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

The Active Nonviolence of Jesus: Home Security (8 of 12)

PART 8 OF 12

Home Security

BY HERB MONTGOMERY

“But now I tell you, Love your enemies.” —Jesus, Matthew 5.44Part 8

This week, I want to address the single greatest objection to the peace teachings of Jesus that I get. This question is raised almost every time Jesus’ teachings on nonviolence are beginning to be taken seriously. The question is:

What would you do if someone broke into your home?

Rather than beginning with the emotions of this worst-case scenario, I want to begin with the actual teachings of Jesus and work our way back out to its application this week. I believe that the answer is in Jesus’ words in Matthew 5. I want to recommend that you go back and reread Part 3 as a foundation for what we are going to share this week.

I also want to recommend a very small volume that, in my opinion, is one of the best little books written on this subject: John Howard Yoder’s What Would You Do? It’s a quick read but one of the most excellent writings on the subject I’ve come across.

In answer to the above question, I want to make it clear that I don’t know what I would do until I’m faced with a situation, but I do know what I should do, and this is where we begin this week.

Whenever I have discussed this question, I have noticed that there seems to be a lot of binary thinking on this matter. I mean by this that, usually, someone perceives only two options: shoot the invader or do nothing. But there are a multitude of other creative, nonviolent options when one stops to consider what could happen. Besides this, studies also show that adding either a gun or an additional gun to such a situation statistically raises the odds that the outcome is going to be the exact opposite of what we would think. Things do not always go the way we plan; we assume that, if we pick up a gun, the outcome will be they lose and we win. But statistics show the exact opposite. However, nowhere did Jesus ever teach in Matthew 5 to “do nothing,” a passive response. Love demands that we do something to protect our loved ones, but it also dictates the form that something takes given that Jesus died for the invader as well, which makes him also a sacred creature in need of being rescued just as much as those the intruder is threatening. The intruder is simply a conduit. Let me explain.

Paul wrote in his letter to the Ephesians, “For our struggle is not against enemies of blood and flesh, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers of this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places” (Ephesians 6.12). This means that not only do those being threatened need to be rescued from this attacker but that the attacker himself is not the enemy either but a victim himself of the REAL enemy. He is in need of being rescued just as much as those he intends to harm.

To illustrate, Martin Luther King, Jr. often spoke of all the ways that racism affects racists themselves. He saw them, too, as fully and tragically human—God’s children—victimized by the evil system they perpetuate. He taught that every kind of evil cripples the persecutor as well as the victim. Both are dragged down by the same process. As long as that process continues, they are tied together. Whatever happens to one happens to both. And then he warned, “Let no man pull you so low as to hate him.”

I’m with Dr. King on this one. I believe that Jesus really meant it when He taught, “Love your enemies.” Too many times, we look at intruders as someone we don’t know, valueless, meaningless. But I want you to imagine an intruder standing in your home, pulling back the ski mask, and you realize that it is actually one of your own children. Would your feelings then be different? Would your response take a different form? Yes, you would still seek to stop him from hurting your other loved ones, but you would do it in a way that also preserved the life and, therefore, the hope of redemption for your child as well. You see, no matter whom the intruder is, this is still a child of God, someone Jesus died for, that you have been called to reach out to and try to save, too. What you would feel toward the intruder if he were your child is what God feels toward him since he is His child. God seeks to save both the victims and the victimizers in this war-torn world of ours. Let me share with you a few stories.

A Mennonite follower of Jesus, was once asked whether, if an intruder broke into his home and, for a split moment, laid his gun down, would he pick it up and use it? What would he do? The dear Mennonite said something that challenges me, too. He said that he would drop to his knees and pray because, through prayer, he would connect himself with Someone much more powerful than the intruder’s gun. It’s something to at least think about.

A pastor friend of mine also tells a story that I believe helps illustrate this as well. One day, on the streets of Toronto, while in conversation with another individual, he noticed an African American woman tear past him running as if afraid for her life. Moments later, a gang of “skinheads” went racing past in pursuit. My pastor friend immediately dropped the conversation and began chasing after them. The whole time, he was thinking, “I’m a pacifist; what on earth can I do once I catch up to them?” He rounded a corner and, right in front of him, was the woman, huddled on the ground, surrounded by the men, who were kicking her with blows aimed to kill. He did the only thing he knew to do. He hurled himself through the crowd and threw himself on top of this dear lady to place himself between her and her attackers. Then he shouted out something that today he says was probably the stupidest thing he could have said. He shouted, “I’m a follower of Jesus, so that means I can’t do two things!” They all stopped. Silence came over the group. My pastor friend then said, “I’m a follower of Jesus and that means I cannot let you kill her, but as a follower of Jesus, I cannot fight you back.”

The group became confused. They then turned their venom on him, saying things such as, “Man, what are you doing? You’re a whitey!” Then they began to argue among themselves: “Do we kill him too?” The group began to argue until someone spoke up and said that this was taking too long, and, becoming concerned with their own vulnerability, they began to disperse.

Again, love demands that we do something, but it also dictates the form that something should take.

An Australian friend of mine, wrestling with this same issue, came to this conclusion: “God could have taken the Adversary out in the very beginning, saving millions from him. But God took a different tack. This, undeniably, is one of the greatest problems people have with God. Why did He not kill Lucifer? Why did He permit Lucifer to live? And though I don’t have all the answers, the fact the God didn’t just pick up the gun and blow Lucifer away, at the very minimum, speaks volumes to me.”

As we close this week, I want us to consider the story of Peter and his defense of Jesus, whom he thought was defenseless. His heart, being in the right place, sought to protect the One he loved, which wasn’t wrong by any means, yet the form that that protection took warranted one of the strongest rebukes given by Jesus to anyone in the gospels:

Suddenly, one of those with Jesus put his hand on his sword, drew it, and struck the slave of the high priest, cutting off his ear. Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place; No more of this!! For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels?” (Matthew 26; Mark 14; Luke 22; John 18)

Someone may object, saying, “Yes, but Jesus was supposed to die! With us, it’s different!” But I would humbly remind us of the words of Jesus Himself. The cross was not something that Jesus was to die on instead of us. Jesus was not to be unique as the cross-bearer. He was simply the first, being an example that His followers were to follow.

Then he said to them all, “If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me. For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will save it.” (Luke 9.23-24)

Jesus answered them, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. Very truly, I tell you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains just a single grain; but if it dies, it bears much fruit. Those who love their life lose it, and those who hate their life in this world will keep it for eternal life. Whoever serves me must follow me, and where I am, there will my servant be also. Whoever serves me, the Father will honor. (John 12.23-26)

“And whoever does not take up the cross and follow me is not worthy of me.” (Matthew 10.38)

Then Jesus told his disciples, “If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me.” (Matthew 16.24)

He called the crowd with his disciples and said to them, “If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me.” (Mark 8.34)

“Whoever does not carry the cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14.27)

As followers of Jesus, we are called, in all our doings, to lay down the sword and to pick up, in its place, the cross. We are living demonstrations of not the perpetrator-sacrificing love of God but the SELF-sacrificing love of God.

What would I do if someone broke into my home? I don’t know the answer to that and will not until it actually happens, but I know that, whatever I do, what I am called to do is to respond in a nonviolent way that seeks to save not just those who are in immediate danger but to save each person who is involved from being victimized by this event, those being threatened as well as the one who is the conduit of the threat. Some will say, “But we have no guarantee that will work!” Two things: picking up an additional gun doesn’t guarantee that, either. We think it gives us more of an advantage, but again, statistics show this to be utterly false, showing that what really happens is not an increase in the odds that things will turn out for the better but an increase in the odds that things will turn out much worse than they otherwise would have been. Finally, as followers of Jesus, we do not embrace non-violence because it always works but because non-violent, self-sacrificial love, even toward our enemies, is what we are called to and commanded by our Lord Jesus.

Again, there’s much to think about this week. Jesus taught us to love our enemies. We are called to protect our loved ones, but to, at the same time, recognize, the inestimable, immeasurable, infinite worth that every human being has in the heart of God, regardless of what they are doing at this present moment. They are someone Jesus died for. They are a sacred creature, whom we are called to save just as much as we save our loved ones. We are called to love both.

Next week, we’ll discuss two more objections together.

Keep living in love, thinking like Christ, living like Christ, serving like Christ, and loving like Christ.

I love you guys.

I’ll see you next week.

The Active Nonviolence of Jesus: Old Testament Violence (7 of 12)

PART 7 OF 12

Old Testament Violence

BY HERB MONTGOMERY

Long ago, God spoke to our ancestors in many and various forms by the prophets, but in these last days, he has spoken to us by a Son [Who is] the exact image of God’s very being. Hebrews 1.1-3

This week, I want to share with you some thoughts that were revolutionary when they were shared with me. I have to admit from the very beginning this week, that these thoughts and way of interpreting the Old Testament are not original to me by any means, but were the common way the early church interpreted it; this method was rediscovered during the Second Reformation of the sixteenth century. But that’s a history for another time and place. This week, we are endeavoring to reconcile the God we see in the Old Testament with the God we see in the Person of Jesus Christ.

I also want to make it clear that I am one of those who deeply wrestles with much of what I see in the God of the Old Testament. I have, over and over, in the last twenty years, revisited the Old Testament God, trying to make sense out of Him. I have read book after book, but nothing seemed to quite answer it for me. But here is the rub: I really didn’t know what my problem was. It was vague and unidentifiable. For example, I’d read a book on this topic and say, “Well, that’s all well and good and all, but there’s something still missing. I’m missing something. That doesn’t seem to quite fix it.” Another example of this was in a presentation I made three years ago in Northern California for a week-long gathering of many different speakers. The title was Jekyll and Hyde. And while I was pleased with how the presentation went and truly believed everything I had shared and felt it came across simply and clearly, I walked away with that unidentifiable gnawing once again inside me, saying, “Yeah, but that still doesn’t quite solve it.”

Two years ago, I remember sitting on a plane reading Paul Copan’s book Is God A Moral Monster? and feeling the exact same way. There is a lot that’s good in the book; some thoughts were new to me, but I still sat there feeling like it didn’t really solve things for me.

Then, last December, sitting at a restaurant, having lunch with a pastor friend of mine (Dr. Gregory Boyd) in St. Paul, not the answer, but the problem I had been having became clear as sunlight to me. I remember sitting there with Greg, the two of us talking about this very topic we are discussing this week, and Greg said something that made my years of wrestling click! I didn’t have the answer yet, but, for the first time, my problem made sense. All these authors I had been reading did an excellent job of trying to soften the picture we get of the Old Testament God. They had invested page after page of writing and intellectual energy trying to reconcile the Old Testament God with “justice” to make Him look fair, so to speak, righteous even, or right. And while I admire their efforts to make the God of the Old Testament look less ugly, they really weren’t solving MY problem with Him.

