; neither shall he commit him. And I desire that these things be confirmed by a decree of the Senate. And I command this my edict to be published in the Forum of Trajan, in order that it may be read. The prefect Vitrasius Pollio will see that it be transmitted to all the provinces round about, and that no one who wishes to make muse of or to possess it be hindered from obtaining a copy from the document I now publish.” (Emphasis supplied.)

The Active Nonviolence of Jesus: Nonviolence and Hitler (9 of 12)

PART 9 OF 12

Nonviolence and Hitler

BY HERB MONTGOMERY

He that leads others into captivity shall go into captivity himself: he that kills with the sword, will be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints. (Revelation 13.10)

We are nearing the end of our series on the active non-violence of Jesus. We have gotten such good feedback from so many of you for whom this series has been a beautiful journey. For some of you, it’s been a journey of discovery, and for each of you, I’m stoked about how this series has blessed you. I want to remind us at the very beginning of this week of the danger of binary thinking on this issue. Again, binary thinking only sees two options. Too often when others encounter the peace teachings of Jesus, the response is, “So you are just going to sit back and do nothing?” As if there are only two options: Violence or Do Nothing. This binary thinking does not take into account the myriad of other creative, non-violent ways in which followers of Jesus’ teachings are called to set world change in motion. This is also a great place to mention again that Christian pacifism can be very different from other forms of pacifism. Those who follow Jesus’ teachings and example are always willing to lay down their own lives for world change, but are simply not willing to take life for world change. But doing nothing is never an option. This will be important to remember as we discuss our topic this week.

I had planned this week on discussing two questions that come up whenever the peace teachings of Jesus are beginning to be taken seriously. But I’ve decided each one deserves its own week for the sake of space and time, so we’ll take them one at a time.

This week, we are going to be addressing the question, “Well, Jesus’ peace teachings are well and good, but sometimes we have to be pragmatic! I mean, what about World War II with the Allied forces against Hitler and the Nazis?”

So much has been and could be said about Hitler and the Allied forces, but this week, there are three very important elements to Jesus’ peace teachings that we must not forget. Let’s start with the easiest one first.

1)Jesus’ teachings are not necessarily universal principles about how governments should handle their affairs, but simply how HIS followers are called to live.

As I have said before in this series, Jesus never concerned himself with how Caesar ran Rome. Jesus was not interested in reforming political policy. His reforms went much deeper, striking at the root of that which governments only seek to control the fruit of. Therefore, Jesus’ peace teachings were not focused on how any kingdom of this world should behave. Jesus’ peace teachings were not and are not a call to governments to become more peaceful. On the contrary, Jesus’ peace teachings were directed at those desiring to be followers of Jesus Himself and how those who bear His name could live radically peaceful, but subversive lives bringing and end to all kingdoms of this world and the establishment of a Kingdom which would never end. This series has simply been a call to Christians to repentance, to turn around and change the direction we are moving. The Christian religion has too often been fixated on others outside its borders and their need for repentance, while simultaneously being very opposed to looking at any need within its own borders for repentance. This series is a call to those who bear Jesus’ name (“CHRIST”ian), asking those who claim to follow Jesus to begin taking more seriously what their Jesus actually taught. For the first three hundred years, those who claimed to follow this Jesus were therefore pacifists. Beginning in the fourth century, the Christian religion began adopting exceptions to Jesus’ teachings and then to embrace those exceptions to the degree that today Jesus’ teachings in regard to how His followers should behave are seen as something that in a fallen world can never really be lived out. All the exceptions have become the norm, and Jesus’ teachings have become the exception. Today we have a stark difference between what the Christian religion teaches on this subject and what Jesus Himself actually taught. Today, because of whatever justification it embraces for abandoning Jesus’ peace teaching, the Christian religion is virtually saying, “I am a Christian, however in this regard, the actual teachings of Jesus do not work, and we need to discard Jesus’ teachings in this matter. Given certain situations, the teachings of Jesus fail us.” This is the Justified Violence or Justified War theory in essence. Today, Christians end up submitting Jesus, actually marginalizing Jesus, to follow in His place a very different, pragmatic, goal-oriented point of view. Again, I want to be clear: Jesus’ teachings on nonviolence are not given in an effort to tell governments to become more peaceful. Jesus’ teachings are about us, as Christ’s followers, and whether we will partner with that government in the use of violence. Today, 87% of the members of the religious right in America are not only open to and supportive of, but are actually participating with America in going into other countries and killing others, claiming that America is “going to war in Jesus’ name.” This is nothing short of heresy. (The only difference is, pacifists won’t kill others for spreading heresy. But they will call it by its name.) Again, this is not an issue of whether America, or any nation, for that matter, should go to war. Rather, it IS an issue when the leader of any government claims to be a brother (or sister) in Christ and then claims to be taking that specific nation into war in “Jesus’ name” (as a President of the United States did recently).

(As an aside, this is another reason why there is truly no such thing as a “Christian” government or nation. “Christian” originally meant “one who follows the teachings of Jesus.” Any government or nation that takes seriously Jesus’ teachings, even peace teachings alone, would eventually cease to exist.)

2)Second, I want to share with you a statement I shared months ago on Facebook and Twitter. It is the words of John Stoner from his 1984’s modest proposal for peace.

“Let the Christians of the world agree that they will not kill each other.”

Stuart Murray recounts his own experience with how others have responded to this statement:

“Responses to this proposal have been interesting, as I have tested it out in many contexts. Quite often it takes a while for people to appreciate its disturbing significance and the way its implications ripple out. Most agree that they should not kill other members of their own congregation. They then extend this to other congregations in their own denomination and beyond it. But what about Christians from other nations in war zones or Christian combatants in opposing armies? And how do we know who are the Christian soldiers or civilians in war zones? And why should we give preferential treatment to Christians? Gradually the challenge of this ‘modest proposal’ dawns on us.” (Stuart Murray. The Naked Anabaptist )

The point is this: The most Christianized nation in the world during the time when Hitler rose to power was not America. It was Germany, the birthplace of the reformation. Hitler even viewed himself as a faithful “Christian.”

“My feelings as a Christian point me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter . . . . Jesus was greater, not as a sufferer, but as a fighter! In boundless love, as a Christian, and as a man, I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders . . . . As a Christian, I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for Truth and Justice . . . . And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is the distress that daily grows.” (Adolf Hitler, speech from April 12, 1922, published in My New Order.)

Far from Jesus’ peace teaching permitting Hitler to take over the world, if the Protestant and Catholic Germans had placed following Jesus above their patriotism and identity as Germans and had taken Jesus peace teachings seriously, Hitler would have never had an army to begin with. Christians who follow Jesus’ peace teachings would not have allowed Hitler to take over the world; they would have, on the contrary, kept Hitler and the Nazi party from even getting off the ground in Germany. But what about secondarily, once someone like a Hitler does get off the ground? Then what? This leads me to number three.

3)I want us to consider Dietrich Bonheoffer’s (a pacifist who did take Jesus’ peace teachings seriously and was a German, living in Germany during the time of Hitler) own story.

You see, binary thinking (two options: Use violence or do nothing) is built on assumptions that may not be necessarily correct. Binary thinking assumes that with violence you will win and your enemy will lose, and that without violence your enemy will win and you will lose. But this is not even remotely a statistical truth. Bonheoffer, seeing the atrocities committed by the Nazi’s and Hitler, embraced using violence to try and stop Hitler. He did not abandon his pacifism. He never said what he was doing was right. I can at least respect him for this. He said that his using violence was evil (he actually called it a sin), but he compared it to Abraham killing Isaac while later the Ten Commandments clearly would say, “Thou shalt not kill.” Bonheoffer said it was wrong, but it was the lesser of two wrongs, and he felt God was calling him to go against the teachings of Jesus in much the way Abraham was called to go against what would later be written in the Ten Commandments. (Interesting logic, to say the least.)

But here is how the story turned out. In an interview with Hitler’s secretary, she states that Hitler was at a breaking point. He was seriously questioning his own extermination program of the Jews. He was considering closing the extermination camps and focusing his energies on winning the war. Then one day, there was a briefcase placed in Hitler’s office (the bomb the team Bonheoffer was a part of had an insider in place). Hitler hit the briefcase with his knee when taking his seat behind his desk, and the briefcase was moved only five feet away. When the bomb went off, everyone in the room was fatally wounded except Hitler, who was sitting behind the desk and therefore protected. Hitler walked away while everyone else in the room died. Hitler then interpreted this as a “Divine Sign” that he was on the right track and that God had miraculously protected his life for the purpose he was pursuing. He took up his extermination of the Jews with renewed vigor, and Bonheoffer was later arrested with others and eventually executed for his crimes against Hitler.