You see, there is a world of difference between reconciling the God of the Old Testament with justice and reconciling the God of the Old Testament with Jesus.

My problem was How do you reconcile the picture of God we get from the Old Testament with the picture of God we get in the Person of Jesus Christ? What I was about to discover over the next few months, after defining my actual problem, was actually the way the secondary reformers solved the same problem in the sixteenth century, and, much to my surprise, a rediscovery of the way the early church reconciled this difference too. And this is where we pick up this week’s focus text:

Long ago God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son [who is] the exact imprint of God’s very being. Hebrews 1.1-3

Now, I want to look at this concept in general terms first and then we will apply it specifically to the current subject of Non-Violence or the Peace teachings of Jesus. There are three terms we need to become familiar with: 1) Concession, 2) Accommodation, and 3) the Ideal.

Let’s talk about concession first, and I’ll try and keep this brief. Imagine with me that I am a missionary and I have just landed in an undeveloped area of this world with a few unique characteristics. First, the people there have never seen a white person before. (Imagine them poking my skin repeatedly). Second, they are cannibals (which may be why they were poking my skin: checking my tenderness, come to think of it). And, lastly, they had some unique beliefs. They are a very violent people who worship their dead ancestors, and once a year, they offer in sacrifice a new-born baby in a religious ceremony in honor of their dead ancestors. Now, here is the challenge: I am a follower of Jesus and I am going to try to win them to following Jesus too. However, I can’t just bulldoze over their existing culture. I have to work slowly with these people. If I were to push them too far and too fast, I would wind up losing them and maybe even end up on their plates. So, what should I do? What would you start with first? I don’t know about you, but the first place I would start is to try to get them to offer an animal instead of those babies once a year. (With the intent that I would eventually get them away from even doing that!)

But, while I’m working on that, I’m going to have to concede, or ignore, those other things. What would be supremely unfair is if someone were to make a judgment about what I believed, based on the time I was working with this barbaric culture. It would be a gross misrepresentation of who I am. I actually do this on a regular basis. When I get to a church for a weekend event, I have to size that church up rather quickly, decide what areas to leave alone and what areas God would have me address that weekend. Some fish are bigger fish to fry than others, and I’m there for only a short time. Where am I going to do the most good in the shortest amount of time? But, for someone to assume that I believe everything that church believes just because I didn’t address something would be a grossly unfair assumption. This leads me to my point.

The God we see in the Old Testament is making concession after concession trying to reach the people of the culture of the time. God does not start with an ideal and speaking condemnation toward us for not measuring up. God does not start where He wishes we were, condemning us for what we are not. God starts where we actually are, and then speaks hope while patiently and graciously loving us into becoming what we can be.

On top of all of this, you have to add the reality that these people God was working with had their own misconceptions of what a “god” should be. Not understanding what strength really is, if God showed up looking like Jesus, they would have seen this as weakness and followed after a different God instead, such as Baal, Dagon, Chemosh, Astarte, etc. Israel struggled with this enough as it was. God has to move them slowly to try to effect change without it being too much too fast, and losing them. It would be grossly unfair to define what we believe about God’s ideals from this era of the scriptures. It would be fair to see in them how far God will go to meet us where we are. That is beautiful!

Now let’s talk about accommodations. There are seven areas I want to quickly note that help us see how God sometimes accommodates where we are at, temporarily. We’ll take our time with the first, which will enable us to quickly understand the remaining six at a glance. This first one is the polygamy of the Old Testament. To be perfectly clear, God’s ideal for marriage is revealed in the Genesis Narrative. But what happens when you find yourself in a culture that is extremely patriarchal and chauvinistic, where women are little more than property? This is evil, but you must slowly bring these people to see how evil it is so they themselves turn from this evil. But, add to this the fact that this culture is also very barbaric and war-mongering, and through the repeated violence of war, there are many more women than men. The only way for these women to survive in this culture is to be connected to a man (either a father or a husband). Yes, our ideal is that a marriage consists of only two people, but if something isn’t done quickly and temporarily, mind you, countless women will be forced into slavery or prostitution to escape the poverty of begging. So, what do you do? Polygamy is evil, but do you allow it for a time, temporarily, knowing that even though it’s not ideal, for the time being, it is the lesser of two evils?

This brings me to my point on accommodations. God is accommodating. Unlike ethical principles, which are always abstract, universal, and idealistic, God always perfectly tailors the ideals of the ideal to the complex uniqueness of each individual’s non-ideal life situation in the present. We live out this image of God by following God’s example by loving people where they are in the complexity and uniqueness of their non-ideal situations and without judgments. This is not relativizing morality. On the contrary, it is recognizing the difference between God’s accommodating will and His ideal will. God’s ideal will is what God wants, given a perfect situation. God’s accommodating will is God’s will, given the situation we are in, which is anything but perfect. We follow God’s example in this when we hold the ideal, subservient to love. Morality is absolute, but only God can direct us to apply the ideal in a particular non-ideal situation.

We see God doing this over and over again in the Old Testament. Starting with polygamy (Exodus 21.10), slavery (Deuteronomy 23.15), Israel having a King (1 Samuel 8.22), the Nationalism of the Old Testament (verses “All People”), all the way to the Law itself, with all its punishments and rewards (Deuteronomy 28, see also the presentations on our Website entitled Intrinsic or Imposed and No Longer Under The Law. When we, as parents, lay down the law for our children we know that this is a way of relating to them that is only temporary and we hope they learn the lessons before they reach 18. As a side note, if you were to ask my nine-year-old to write my biography, it too would look a lot like the Old Testament. But if I were to ask her to rewrite my biography when she reaches 40, I’m quite sure she would paint a more complete picture of what I really am like as a person. Some might even say that I had changed between the two writings, when, in fact, it was not a change in me that took place, but a maturity that took place in my daughter who was writing. See also 1 Corinthians 13.9-10 and Hebrews 8.13).

The Patriarchy of the Old Testament is like this as well. Compare the Patriarchy of the Old Testament with Jesus’ treatment of women according to first century Jewish standards, and the result is breathtaking (See Luke 10.38-41, This passage challenges the role designations for women in the first century; the role of disciple and future minister of Jesus’ message is more critical than that of homemaker and hostess, and is also open to women. People normally sat on chairs or, at banquets, reclined on couches; but disciples sat at the feet of their teachers. Serious disciples were preparing to be teachers—a role not permitted to women. (The one notable exception in the second century was a learned rabbi’s daughter who had married another learned rabbi; but most rabbis rejected her opinions.) Mary’s posture and eagerness to absorb Jesus’ teaching at the expense of a more traditional womanly role (10:40) would have shocked most Jewish men and Jesus affirms Mary as belonging there (See also, Galatians 3.28).

Here is the point of it all for this week: Strip away all the concessions and accommodations of the God of the Old Testament, and you get a God who looks like Jesus.

Long ago God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son [who is] the exact imprint of God’s very being. Hebrews 1.1-3

We must be careful here. It would do us well to remember what happened when God, in the person of Jesus, showed up to His people in the past. They were so invested in the concessions and accommodations that when they ideal showed up, the difference was so stark and so intolerable, the cognitive dissonance was so great between what they believed God to be like and what He was really like, they could not take it, and they crucified Him.

This is where it applies to our topic in this series. When you look at the violence of the God of the Old Testament, you have to ask yourself, Is this a concession, an accommodation or is it God’s ideal? I’ll give you a text that I believe gives us a hint.

But I will not drive them out in a single year, because the land would become desolate and the wild animals too numerous for you. Little by little I will drive them out before you, until you have increased enough to take possession of the land. Exodus 23.29-30

God’s ideal for the Canaanites was not a violent loss of life, but simply relocation, with no loss of life. I don’t know what happened between Exodus 23 and the time of Joshua, but I have to, at the very least, allow this to confront my deepest assumptions about the violence I see in the Old Testament. Again, strip away all the concessions and accommodations, and you get a God who looks like Jesus, who, rather than demanding the death of His enemies, allows them to put Him to death in an effort to actually save them.

You see, the early church saw these differences between Jehovah and Jesus. But rather than throwing out the concessions and accommodations, they kept them, recognizing them for what they were and held Jesus to be their more complete standard of living. We must remember that the early church viewed everything in the scriptures now through the lens of the person of Jesus Christ. They were not called “Biblians” or “Scripturians,” but “Christians.” This should speak volumes to us today. How do you know when something in the scriptures is a concession, an accommodation, or the ideal? This is why the entire volume of the scriptures must be studied in the light that streams from the cross of Calvary. In order to be rightly understood and appreciated, everything from Genesis to Revelation must be studied in the light streaming from the Cross. If it doesn’t look like Jesus, then it’s not the ideal; we can assume it’s a concession or an accommodation of God, not showing us a complete picture of what God approves of or desires, but rather a beautiful picture of how far God is willing to go to meet us where we are at and patiently and lovingly grow us into people who look like Jesus, talk like Jesus, understand like Jesus, serve like Jesus, live like Jesus, and love like Jesus. The moral standard for a follower of Jesus is not the Old Testament, not even the ten rules that are the foundation and heart of the Old Testament. Rather, the standard of morality for the follower of Jesus is actually something which doesn’t contradict those ten rules but is infinitely more complete and full. It’s actually Jesus Himself. That’s why they are called “followers” of Jesus.

Let’s close this week by looking at two words, a concept really that Paul uses over and over again in the New Testament. What are these two words? Shadows versus Reality.

These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ . . . is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. Colossians 2.17 & Hebrews 10.1 (See also Hebrews 8.5)

What is a shadow? It’s the absence of light. It’s darkness. But it’s darkness in the outline of its reality. It’s darkness in the shape of what it’s supposed to resemble. It is not the reality itself, but simply darkness in the shape of the reality. Paul is brilliant here. This, I believe perfectly, illustrates exactly what the Old Testament is. God took the darkness of cultures He was trying to reach in the Old Testament and shaped them in such a way that we get an outline of Him, but not a clearly discernible or even always accurate picture. Shadows, although they tell us something of the reality, can, many times, be distorted, even misshaped. And how do we begin to see the difference between what is something’s shadow and what is it really? We have to look at the reality itself. Take a sunflower, for example. The shadow may make us think the flower is actually taller than it really is? How do we know whether that is the case or not? We have to look at the actual flower. In the Old Testament, we see God taking the ugliness of the culture He was trying to reach and shaping into something that vaguely resembled Him. How do we know what in the “shadow” is a distortion and what is real? We have to have to look, actually, at God Himself! And where do we see God Himself, not in shadow form, but in reality? Where do we actually see God? In Jesus Christ.