Now let’s be clear. This story doesn’t prove that nonviolence always works and violence always fails. Sometimes it’s quite the opposite. What this story proves is that binary thinking is based on assumptions that are not true. Violence doesn’t always work. Many times (more times than not), it backfires. Violence can, and often does, make things worse than they would have been had a nonviolent solution been sought. But pass or fail, we do not live the life of nonviolence because it always works. Remember, followers of Jesus live a life of nonviolence simply because, whether it works or fails, it’s the way Jesus Himself taught and demonstrated with His own life that his followers are to live. To the objection that those who embrace nonviolence will die, Jesus said, “Those who live by the sword will die by the sword” too! Yes, you may die by not carrying a sword, but you’ll die by carrying one as well. The point it: You can die either way. The question is how you chose to die: 1) following Jesus or 2) following something or someone else. It was how the early church died, “dying well” that made the movement of Christianity unstoppable until the fourth century.

I want to also stop at this point this week and ask the question again with which we started this series. Can a pacifist honor someone who believes in justified war? You bet ya! Honor and acceptance does not mean agreement. I can honor those who were willing to risk their life for a cause they believed in on that basis alone, whether or not I agree that we should ever take life for a cause we believe in. The fact that someone would embrace a cause so passionately as to give his or her own life for it, if he or she is doing this conscientiously to the best of his or her understanding of what the scriptures teach, is honorable. The disagreement is not about whether we should ever be willing to die for a cause. The issue under discussion is whether we should ever be willing to kill for a cause.

It really depends on what your picture of God is. If God looks like Jesus, then you have a God who not only teaches, but commands and even demonstrates by example, a life of nonviolence and pacifism. If God doesn’t look like Jesus, but something else, then if by whatever standard you define your God you believe in a violent God, it produces a loophole that we will always exploit to find a way to ignore the teachings of Jesus and embrace and use violence ourselves.

The question really isn’t about violence or non-violence at all. The question is, was Jesus really God?

If not, then we must look elsewhere for our definition of what God is. If Jesus was right, and I believe He was, when he said, “if you have seen Me you have seen the Father” (John 14.9), then that changes everything. And really, that was the whole intention of the coming of God to us in the human form of Jesus to begin with. The revelation of God in Jesus was for the purpose of changing everything!

Much to ponder, for sure. At the very minimum, even non-Christians agree that Jesus taught the way of nonviolence. The questions that remain are 1) how to apply Jesus’ teaching of nonviolence to our lives as followers of Jesus, and 2) how does this radically redefine who and what God really is?

No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known. – John 1.18

It is also well to remember that when Jesus gave these teachings, Caesar was a kind of Hitler. (Nero Caesar definitely was.) Neither Jesus nor the early church chose the way of violence to bring about Caesar’s overthrow. They exemplified and taught the way of peace and nonviolence as the way to bring about a better Kingdom, an eternal, nonviolent one. Peace by peaceful means.

In 1941, after a period of neutrality, Bulgaria allied itself with Nazi Germany. This was a decision partly motivated by the Bulgarian government’s wish to regain neighboring territories that it had lost in previous wars. Early in 1943, the government in Sofia signed a secret agreement with the Nazis to deport 20,000 Jews. The deportations started with Jews in the annexed territories.

Between March 4 and March 11 of that year, soldiers rounded up thousands of Jews and prepared boxcars to take them to the Treblinka extermination camp in occupied Poland, where approximately 850,000 people almost all Jews perished in World War II.