For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form. Colossians 2.9

Again, for the last time:

Long ago God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways [polytropos – many forms] by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son . . . [who is] the exact representation [or image] of God’s very being. Hebrews 1.1-3

It is also interesting to note, especially in the context of this series, that when pacifism began to be abandoned shortly after Constantine became “Christian,” within Constantinian Christianity we see a clean departure from the teachings and person of Jesus in the writings of the church’s theologians and scholars. Figures from the Old Testament such as Joshua and David (the violent warriors of the Old Testament) become the church’s heroes and the justification for its new “justified violence” theory. Jesus ceases to be the central figure, and becomes slowly marginalized and pushed to the sideline. Where has this gotten us? Richard Dawkins (a self-proclaimed atheist), ignoring the picture of God that we get from Jesus and strictly taking his impression of God from the Old Testament, I believe, is a clear example of what happens when we give the Old Testament more weight, more credence, greater value in shaping what God is really like than the person of Jesus:

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” ? Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

We must let this confront us. Is Evangelical Christianity’s current approval of violence based on and justified by arguments taken from Old Testament stories, or rather, the clear teachings and example of Jesus?

No one has ever seen God [even in the Old Testament], 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

Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. John 14.9

This series is a call to all of those who claim the name of Jesus to actually return to what Jesus actually believed about the character of God and Jesus’ teachings and the example of how we are to live. Again, when it comes to the pictures of God, including the violent ones, that we get from the Old Testament, we must ask ourselves, looking at those images of the Old Testament through the lens of Jesus Christ, whether those stories reveal an accurate representation of what God is really like or whether they are Divine concessions and accommodations. The authority for moral behavior for a follower of Jesus is actually Jesus! His commands, His teachings, His example. Followers of Jesus are called to view God as Jesus revealed Him and to think like Jesus, serve like Jesus, live like Jesus, love like Jesus, to be “Jesus” to the World around us. Something “better” than the Old Testament has arrived. It’s the person of Jesus Christ.

Keep living in love and loving like Jesus. Now, go build the Kingdom.

I love you guys.

I’ll see you next week.

Herb

The Active Nonviolence of Jesus: The Church & The Empire (6 of 12)

PART 6 OF 12

The Church & The Empire

BY HERB MONTGOMERY

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give to everyone what you owe: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor. (Romans 13:1-7)

Well it’s been a whole month since our last eSight/podcast in this series, and I’d like to thank each of you for your patience during the month of July. We spent the first half of the month without electricity and the entire month without Internet or phone service, due to the storms that tore through West Virginia on the first of the month. It’s been quite an adventure around here, but we are finally getting back on our feet. Thank you sincerely for all your prayers and support during this time. (The length of this week’s eSight I’m sure will make up for the lack of eSights for the entire last month. Please be prepared, this week’s eSight is rather lengthy, but it needs to be to help us get our minds wrapped around why Paul wrote Romans 13.)

Last night I had a wonderful conversation with a dear friend on how Jesus’ peace teaching has revolutionized their life and transformed their picture of God. If we understand Jesus’ peace teachings correctly, they also revolutionize our understanding of the purpose of the Cross. The Cross was not about Divinely demanded violence, but God’s non-violent response to the Devil as well as our rebellion, which defeated the real Enemy, established God’s Kingdom here on earth again, and provided the means whereby we might be healed and restored from the whole experience. We are going to be closing this series with these thoughts so I won’t jump ahead to explaining them now. But we will get there. And in order to get there and to correctly see what Calvary was truly all about we must first get our heads around what Jesus’ peace teaching actually were.

Our passage this week is a passage with no small challenges. Parallel truths must be held in tension in order to come to the conclusions that Paul intended here in this passage. We must also be careful not to read our own agendas or nationalism into the passage, but to allow the passage to speak for itself, giving us Paul’s intended agenda. The problem Christians were facing in Paul’s day was that Christians were being forced to pay taxes to Rome to fund activities that went against their consciences or what they believed to be right. (Tax dollars funded Rome’s killing of Christians, Rome’s merciless slaughter of its political enemies, and Rome’s permissive stance toward infanticide.) How did Paul counsel them to react? This is why Paul wrote Romans 13.

“Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities.” (Romans 13:1)

Then Paul launches into why followers of Jesus are to live lives that are “subjected” to whatever kingdom of this world they find themselves in, even when they conscientiously disagree with what that particular kingdom is doing.

For there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give to everyone what you owe: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.” (Romans 13:6-7)

I want to be clear from the very start of this section that to call Rome “God’s Servant” would have been extremely offensive to some Christians during this time. We must remember though, that just because someone or something is “God’s Servant” or has been “established by God,” it does not mean that God approves of everything this “agent” does, or that this agent always follows God’s will.

An example of this is found in the history of the Church itself. The Church (universal, not denominational) is established by God and is also one of God’s servants on this planet, BUT the Church’s history is chock full of times when the it has repeatedly strayed and done things that were anything but God’s will. You see, just because something is God’s servant or is established by God and given some authority over a certain domain, that does not negate free will. (By “free will” I simply mean the ability to make choices other than what God desires. I’m fully aware of the philosophical debate currently revolving in our culture around deterministic causes, influences, and how “free” the human will really is. I am simply using the term free will to refer to the ability to choose between “this or that.”)

Let me give another quick example of a kingdom of this world that was God’s agent, or servant, and yet exercised its free will to do something contrary to God’s desire.

But I am very angry with the nations who are at ease; for while I was only a little angry, they furthered the disaster. (Zechariah 1:15)

The context of this passage reveals how God used the nations surrounding Israel in the Old Testament to teach stubborn Israel how to influence society through “coming under” the nations they disdained, by taking away their “power to rule over” others. (see also Luke 22:25-6). Zechariah clearly states that these nations took it, though, too far, unleashing violence and destruction much more severe than what God intended. Therefore, they, too, were now going to receive God’s judgments.

We must understand this balance between Divine “agency/establishment” and the deep disapproval and rejection by God when these agencies act deeply contrary to what God established them for. Otherwise, we back ourselves into corner where we have to embrace things such as the horrors of the holocaust by Hitler and the Nazi Party as somehow an extension of God’s activity, rather than being able to rightly identify a renegade free will that is grossly abusing the governmental authority God gives to kingdoms of this world.

We must remember, when Paul wrote this, he wasn’t writing about some nation somewhere that doing things according to Biblical principles. The governing authority Paul was referring to was Rome! The very Rome that had crucified Jesus, and was now killing Christians, too!

But how does this apply to us today?

What we see in Romans chapter thirteen is that God has established two agencies in our current reality with two different roles:

1) kingdoms of the world

2) Christ’s Kingdom, which is “not of this world.”

As subjects of Christ’s Kingdom, we are called to live lives in submission to whatever kingdom of this world we find ourselves living in, realizing that even though we are not citizens of that kingdom but of a different kind of Kingdom, we are still to submit to whatever powers that be that exist in the kingdom of this world we find ourselves living under.

(It would be helpful at this stage if you are unfamiliar with the terms Intrinsic or Imposed to go back and listen to the presentation Love Me or I’ll Kill You in The Jesus Dialogue series on our website.)

The role of Christ’s Kingdom and the role of kingdoms of this world are radically different. The role of those who are part of Christ’s Kingdom is to put on display the beauty of God’s radical, other-centered, self-sacrificial love, continuing the work that Christ Himself began. The role of the kingdoms of this world is best understood by the “imposed” paradigm. In the Old Testament Israel played the roles of both agent of imposed consequences and instructor of intrinsic consequences. This produced a very unclear, confusing picture of who God is and what He is really like. In the New Testament however, these two roles are separated. Those who claim to be members of Christ’s Kingdom are to live lives that point others to a picture of God that looks like Jesus. They are also to understand that the role of any kingdom of this world is NOT to reveal the truth about God, but rather to serve as a temporary accommodation (using the sword), being the lesser of two evils, to keep, through imposed law, those who are NOT members of Christ’s Kingdom from self destruction! In other words, their role is to keep humanity from killing itself off through the rampant violence and oppression of the strong against the weak. Some kingdoms of this world do it well. Some kingdoms of this world miserably fail. But none, even America, do it perfectly.

As a tangent, this is why I, personally, can agree that war is evil, and that followers of Christ, as members of His Kingdom, are NEVER to participate in war, and yet I must be extremely careful to not become obsessed with what any kingdom of this world is doing. When did Jesus ever concern Himself with how Caesar ran Rome? It (and America too) was a kingdom of this world, and Jesus knew He had a very different agenda from Rome. (This will become increasing clearer as we look next at Paul’s words about taxes.)

In other words, our goal is not to reform whatever kingdom of this world we find ourselves in. Our role is to live lives of radical, other-centered, self-sacrificial love, non-violent love, putting on display the beauty of what God is really like as seen in the person of Jesus, realizing that we are part of a very different Kingdom which seeks to make a difference, which seeks to influence society, by very different methods. We are called to influence society, not by legislative “power over” but rather through the power of “coming under” others, with humble servant love, and to change society through non-violent power of humble servant love

Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. 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. For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves.” (Luke 22:25-7, emphasis added.)

Let’s get back to our original passage. Paul then concludes all of this by saying:

This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give to everyone what you owe: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.” (Romans 13:6-7)

This is in perfect harmony with what Jesus also taught. Note the question and then Jesus’ answer.

“Is it right for us to pay taxes to Caesar or not?” . . . He said to them, “Then give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” (Luke 20:22-5)

Neither Jesus nor Paul endorsed everything those taxes were supporting or funding. But still they said, “pay your taxes.” The focus of a follower of Jesus is not to withhold taxes as a means of forcing political reform. To reform how Rome did things would be short-sighted, as both Paul and Jesus rightly understood and taught. Rather, they both chose to focus on influencing and changing society through a radically different and more effective method instead. Both said, “Let me show you how to live in a way that will bring the end of all kingdoms of this world and their replacement by a radically different kind of Kingdom.”

This affects one’s view of patriotism too, which we will address shortly as well, but please notice the difference. As followers of Jesus, we do not pay our taxes because we are Americans, but rather because we are followers of Jesus and as our Lord, He commands us to pay the taxes due to whatever kingdom of this world we find ourselves living under. Pay your taxes! But live radical, other-centered, self-sacrificial lives of non-violent, humble servant love, which, when the principle of the mustard seed is understood correctly, will be the undoing of whatever kingdom of this world you find yourself in. I’ll say more about this in a moment when we talk about Constantine, but first I want to address five related applications to this.

1)The Current Health Care Debate:

I don’t want to disappoint you, but I’m not going to give you my political opinion on the current health care debate. I want to simply point out a few balancing considerations. First, as followers of Jesus we are members of a different Kingdom. We need to be careful not get all worked up because we are invested in what is happening to “our country.” America is NOT “our country.” It may be, in your opinion, the best kingdom this world currently has to offer. But it’s still, at best, a kingdom of this world. You belong to a different Kingdom as a follower of Jesus, a kingdom that is not of this world. And even if your tax dollars are going to fund health plans that support abortions, whether you agree with this or not, we must remember that in Jesus and Paul’s day, taxes went to fund things that were directly opposed to the values of Jesus’ Kingdom too, such as killing Christians, and the militaristic enlargement of Rome’s boarders. But both Jesus and Paul still said, even though those taxes are going to pay for things that go against what you believe to be right, pay your taxes, and then live a life of love that will bring about the replacement of this current kingdom of this world with a radically different Kingdom. (

Followers of Jesus in the first century were highly subversive when it came to Rome, even though they were also submitted. Even the terms “Gospel” and “Savior of the World” were Romans labels that were typically applied to Caesar. Jesus’ followers took these and applied them to Jesus instead. Today, we too must remember, the last great hope of this world is not America. The last great hope of the world today is the person Jesus Christ)

2) Abortion:

Again, I’m not going to give you my political opinion on this either. But I must confess that I love the way Mother Theresa responded to abortion. She didn’t seek to change society through legislative “power over.” Rather, she went to women who did not want their babies and asked if she could raise them. I’m not saying sit back and do nothing. I’m simply saying that we should never for a moment think that the Kingdom has been advanced by how we vote. Christ’s Kingdom was not advanced by getting Rome to pass certain laws. Christ’s Kingdom isn’t advanced through how we vote but through how we bleed. If you want to take a strong stance against abortion, then by all means, do it, but do it through the ways of the Kingdom. Go out right now and find an unwed mother who is scared to death, and instead of judging her, put your arm around her and tell her you’ve got her. She is not alone. Invite her into your home for the next nine months and tell her you’re going to walk through this with her.

During the next nine months, if she invites you in on the subject, then by invitation only, you can give her your opinion on what she should do. And if she decides to keep her baby, then you either help her find a good home for the child to be raised in, or you dedicate the next eighteen years of your life helping her raise her child. I know, it’s a huge investment to live your life in a Kingdom way. I know it’s easier to vote. But again, the Kingdom is advanced, not in how we vote, but in how we bleed. The Kingdom advances through radical, self-sacrificial, other-centered love. First-century Christians understood this. They did not lobby Rome to outlaw infanticide. Rather, they hung out under bridges actually catching the babies families were throwing into the rivers. Were they deeply concerned? Yes. Did they act on that concern saving countless lives? Yes. Did they do so by petitioning Rome to change Roman laws? No. They understood that when Christ’s Kingdom partners with a kingdom of this world as a method of furthering its values, it simply ends up in the Church becoming the State’s whore. (See Revelation 17)

3)Voting:

Am I saying “don’t vote”? By all means, no! If the kingdom of this world that you are living under asks your opinion on how they should do things, by all means, give it to them. But don’t allow yourself to think you have advanced Christ’s Kingdom by giving your opinion on how a certain kingdom of this world should go about doing things.

4) The Economy, Gun Control, Gay Marriage, Prayer in Schools . . . and the list goes on and on:

I want you to imagine Peter (the sword wielding, political zealot) and Matthew (the Jewish tax collector for the Roman version of the IRS) sitting down by a fire one night and having a conversation about the policies of Rome and how faithful and godly Jews should respond. This would be the equivalent of inviting a passionate Democrat and a passionate Republican over for a dinner and striking up a conversation about politics, on steroids! But both Matthew and Peter saw themselves as brothers, and fellow followers of Jesus, members of a radically different Kingdom which made their political disagreements irrelevant. The danger is when someone thinks that just because they are a follower of Jesus, that makes them somehow a political expert and that their position is the “Christian” position and that if you disagree with them on how a certain kingdom of this world should do things, somehow you are less a follower of Jesus than them, less a member of Christ’s Kingdom then them. We may feel very passionately about political opinions, but we must be very careful NOT to attach Jesus to our political agendas. To do so only damages the Kingdom we should be most concerned with and passionate about.

5)War

Paul’s words in Romans 13 should not be used as a blanket endorsement of everything any kingdom of this world does. It didn’t mean a blanket endorsement for Rome, and it doesn’t mean so for America. Too many times, I hear those who believe in justified violence using Romans 13 to justify being America’s loudest cheerleaders when America goes to war. No. What Romans 13 is saying is to live submitted, and even if you don’t agree with everything your tax dollars are paying for, pay your taxes. Nowhere in Romans 13 does Paul encourage us to join Rome in picking up the sword against Rome’s enemies! Within the context of Romans 13 (Romans 12), Paul actually says just the opposite.

Romans 12:17-21—Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. On the contrary: “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.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

So what do we do if we are forced into military service by the kingdom of this world we are living under if it should go to war? The answer to this isn’t simple, but one option, if it is available, is to register as a non-combatant. I know many vets who are my heroes who were pacifists but served in the military as medics. I do want to say here again that the Christian pacifism is very different than political pacifism. We are called to, as far as possible, live peaceable with all. I have a dear friend who was a medic in Vietnam who, every time I talk about Jesus’ peace teachings, becomes uncomfortable because he remembers being spit on by political anti-war activists when he returned home. That kind of political activism is antithetical to, and not fitting of, anyone who claims to be a member of Christ’s Kingdom either.

Please remember, when it comes to war, followers of Jesus would make the worst soldiers, for they, in following their Lord’s commands would “love their enemies.” But should we condemn a kingdom of this world for using the sword rather than the cross to control society, even when done correctly? (I say correctly because violence can be used for very wrong reasons: nations can go to war for reasons of greed, and police sometimes shoot innocent people. But this does not negate the sword wielded with pure motives. Should we condemn a kingdom of this world for wielding the sword, even if the motives are pure?) I don’t believe so. But by the same token, neither should members of Christ’s Kingdom participate in a kingdom of this world’s wielding of the sword instead of its picking up the cross. Members of Christ’s kingdom are called to lay down the sword and pick up the cross. Remember, God, according to Paul, has two servants: one who wields the sword (as a lesser of two evils) and one who influences society by laying down the sword and picking up the cross. But even when this is done correctly, sword wielding is something that is forbidden to a follower of Jesus. Again, Jesus did not concern Himself with how Caesar ran Rome. Instead, Jesus’ focus was setting up a totally separate and radically different Kingdom which would influence society by laying down the sword and picking up the cross. And this Kingdom would eventually, by a method long and slow, overcome and replace all kingdoms of this world and make them, even America, obsolete.

An excerpt from William Durant’s book, The Story of Civilization: Caesar and Christ, “He [Jesus] is not concerned to attack existing economic or political institutions. On the contrary, he condemns those ardent souls who would ‘take the Kingdom of Heaven by storm.’ The revolution he sought was a far deeper one, without which reforms could only be superficial and transitory. If he could cleanse the human heart of selfish desire, cruelty, and lust, utopia would come of itself, and all those institutions that rise out of human greed and violence, and the consequent need for law, would disappear. Since this would be the profoundest of all revolutions, beside which all others would be mere coups d’etat of class ousting class and exploiting in its turn, Christ was in this spiritual sense the greatest revolutionist in history” (1944).

6)Patriotism

Lastly, I’d love to recommend the eSight from January 16 in which I asked if we would give up being an “American” to be a follower of Jesus. You see, both Paul and Jesus were clear. As members of Christ’s Kingdom, when it comes to kingdoms of this world, we are not “dual citizens.” Early Christians saw themselves as aliens living under the rule of a kingdom of this world. They viewed themselves as foreigners.

“Beloved, I urge you as aliens and strangers . . .” (1Peter 2:11, emphasis added)

“For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.” (Philippians 3:20, emphasis added)

“Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen.” (1 Peter 1:1, emphasis added)

This does not mean that they didn’t have a right to claim citizenship in these areas in which they lived. (Acts 21:39; Acts 22:28) What it means is that they had taken Jesus’ words seriously, “No one can serve two masters.” (Matthew 6:24; Luke 16:13) They had renounced their citizenship in their respective kingdoms of this world and chosen to dwell under the rule of that kingdom as an alien. They had embraced their new identity as citizens of a very different Kingdom, for which they were now ambassadors living under a foreign rule. (Ephesians 6:20; 2 Corinthians 5:20)

In short, Christians are known today for “taking back our country,” referring to America. First, as a follower of Jesus, America is NOT “our country.” Our founding father was not a list of early figures in American history, but rather Jesus Himself. “Our kingdom” is a kingdom that is “not of this world.” (John 18:36) Some of the most significant objections to embracing Jesus’ peace teachings that I hear are from those who are very deeply invested in their identity as Americans. When we see ourselves as Americans first, we will never be able to embrace Jesus’ peace teachings fully. Embracing Jesus’ peace teachings is deeply rooted in which kingdom you identify yourself as being a citizen of: a kingdom of this world, no matter how awesome that kingdom may be in your eyes, or Christ’s Kingdom.

Now I already hear some saying, then should we just let our society go to hell in a hand basket? Again, Jesus’ message of peace is not cultural passive-ism. It’s humble, servant pacifism. It means to sacrifice one’s own life if necessary, to create peace. We still seek to influence and change our society, but we do it by radically different methods. Love demands we do something. But it also dictates the form that that “something” should take. Today, speaking out for cultural “Christian” values too often is referred to as simply exercising our rights. (The Chick-fil-a “free-speech” issue in the news last week is a classic example.) Too often, the appeal to Christians is to “stand up for our rights.” Don’t let them take “our country” (i.e., America) away from us. But I don’t understand—where in the teachings of Jesus did He ever teach us to “fight for our rights”? On the contrary, our Lord modeled and commanded that we should be known not for how we “fight or our rights” but rather how we “lay down” our rights, being willing to die, in humble servant love, for those who are different than ourselves, even our enemies. (John 10:18) It’s counter intuitive I know, but it was this element which caused the exponential growth of the Kingdom in the first century and I would submit, it’s the absence of this principle which is causing the exponential decline of the church in ours.