On March 10, boxcars were loaded with 8,500 Jews, including 1,500 from the city of Plovdiv. The bishop of Plovdiv, Metropolitan Kirill (later Patriarch of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church), along with 300 church members, showed up at the station where the Jews were awaiting transport. The story is told by Tony Campolo in the documentary Prince of Peace, God of War (a low budget, but excellent nonetheless for it, documentary featuring many voices on both sides of this issue including someone I respect deeply for his influence in my life on this topic, Pastor Bruxy Cavey of The Meeting House.) Here is Tony’s retelling of the story:

“When they came with SS troopers to round up the Jews in Sofia, they got the Jews down at the train station, had them in a barbed wire enclosure. It was a rainy, misty night. Out the darkness, at 11:00 p.m., came Metropolitan Kirill, the leader of the orthodox church in Bulgaria. This seven foot four figure, with his long flowing white beard hanging over his black robes immerges out of the fog, then behind him came about three hundred of the members of his congregation. They say his gait was so quick, so fast, the other men had to run just to keep up with him. He came to the entrance of the barbed wire enclosure. The SS guards pointed their machine guns at him, and said, “You can’t go in there Father.” He laughed at them and brushed their machine guns aside and marched in among the Jews. They gathered around him seeing what the Christian leader of Bulgaria would have to say, in their moment of distress, in their moment of need. They were crying, some of them were hysterical. They knew they were heading for Auschwitz, unless something miraculous happened. And something miraculous did.

Metropolitan Kirill raised his arms and quoted one verse of scripture, and changed the destiny of a nation. Quoting from the book of Ruth, he said to the Jews, hysterical, knowing they were about to be carted off to their death:

“Whithersoever thou goest I will go. You’re people will be my people. Your God will be my God.”

The Jews cheered. The Christians who were outside the barbed wire enclosure cheered. The noise was so great the people came out of their houses and started coming down in increasing numbers to the train station. The hundreds grew to thousands. The SS soldiers knew there was no way they were going to get away with rounding up these Jews and carrying them off to Auschwitz. The train left without the Jews. And never returned again. Not a single Bulgarian Jew ever died in the concentration camps because the church of Jesus Christ boldly stood up, and said, “We’re not going to KILL the enemy. We are going to identify with those suffering, and we will suffer with them.”

This is Jesus’ way!”

This story affects me at such a deeply profound level. At the beginning of World War II, the Jewish population of Bulgaria was 48,000. At the end it was 50,000, making Bulgaria the only country under Nazi rule to end the war with more Jews than at the beginning.

Metropolitan Kirill died in 1971. In 2003, the Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial in Jerusalem recognized him as Righteous Among the Nations.

I want to close this week acknowledging that I am fully aware that there are some out there who are really upset at me and Renewed Heart Ministries for endeavoring to take seriously Jesus’ teaching on nonviolence and embracing it in this way. I’ve heard your feed back. Some of you are so upset you don’t know how to respond. You are just really upset. I want to encourage you not to walk away, but please, let’s keep talking. I’m not trying to make following Jesus hard. No, no. I simply want to be honest about the teachings of Jesus that already are hard. The question is, will we allow ourselves to be challenged, as followers of Jesus, to creatively come up with ways in which we will be able to change the world through such a radical, life-changing, other-centered, self-sacrificial, passionate-for-peace approach to life? To do this in a way so that we become like our first forefathers? Not the American’s forefathers—I’m talking about our forefathers, the first century Christian forefathers, whose blood became the seed. And we see that that has the power to change the world. Constantine was a great counter-maneuver of the demonic powers. The only way to defeat Christianity in the fourth century, was not to crush it out, but to confuse everybody by causing Christians to lay down the cross as a way of life, and to pick the sword back up instead. Living nonviolently is radical, I know. But we must begin to wrestle with how we can turn the world upside down again as our true forefathers did.

This week, I want to encourage us to submit to Jesus not just as our Savior, but also as our Lord. The history of Christianity does not prove that the teachings of Jesus have been “tried and found wanting, but rather that the teachings of Jesus have been found hard and left untried.” (G.K. Chesterton)

This week, keep living in God’s extravagant love for you as revealed in the person of Jesus Christ, and may we all embrace a way life characterized by loving as Christ does, even loving our enemies. And thereby, we will build the Kingdom.

If you, through this series, have come to embrace the peace teachings of Jesus, either for the first time or anew, I want to say this to you. There are churches out there that are following the peace teachings of Jesus (may have Anabaptist roots in principle if not literally). They are not following the “just war” theory that so many Christians embrace today. I want to encourage you to find one of these churches and begin talking with them wherever you are. (If you can’t find one, shoot me an e-mail and I’ll help you find one.) Many of them have years of experience with applying Jesus’ peace teachings in practical ways in real life, and they will be an invaluable resource to you as you seek to become a follower of Jesus more deeply.

Much love to each of you this week.

I really do love you guys,

I’ll see you next week.

Herb