Now, I’m fully aware that kingdoms of this world would quickly cease to exist if they followed Jesus’ command to love their enemies. I want to say two things. First, Jesus was not giving a command for how the kingdoms of this world are to operate, but rather how those who are followers of Jesus are to live. Kingdoms of this world are to wield the sword. Jesus’ followers and members of His Kingdom are NOT. Second, the objection that America would cease to exist if it followed Jesus’ peace teaching is more profound than it appears to be at first; the elimination of nations could be an actual the intent of the command. In short, if what Jesus prophesied about His Kingdom is to come true, America, as a kingdom of this world, must fail. (Boy that statement alone is a litmus test for which kingdom you are most invested in. Today, as a follower of Jesus, I’m becoming more and more convinced that we really are too invested in being “Americans.”) Follow this closely.

The Mustard Seed/Leaven Principle:

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.” He told them still another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed into about sixty pounds of flour until it worked all through the dough.” (Matthew 13:31-3)

In using the mustard seed analogy of subversively growing until it becomes a large tree, Jesus is borrowing imagery from Daniel 4, which was originally used to represent Nebuchadnezzar’s kingdom, which had taken over the world. Over and over again, Jesus reveals throughout the gospels that He possessed a very good knowledge of the book of Daniel. He saw the language of Daniel 7’s Kingdom applicable to Himself. He saw Daniel 2 apply to His radical, self-sacrificial, other-centered Kingdom as well.

In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever. This is the meaning of the vision of the rock cut out of a mountain, but not by human hands—a rock that broke the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver and the gold to pieces. (Daniel 2:44-5, emphasis added.)

Constantine saw how the non-violence of Christ’s Kingdom would soon be the undoing of Rome. Again, Christianity was growing at an exponential rate. It could not be crushed out. For every one you killed, ten more took their place. (This should prove that non-violence would not lead to extinction of the Kingdom, but actually to its growth.) If everyone became Christian, who would fight Rome’s enemies? It would be the undoing of Rome. Rome would be overtaken by its enemies. But what we often neglect to think about is that Jesus’ Kingdom would then become the undoing of whatever kingdom of this world took Rome’s place too! This process would continue over and over until Jesus’ Kingdom, eventually, and through non-violent means, would be the last Kingdom standing. The small mustard seed, through subversive, long, slow, growth, would take over the world! But if one was heavily invested in their identity of being a Roman and their love for Rome, these words were treason. And to those who are too heavily invested in being an American and their love for America, I’m sure my words here sound just as treasonous. But, again, the last great hope of the world is not America. The last great hope for people in this country is not who wins the presidency in November. The last great hope for this country and for the world is quite simply—Jesus.

It is interesting to note that throughout the Reformation, Protestants murdered Anabaptists, too, saying that their literal interpretation of the peace teachings of Jesus would allow the Turks to overrun Europe. In this we see Constantine’s same insightful concern. It struck fear into the Europeans and led to the murder of countless Anabaptist proponents of Christ’s teaching to “love our enemies.” (Michael Sattler was only one of many who Protestants used “Fear of the Turks” as justification to burn people at the stake.)

I’m not naïve about any of this. This is not a sit back and let others do the dirty work approach. It’s actually quite the opposite. If Jesus’ teachings, which remember are rooted in His picture of God, are taken seriously, then yes, the lives of those who follow Jesus will be lost. But the Kingdom will also be advanced by exponential measures. Today we are too preoccupied with preserving our life or having our lives preserved, when first century followers of Jesus were focused rather on how they might give their lives up. We must remember that the hope of the early church was not a life that possessed all the privileges of the American dream. No, no! The hope of the early church was the resurrection!

“The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. Very truly I tell you, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds. Those who love their life will lose it, while those who hate their life in this world will keep it for eternal life. Whoever serves me must follow me; and where I am [being hung on a Roman cross], my servant also will be. My Father will honor the one who serves me.” (John 12:23-6)

I want to close this week with three passages from Paul and one from Jesus for you to simply meditate on. It’s my prayer that we, as followers of Jesus today, will continue to lay down the sword more and more in our lives while we simultaneously embrace the way of the cross more and more as well. I know this transition can’t be made overnight for many of us, but we need to be at the very minimum, in the process of laying down the sword more and more and picking up the cross as our means of influencing society more and more as well. Romans 13 was not for the purpose of calling followers of Jesus to pick up the sword in partnership with Rome. But rather, it was a call to understand the role that even kingdoms of this world play, to still pay our taxes, even when we don’t agree with the policies of whichever kingdom we belong to. And to live radically submitted but subversive lives which will bring about a better Kingdom. When it comes to kingdoms of this world, we are called to neither condemn, nor participate. We are called to a third option. To live radically other-centered lives which will eventually be the undoing of all kingdoms of this world, as they are replaced by a Kingdom which does life very differently. We are to keep kingdoms of this world and Christ’s Kingdom distinct in our thoughts and in our lives. Kingdoms of this world trust power over others. Christ’s Kingdom trusts the power of coming under others. Kingdoms of this world aim at controlling outward behavior. Christ’s Kingdom seeks to change society from the inside out. Kingdoms of this world are tribal, their primary concern being only those within their borders and those who fight on their side. Christ’s kingdom is universal. An example of this is that Jesus’ followers are not only to pray for American troops, but Al-Qaida’s troops, too, seeing no nationalist boundaries, but only those whom Jesus died for, praying first and foremost, not for one side to kill more than the other, but rather for peace, all the while loving our enemies. Related to this, kingdoms of this world fight battles that are earthly. Christ’s Kingdom sees earthly “enemies” not as enemies, but as victims of the true Enemy (See Ephesians 6:12), victims that Jesus died for, and victims who need saving from the true Enemy just as much as those whom they are hurting need to be saved from them. Christ’s Kingdom’s enemies are not earthly, therefore Christ’s Kingdom’s battles are not earthly either. And lastly, kingdoms of this world trust in violence for violence, tit-for-tat, which always escalates. (Rocks become knives, knives become guns, guns become bombs, bombs become nuclear bombs, etc.) Christ’s Kingdom responds to violence, not with more violence, but with love, “overcoming Evil with Good.” (Romans 12:21)

Here are those passages. The first is what Paul climaxes with in Romans 13.

Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery; You shall not murder; You shall not steal; You shall not covet;” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law. (Romans 13:8-10)

For our struggle is not against enemies of blood and flesh, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers of this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. (Ephesians 6:12, emphasis added)

The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. (2 Corinthians 10:4)

Very truly I tell you, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds. Those who love their life will lose it, while those who hate their life in this world will keep it for eternal life. Whoever serves me must follow me; and where I am [being hung on a Roman cross], my servant also will be. My Father will honor the one who serves me.” (John 12:23-6)

I’m going to recommend this month’s featured presentation on RHM’s website too. It’s entitled Religion and Politics. It, I’m sure, will fill in the many gaps that can’t possibly be filled in the limitations of an eSight. I know this is not complete. It does not answer all the questions that revolve around keeping kingdoms of this world separate from Christ’s Kingdom. But the purpose here is to discuss this topic in it’s relation to Jesus’ peace teaching and so far, there is nothing in Romans 13 that tells us to pick up the sword. Pay your taxes yes, but pick up the sword? No. Next week we continue with part seven. We still have the issues of intruders who enter our homes, domestic violence, Hitler and the Allied Forces, as well as making sense of Jehovah’s commanded violence in the Old Testament in contrast to Jesus’ peace teachings. We are more than halfway through this series. If you are still with me, you are my hero!

Keep living in love and loving like Christ. Keep building the Kingdom.

I love each of you dearly,

Herb

The Active Nonviolence of Jesus: Not Peace But A Sword (5 of 12)

PART 5 OF 12

Not Peace, But A Sword!

BY HERB MONTGOMERY

“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.”— Jesus, Matthew 10.34

This week, I’d like to take one more (and final) look at the actual teachings of Jesus in regard to non-violence before we begin next week to look at Paul’s teaching in Romans 13 and then going on to each of the following questions that I promised we’d address in Part 1 (Hitler and the Allied Forces, Someone Who Breaks Into Your Home, Old Testament Violence Commanded by God, and Domestic Violence). But before we look into all of those, let’s begin this week by looking at Jesus’ words in Matthew’s gospel, found in verse 34 of chapter ten.

At first glance, on the surface, it may look as if Jesus here is endorsing “justified violence” for those who follow Him. Certainly there were those during the Constantinian shiftthat used the above verse to justify Christians’ picking up the sword to “enlarge the Kingdom.” But as with all of Jesus’ teachings on this subject, one usually needs only to read a few more verses to understand exactly what Jesus is saying. Of all the teachings of Jesus, His commands to live by non-violence are the clearest, yet this is the very topic that so many choose to not see. To me, it seems to be much more than a mere unintentional misunderstanding. For many, it is a determined, very intentional, effort to interpret the words of Jesus in any other way than to simply accept them as they read. Mahatma Gandhi once said, “The only people on earth who do not see Christ and his teachings as non-violent are Christians.” There was a time in my life when I genuinely felt that Jesus’ teachings on non-violence were more tangential, but I must confess that I was wrong. Once embraced, I began to see that Christ’s teachings on non-violence are more central to the picture of God that Jesus came to reveal than I could possibly have had explained to me or that I could have understood from outside the topic, yet it’s a catch-22 as well. Embracing non-violence is not only central to our own understanding of God’s character but it’s dependent upon your picture of God as well. But again, once embraced, it unlocks every other topic related to a Christocentric picture of the Father. (See John 14.9; from your Christology, soteriology, and ecclesiology, all the way down to eschatology and everything in between.)

With the same breath, Jesus continues the above passage:

Matthew 10.35-38—”For I have come to turn ‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter–in–law against her mother–in–law—your enemies will be the members of your own household.’ Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves a son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me.”

What did Jesus mean by the statement that He came to bring a sword? He is not saying here that He wants His followers to take up the sword but, rather, that they would become the victims of other people wielding the sword against them because of their choice to follow Him, but they are still admonished not to return violence for violence but, rather, to take up, like their Master, their cross, too.

The Greek word translated here as sword is machaira. It can be translated figuratively to denote strife or warfare. Jesus is not saying here that those who follow Him should engage in warfare in “Jesus’ name” but, rather, that those who chose to follow Him should expect to be the recipients of strife or warfare as a result of their decision to follow Him. In the above context, it’s the father or mother that wields the sword against the child because the child has chosen to follow Jesus. It’s the son or daughter who wields the sword against the father or mother because the parent chooses to follow Jesus. And, even though these relationships were created by God as means whereby we might experience the love for which we were made, as hard as this is, these relationships are not to be given value or worth above that which belongs to “following” Jesus. Again, as hard as this is, anyone who gives these relationships a higher priority in their life than the priority they give to “following Jesus,” Jesus states, is not ascribing to their “following” the accurate degree of value or importance that following Jesus actually possesses. Jesus then states, too clearly for anyone to miss, that His followers are not to take up the sword in response to those who wield the sword against them; rather, Jesus’ followers are to take up “the cross.” Far from being a passage encouraging His followers to know when to put into practice “justified violence,” this is one of the clearest passages where Jesus is teaching us to pick up NOT the sword but the cross instead.

In Luke’s gospel, Luke records the following words of Jesus:

“‘The Son of Man must undergo great suffering, and be rejected by the elders, chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.’ Then he said to them all, ‘If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me. For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will save it.’” (Luke 9.22-24)

Finally this week, I’d like to focus for a moment on Jesus’ words in Matthew 13.31-32:

“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.’ He told them still another parable: ‘The kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed into about sixty pounds of flour until it worked all through the dough.’”

To experience the full weight of what Jesus is saying in the above passage, please consider this relevant question:

What would happen if Christians would simply agree to stop killing each other?

It takes a moment to appreciate how disturbing this question really is. We will be looking at Romans 13 next week, but if we would agree to the above, it would quickly extend past local congregations to denominations and ultimately to Christians in American military service; then, without stopping, it would encompass Christian combatants who are brothers and sisters in Jesus’ Kingdom but are enlisted as military combatants of other nations as well. Christians would at this stage make the worst possible soldiers for whatever kingdom of this world they find themselves in. But then you’d have to ask the question, “Why are we giving preferential treatment to Christians? Shouldn’t we be extending this even for our enemies?” We will be addressing this in further detail in the following weeks, but what would have happened in Nazi Germany if the Lutherans and Catholics had embraced the above agreement to not kill other Christians? Hitler would have had no army (German Christians would have refused to kill Allied Christians).

We must remember the cultural context in which Jesus spoke these two parables. In a few centuries of the church’s actually following the peace teachings of Jesus, Constantine saw the exponential rate at which non-violent Christianity was growing. Neither he nor Diocletian could crush it. If left unchanged, it would eventually undo Rome. (If all of Rome became Christian, thus embracing non-violence, who would fight Rome’s wars? Constantine was brilliant: he embraced Christianity but did away with its unanimous teaching of non-violence.) I would submit that, over time, the non-violence of Jesus would have led to the eventual undoing of Rome. Rome would be taken over by its enemies. But Christianity would still have been present to overcome (non-violently) whatever empire took over Rome, too. Then it would have overcome the next empire and then the next empire until Jesus’ Kingdom, eventually, would have been the last one standing.

This is exactly what the Protestant leaders, in unison with the state, saw would happen in Europe as well. Yes, Europe in the sixteenth century might have been taken over by the Turks if the church had embraced the non-violence of the Anabaptists (this was the very argument that turned the tide of the community that burned Michael Sattler at the stake). But soon, the Turks would be undone by the same exponential growth of this non-violent Kingdom, too. Jesus said it best: “What is the kingdom of God like? What shall I compare it to? It is like a mustard seed (small, with long and slow growth), which a man took and planted in his garden. It grew, subversively, and took over the whole garden, becoming the largest of all trees, till the birds perched in its branches.” Again he asked, “What shall I compare the kingdom of God to? It is like yeast that a woman took and mixed into about sixty pounds of flour until it worked all through the dough.” The implications are serious here. For those who want to see the Kingdom of Jesus be the last one standing, we are going to have to let go of all kingdoms of this world, even our most cherished one. America is not the kingdom of God but actually standing in the way of Jesus’ Kingdom’s mustard seed growth.

The world would have looked very different had the church not abandoned Jesus’ peace teachings in the fourth century. Paul foresaw that the church would fall away from or, rather, turn away from the teachings of Jesus as a point in the future (2 Thessalonians 2.3, the Greek word in this passage means “apostasy”). G.K. Chesterton once said that 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 difficult and left untried.” Everything changed with the Constantinian shift. The future would now look very different. (And history now proves that the mustard seed/dough principle never was allowed to work its way all the way out; in other words, the world’s suffering could have ended long before this.) It is time for those who desire the return of the King to embrace the principles of the actual Kingdom. To allow Jesus to reshape our picture of God and to be not just a savior that we believe in and worship but our Lord that we follow as well.

We will be looking at Paul’s words in Romans 13 next week. But until then, keep living in love and loving like Christ. And through embracing Jesus’ teaching of God’s radical, other-centered, self-sacrificial love, go out this week and put on display the beauty of God’s character of love. And go build the Kingdom.

I love you guys. We’ll see you next week.

Herb

The Active Nonviolence of Jesus: Go Buy A Sword (4 of 12)

PART 4 OF 12

Go Buy A Sword

BY HERB MONTGOMERY

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

If you are still with me this week, I want to congratulate you. We have had so many e-mails coming in from this series. For many, the lights have come on and the whole world is changing colors. Others are still wrestling, while others have become very upset and simply walked away. My heart is deeply affected by each. But if you are still with me, you are my hero!

There is so much I’d like to say about this passage that time and space does not allow in an article of this nature. I’m going to share three related passages, some comments about each, and then some links to presentations on our website to fill in whatever conceptual gaps may persist.

The first text is very related to the one above and it’s found in Luke 22.25-27.

Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. 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. For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves.”

Here Jesus is contrasting the characteristics of the kingdoms of this world with His own kingdom. The most significant difference is a “power over” style of influencing society verses “power under.” We are not called, as followers of Jesus, to lord power over others who may believe and live differently than ourselves, but rather to humbly and lovingly come under, and by serving them, influence the society around us. Again, this is best summed up as “power over” versus “power under.” (For a more detailed explanation of this concept, see the eSights on our website dated 1.16.2012 and 1.23.2012 as well as the presentation in The Jesus Dialogue titled Religion and Politics.)

The five main differences between a kingdom of this world and the Kingdom of Jesus are the type of power they rely on (power over versus power under), their societal aims (controlling outward behavior versus producing change from the inside out), their territorial scope (national versus global), the battles they fight (taking up arms against other people versus seeing our enemies as not having flesh and blood, Ephesians 6.12) and lastly, how each responds to violence (tit for tat, returning like with like versus returning love in an effort to make peace by peaceful means, overcoming evil with good). Some will say, “Well, is the State wrong then in the methods they choose?” I want to be clear here—no, they are not wrong per se. But they are “different.” The kingdoms of this world, although using the same methods of their king (Luke 4.5, 6 and 1 John 5.19), are indirectly being used by God in serving the role of “imposed” law in our society. (Please see the presentation Intrinsic or Imposed for a more detailed explanation of what this term means if it is unfamiliar.) So we cannot say they are wrong. This is Paul’s point in the passages found in Romans 13 (more of which we will be explaining later in this series). But Paul is very clear in Romans 12 that as those who are “following Jesus,” we are NOT to use the same methods as the state. The church and state may both be used by God, but for very different ends. Those who follow the teachings of Jesus to their logical end know full well that the lines between these “two servants” should never be blurred. The church is called to an entirely different purpose than the state. We are to influence society the way our mentor Jesus did.

Secondly, Jesus says in our beginning passage that if his kingdom were of this world, then his followers would fight to defend him. This had actually been done just a few hours previous.

With that, one of Jesus’ companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear. “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?” (Matthew 26.51-54)

Jesus here rebukes the disciple who used the sword to cut off the high priest’s servant’s ear. Remember, Peter was actually aiming for the servant’s head, but with fast reflexes, the servant leaned sideways to escape the disciple’s swing and it glanced off the side of his head, taking off his ear. Jesus rebukes the disciple: “Those who live by the sword will die by the sword.” We will return to this statement before we finish this eSight. Another question that arises from this passage is, “But Jesus was supposed to die, certainly that doesn’t apply to us does it? I mean, Jesus’ death was for a specified purpose, so doesn’t that specialize the application of these statements by Jesus?” We’ll return to this as well before we end today, but I want to bring it up here so you can be thinking about it. John identifies this disciple.

Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s servant, cutting off his right ear. (The servant’s name was Malchus.) Jesus commanded Peter, “Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?” (John 18.10-11)

Again, we see the potential objection by some that Jesus words here are not to be taken as a rule of life with no exception, but rather as a specialized application revolving around this “cup” that He was supposed to drink. Again, we’ll come back to this. Now I’d like to turn to Luke’s record of this event, address a typical objection to Jesus’ peace teaching, and then wrap all the loose ends in these passages, putting the puzzle pieces together and seeing what picture we get.

Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?” “Nothing,” they answered. He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.

It is at this point that many attempt what others have called “desperate exegesis.” “See? See? Jesus was right here telling them to buy swords! See?” And yes, it’s undeniable that Jesus was here admonishing his disciples to go buy swords, but we must quickly ask why. Is it because Jesus now wants them to use these swords to defend him? Or does he want them to use these swords to defend themselves? We don’t have to read too far to get a clear answer. It’s in the very next sentence:

“It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.” The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” “That is enough,” he replied.

The Greek word anomos is the word here translated as “transgressors.” It is defined as “lawless.” Jesus must be perceived by Rome as more than simply a focal point of religious controversy. For Rome to deem Jesus worthy of being tried in a Roman political court rather than simply by a Jewish religious court (the Sanhedrin), Jesus must be perceived as a political threat to the Pax Romana or “Peace of Rome.” Jesus must be perceived as a “lawless” one, against the order of Rome, a political enemy, an upstart Messiah. For this, they will need to be caught with swords in their possession. The mixture of many people’s claims that this could be the Messiah (remember, He who would take up the role of king of the Jews and lead them to freedom from the oppressive power of Roman rule) along with the claim that His disciples were now gathering, or “stockpiling,” swords would be enough to light the Roman fuse that would lead to the crucifixion. Jesus’ council to go and buy swords could not possibly be because He actually wanted His disciples to wield them. For starters, two swords for twelve men wouldn’t be enough. And secondly, when Peter mistakenly thinks the reason they were to buy swords was so they could wield them, and actually does wield one, he gets one of the strongest rebukes in all the gospels.

Jesus went out as usual to the Mount of Olives . . . While he was still speaking a crowd came up, and the man who was called Judas, one of the Twelve, was leading them. He approached Jesus to kiss him, but Jesus asked him, “Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?” When Jesus’ followers saw what was going to happen, they said, “Lord, should we strike with our swords?” And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear. But Jesus answered, “No more of this!” And he touched the man’s ear and healed him. Then Jesus said to the chief priests, the officers of the temple guard, and the elders, who had come for him, “Am I leading a rebellion [remember Jesus must be seen here not just a focal point of religious controversy, but as rebelling against the political order of Rome itself], that you have come with swords and clubs? Every day I was with you in the temple courts, and you did not lay a hand on me. But this is your hour—when darkness reigns.” (Luke 22.35-53)

Again:

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

As we shared last week, the goals of Jesus’ Kingdom cannot be accomplished by violence (see last week’s eSight for a more detailed explanation of this). Jesus is here describing one of the most significant differences between His kingdom and the methods used by the kingdoms of this world. The kingdom of Rome sought peace at any price, including peace by justifiable violence if necessary. Jesus’ kingdom was about establishing peace as well, but by very different methods: peaceful non-violence. Peace was not simply the goal to be achieved but the way that goal was to be achieved as well.

But what about those two objections (which are really the same) that the reason Peter was rebuked and told to put his sword away was not because Jesus’ followers are to live by the rule of peaceful non-violence, but rather because this was a specialized application: Jesus is saying He was not to avoid the cross but rather was ordained to embrace it.

Three texts should be enough to show how misplaced this objection really is.

The cross was not simply a specialized event to be experienced by Jesus only, but a way of life Jesus intended His followers to embrace as well:

And he said, “The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.” 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.” (Luke 9.22-24)

This is true of the cup as well.

Jesus said. “Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?””We can,” they answered. Jesus said to them, “You will drink the cup I drink and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized . . . .” (Mark 10.38-40)

The cross of Christ is not simply to be something we preach, but also a way of life that Jesus’ followers have embraced.

Lastly, we see that Jesus’ words to Peter were not to be taken by the early church as an isolated specialized application. Not only would we see Jesus’ words in Mark 10 fulfilled in the merciless slaughter of Jesus’ followers in the first century, but we would also see the very words Jesus shared with Peter used by John to even encourage those who are being slaughtered by the sword to not return violence with violence, but rather to faithfully and patiently endure.

“. . . If anyone is to be killed with the sword, with the sword they will be killed.” This calls for patient endurance and faithfulness on the part of God’s people. (Revelation 13.10)

Again, we will discuss this more when we get to Paul’s words in Romans 12 and 13, but before we do, remember that the kingdom of Jesus is not advanced by moving “Rome” to govern by different laws. The kingdom of Jesus is advanced not in how we vote, but in how we bleed. By the testimony of the Cross itself, attested to by the witnesses of the first 300 years of what it meant to be a follower of this Jesus: It is the “blood of the witnesses” that is the “seed” of the Kingdom. To be clear, I’m not saying, “Don’t vote.” Again, if a kingdom of this world asks for your opinion on a matter, by all means give it. I’m simply cautioning us to be very careful. We are not to become confused. We are not to think for a moment we have accomplished anything for the “Kingdom” by our vote. We may have changed something for “Rome.” But again, the Kingdom of Heaven is advanced, not in how we vote, but in how we bleed. I’m not saying roll over and do nothing. I’m saying to let the Kingdom not only move you to “do something,” but also dictate the manner in which that “something” is done. (See again the presentation on our website Religion and Politics.) The methods of advancing Christ’s kingdom are radically different.

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

Keep living in love, loving like Christ, even loving your enemies, and thereby keep building the Kingdom.

I love you guys. We’ll see you next week.

Herb

The Active Nonviolence of Jesus: Cheek Defiance (3 of 12)

PART 3 OF 12

Cheek Defiance

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. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles . . . I tell you, love your enemies . . .”—Matthew 5.39,43Part 3

As we begin to move into Jesus actual peace teaching, this is another place in this series where I want to emphasize that Jesus did not teach his followers to be “passive-ists” but rather “Pacifists.” (See part 1 for a more detailed explanation of the difference). We will be looking at more of Jesus’ teachings on the way of peace in the coming weeks, but this week, I thought we should begin with those passages that Jesus is most famous for: The sermon on the mount (or plain, if you’re reading from Luke.)

Jesus shows here that the goals of the Kingdom He came to establish cannot be accomplished by violence. Rejection of violence, however, ought not be interpreted as passivity. Far from counseling passivity, Jesus’ statements about turning the other cheek, giving the cloak, and going the second mile, as we see in this passage above, actually teach an assertive and confrontational nonviolence that provides an opponent with an opportunity for transformation. With suggestions such as these the oppressed person has the potential to seize the initiative, shame the offender, and strip him of the power to dehumanize.

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 was with the back of the hand. Such a blow would be a show of insult by a superior to an inferior. Let me explain. Normally one would not strike an equal in this humiliating way, and doing so carried an exorbitant fine. Try to picture the scene in your head. Since the left hand was only used for unclean tasks in that culture, hitting the right cheek with the left hand would not occur. Hitting with a closed right fist though, would involved hitting someone on the left cheek. But this would produce another problem. A blow from a closed right fist acknowledged the one struck as an equal. Thus a supposed superior – master over slave, husband over wife, parent over a child, Roman over Jew, man over woman – would specifically not want to strike an inferior with a fist. To be struck on the right cheek required the one striking to strike you not with closed fist, but with an open backhanded slap. The backhand blow to the right cheek had the specific purpose of humiliation, and a blow in retaliation would invite retribution. Thus turning the other, or left cheek, showed that the supposed inferior refused to be humiliated. And with the left cheek now bared, the striker would be left with two options – a left-handed blow or a blow with a right fist. Since neither option was acceptable to the supposed superior, he lost the power to dehumanize the other.

What we are seeing here is that Jesus, not only taught the theory of non-violence, but then He gave us real examples of how to apply the theory. And this doesn’t even begin to look at how He then modeled this theory throughout His entire life and ultimately His death as well. Let’s look at Jesus next example.

A court of law constitutes the setting for Jesus’ injunction about giving the cloak or undergarment along with the outer coat. The law allowed a creditor to take the coat (or outer garment) as a promise of future payment from a poor person without means to pay a debt (Exod. 22:25-27; Deut. 24:10-13, 17). Only the poorest person would have only an article of clothing to surrender as security. Since 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 those causing it than on the naked person. (Remember Noah’s son Ham?) Remember, most people only had two articles of clothing and they didn’t wear underwear in those days. Thus striping off the undergarment in the public setting of the court along with the required outer garment would have the effect of turning the tables on the wealthy creditor; it would put the poor person in charge of the moment while exposing the exploitative system and shaming the wealthy and powerful person who takes the last object of value from a very poor person. Yes, Jesus is actually here endorsing public nudity! This is a radical act of protest, but non-violent protest! Whether we like it or not, Jesus here is recommending streaking with a cause as a viable option rather than returning violence with just more violence.

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 the service to one mile. The limitation provided some protection for the occupied people. But if one followed Jesus’ words and cheerfully carried a burden beyond the required first mile, it put the solder in the awkward position of not complying with the limit posed by his superior. As a result, the solder could end up in the embarrassing position of begging the civilian to put down the burden lest the soldier be disciplined. You have to image the 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 you have to image what kind of discussion would take place between the soldier (remember this was a Roman soldier deeply despised by the Jewish people. Try and get your head around what Jesus is actually teaching here.) and the Jesus follower for that entire second mile.

In these cases, Jesus’ instructions are NOT commands of passive nonresistance. The phrase “resist not an evildoer” could be problematic if Jesus did not then demonstrate in these stories exactly what He meant. The actual Greek word here for “resist” is anthistemi. It indicates resistance by returning violence for violence, over coming evil with evil, rather than overcoming evil with good. Anthistemi is a violent resistance much like how America would “resist” or rather exercise violent resistance toward anyone who tried to breach her borders and take over her territory. In the days of the American Revolution, a common symbol of this type of resistance was illustrated with a flag with a coiled up rattlesnake with the words above it, “Don’t tread on me!” The rattlesnake is a fitting illustration for these Americans rebelling against Britain. Step on us and we will strike! But never should it represent the kingdom Jesus came to establish. Never should it be taken to represent the Father. And never should it represent those who claim to follow this Jesus. (The imagery of the snake is used in the Bible, but it’s not used to represent God. The serpent is someone else. See Genesis 3.15. Jesus chose rather to represent the Father and the Kingdom with the mascot of a lamb.)

But was Jesus teaching that in rejecting violent responses that we should then simply do nothing? Absolutely NOT! Jesus was teaching nonviolent ways for oppressed people to take the initiative, to affirm their humanity, to expose and neutralize exploitative circumstances. Jesus is demonstrating non-violent ways in which people at the bottom of society or under the thumb of imperial power learn to recover their humanity while at the same time reach out to redeem and restore those who, even though they are the “oppressors”, they too are victims of the systemic evil of their culture.

Now one note of balance needs to be made mention of. It is also possible to use these resistance strategies in ways that humiliate and belittle our oppressors. This is why Jesus was careful to immediately follow these teachings with the injunction to “love your enemies”. The importance of this cannot be over emphasized. The strategies provide an opportunity to reverse a situation in ways that preserve the humanity of all those involved, victim and oppressor alike, and keep open the possibility of restored relationships. Violent responses only close the possibilities of redemption and reconciliation. This is not what Christ’s Kingdom was to be about. This is why the goals of the Kingdom He came to establish cannot be accomplished by violence. Through the means that Jesus teaches here however, followers of Jesus can witness to the truths of the Kingdom as a contrast to the social order that does not recognize the rule of Jesus. In practicing these non-violent, but pacifistic (peaceful) means of confrontation, the followers of Jesus witness to new way of living, a new way of doing life. They give the gospel cry: “The Kingdom Has Come.” (see Mark 1.15, Mathew 24.14, Acts 28.30-31)

Again, this was the way followers of Jesus understood what it meant to follow Jesus for the first three hundred years. We’ll be looking at much more of Jesus’ own peace teaching over the next few weeks. (We’ll get to all those questions you guys have been sending in too.)

Keep living in love, loving like Jesus, and keep building the Kingdom.

I love you guys,

Herb

The Active Nonviolence of Jesus: The Constantinian Shift (2 of 12)

PART 2 OF 12

The Constantinian Shift

BY HERB MONTGOMERY

“With that, one of Jesus’ companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear. ‘Put your sword back in its place,’ Jesus said to him, ‘for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.’” — JESUS; Matthew 26:51, 52

This week we are continuing our series on the active nonviolence of Jesus. In this second part, we are going to look at what scholars today call the Constantinian shift on this topic within Christian church history.

As we shared last week, for three hundred years until Constantine, Christians, although they rarely agreed on any other topic, spoke with a unified voice on this topic, without one dissension. There was unanimity of opinion: Jesus’ teaching on this topic was pretty clear. They rallied around the Latin saying patientia (patience), by which they meant patiently enduring evil so as not to commit it, rather than committing evil so as not to endure it. They sought to do anything to avoid killing, as that would destroy their witness for Christ. Dying, however, was perfectly acceptable. In fact, they viewed dying as possibly one of the best ways to witness for their faith (“dying well” in love for their enemies). Thus, the word martyr, which originally meant simply “witness,” came to be synonymous with someone who witnessed for their faith through dying.

“We (Christians) no longer take up sword against nation, nor do we learn war any more, but we have become the children of peace.” — Origin

“And shall the son of peace take part in the battle when it does not become him even to sue at law? And shall he apply the chain, and the prison, and the torture, and the punishment, who is not the avenger even of his own wrongs?” — Tertullian

Notice what Tertullian is really saying. If we don’t even call on the sword to avenge our own wrongs, how can we wield the sword in union with a kingdom of this world?

“Anyone who has the power of the sword, or who is a civil magistrate wearing the purple, should desist or he should be rejected.”—Hippolytus

Whether today you agree or disagree, for three hundred years the practice was to excommunicate those who enlisted in the military or took a political office. (This is to me quite fascinating when contrasted with what evangelical Christians today believe, as reflected in the quest for greater political control.)

“Rather, it is better to suffer wrong than to inflict it. We would rather shed our own blood than stain our hands and our conscience with that of another.” —Arnobius

“It makes no difference whether you put a man to death by word, or rather by the sword, since it is the act of putting to death itself which is prohibited.”—Arnobius

Again, with “by word” Arnobius here is referring to holding a political office.

“When God forbids killing, he doesn’t just ban murder (some translations read ‘brigandage’), which is not permitted under the law even; He is also recommending us not to do certain things which are treated as lawful among men…whether you kill a man with a sword or a word makes no difference, since killing itself is banned.”—Lactantius (Lactantius was the tutor of Constantine’s son.)

“…no exceptions at all ought to be made to the rule that it is always wrong to kill a man, whom God has wished to be regarded as a sacrosanct creature.”—Lactantius

Up until Constantine, Christians were not trying to tell Caesar what to do; they were simply trying to live out the gospel of Jesus’ Kingdom. About a hundred years after Constantine, we find that it was illegal not to be a Christian (with an exception for Jews) and you could not serve in the military unless you were a Christian. (You were not trusted as loyal unless you were a Christian.) How did Christianity get there?

On October 28, 312, we find Constantine involved in the Battle of the Milvian Bridge between himself and the rival Roman Emperor Maxentius. This battle marks the beginning of Constantine’s conversion to Christianity. Lactantius recounts that, on the evening of October 27, just prior to the battle, Constantine had a vision of the Christian God promising victory if they daubed the sign of the cross on their shields. (The details of the vision differ among sources reporting it. Lactantius reports that the vision promised victory if Constantine would “delineate the heavenly sign, the cross, on the shields of his soldiers” (On the Deaths of the Persecutors, 44). Eusebius reports that the sign God instructed them to use on their shields was instead the Chi-Rho. The reports of Constantine’s vision state that Constantine saw a cross of light with the inscription, “through this sign you shall conquer.”

Various theories today exist in interpreting these reports. Some view the reports of this vision as legend with no historical basis whatsoever. Others believe Constantine made up this story after the fact, being the great political strategist he was and seeing that the only way to defeat Christianity’s influence and threat to Rome was to somehow unite Christianity with Rome itself. Others believe the vision happened, but that it was a vision from the Devil. And finally there are some who interpret this vision as genuine, but intended to communicate to Constantine that he should lay down his sword and embrace non-violence of the Christian Cross instead. This interpretation sees this vision as genuinely from God in an effort to reach Constantine, but a vision that was nonetheless misinterpreted by Constantine and taken to mean just the opposite of what was intended. Each of these theories is speculation, including the popular interpretation of that time, which was that the vision was genuine and that Jesus was actually supporting the conquests of Rome. What we do know is what happened within Christianity for the first time in Christian history as a result of Constantine’s “conversion”: The minute you pick up the sword you lay down the cross.

Augustine, Eusebius, and others began to see political power as having been handed to them by God Himself, and for the first time in history, instead of there being soldiers and Christians, there were Christian soldiers ridding the world of evil (i.e., Rome’s political enemies) in Jesus’ name. In the subsequent centuries we would get a brand new norm:

“When people falsely assert that you are not allowed to take up the physical sword or fight bodily against the enemies of the Church, it is the devil trying to attack the fabric of your Order.”—Jacques de Vitry

Notice that the non-violence teachings of Jesus had come to be defined as “demonic.”

“Do not ever be ashamed, O Bride of Heaven, to take up the sword against heretics; for the God still lives who sanctified such action through the arms of David.”—John of Mantua

Jesus and His teachings would take a seat on the sidelines and the example of figures from the Old Testament began to take center stage. David and Joshua and others became the heroes of the faith rather than Jesus.

“Bodily torture has been found the most salutary and efficient means of leading to spiritual repentance.”—Pope Innocent IV

How did we get there? Early in the fourth century, Constantine was witnessing a very real threat to Rome. Christians (who were pacifists without exception) only made up a portion of the Roman population, but they were growing at an exponential rate. Persecution and death only served to fuel the Christian fire! This was proven by the Emperor who preceded Constantine—Diocletian. The more Christianity was crushed, the faster it grew. If Christianity continued it would inevitably overthrow the stability of Rome.

Note that Constantine saw that pacifism was going to win: This should make us sit up and pay attention. Christians were still paying their taxes, but if everyone became Christian (and thereby pacifists) who would Rome have left to fight its wars and defend its borders from its many continual attacks? What was Constantine’s solution? He decided to back what he perceived to be the winning horse. Christians not only died well, they lived well. They would provide fortitude and stability to Rome and could unify the kingdom. But first, Constantine had to remove the obstacle of pacifism. Church and State had to become unified, and violence in defense of both Church and State had to become justified. Watch closely how Constantine pulled this off.

Constantine declared Christianity a religio licita (a legal religion) through the Edict of Milan, immediately reversing any ongoing persecution. He lavished gifts upon all Church leaders (e.g., increasing their salaries, exempting them from paying taxes, building church buildings, funding Bible copying, etc.). For the first time, Church became a building rather than a group of people. Crucifixion and gladiatorial games were abolished because of the traumatic connection with Christian victimization. Sunday was declared a weekly holiday for all people. Pagan holidays were absorbed into the Christian calendar. Pagan temples were converted into Church buildings, with statues of Roman gods replaced by statues of the Apostles and other biblical characters. The Church became a friend of the State.

Constantine employed some of the greatest minds in Christianity to come up with Biblical support for this new turn of affairs. Enter Augustine (354 – 430 C.E.) and, later, Aquinas (1225 – 1274 C.E.)! Augustine, the brightest theological mind of his time, rose to notice. He developed and defended a “justified violence” theory for Christians, based upon existing Roman and Greek thought. Christians were now encouraged to join the army and to become involved in government. Violence was to be used as God’s instrument to “punish” evildoers (e.g., Romans 13:1- 7). Augustine saw punishment as a more justifiable motive than self-defense. And by 416 C.E., all Roman soldiers were required to be Christians. Up until this time, “pagan” (Latin, paganus) simply meant civilian as opposed to soldier. It came to mean non-Christian as opposed to believer.

Here is a sampling of the new Augustinian teaching:

“War is waged to serve the peace. You must, therefore, be a peacemaker even to waging war, so that by your conquest, you may lead those you subdue to the enjoyment of peace.”— Augustine

He knew Christians preached peace, but for the first time in both Christian orthodoxy (right belief) and orthopraxy (right behavior), peace as an end was separated from peace as the means. War was doing others a favor.

“What, indeed, is wrong with war? That people die who will eventually die anyway so that those who survive may be subdued in peace? A coward complains of this but it does not bother religious people.”— Augustine

“Does anyone doubt that it is preferable for people to be drawn to worship God by teaching rather than forced by fear of punishment or by pain? But because the one type of people is better, it does not mean that the others, who are not of that type, ought to be ignored.”— Augustine

Augustine taught that, yes, it’s better for people to come to worship God on their own rather than being tortured or threatened with violence, but just because some will choose Him on their own doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t force others to worship Him. (Think about this complete disconnect from the teachings of Jesus.) Augustine, in his writing, turns more and more to the Old Testament and then embarks on desperate attempts to find some clue in the teachings of Jesus that indicate that Jesus really didn’t mean what He taught in His very clear teaching on the “way” of peace. (We see this exact pattern followed today without people realizing exactly what they are doing—exalting the Old Testament over Jesus, and twisting the words of Jesus to mean something other than their natural implication.) The best example of Augustine’s desperate exegesis is Jesus’ parable in Luke 14.

“Then the master told his servant, ‘Go out to the roads and country lanes and compel them to come in, so that my house will be full.’” (Luke 14:23)

Augustine basically argued, “See? See? Even Jesus said we must compel others to come in!” This was the best that Augustine could do! When Jesus said “compel,” He meant threaten them with violence, kill them, torture them, but get them to come in! (See my presentation A Formal Apology for the non-violent background and definition of this word “compel.” It denotes humility, a begging, a pleading, but never with violence. See also 2 Corinthians 5:14, 15.) Over and over, Augustine performed an exercise in desperation to make Jesus contradict Himself. These desperate explanations became the norm in Augustinian thinking and rationale.

Augustine also exhibited typical, dualistic Platonic (Hellenistic/Greek) thinking, which sees the body as separate from an immortal soul. (This was in opposition to the more holistic philosophy of the Hebrews.) Therefore, you could do whatever was necessary to someone’s body if it saved their soul. Augustine would go on to teach that killing someone was justified if that was the means whereby you saved their soul. He taught that it was acceptable to run your enemies through, as long as you did not kill them with hatred in your heart toward them, for Jesus taught us to love our enemies.

Augustine devised, for the first time in Christian thinking, a religious philosophy that justified saving souls at any cost, even by means of torture and violence. Augustine taught that the Christian response to torturing confessions out of others was that the Christian should simply “cry fountains of tears” for this “necessary state of affairs,” but never did he stop to consider that torture itself might be wrong. This was the origin of Christianity embracing “justified violence” or as it is called today, the “just war” theory that is the popular position of our contemporary, Americanized, evangelical worldview.

Today we live in the echo of the Constantinian shift. Christianity and its Lord (Jesus) fell victim in the same way as all the other religions taken in by Rome. This pattern can be seen, for instance, with the Greek gods. When the Greek gods were embraced by Rome, their appearances in the pictures and the statues changed. Under Roman influence, for example, Zeus (Greek) became Jupiter (Roman name.) But it wasn’t just their names that changed; their attributes changed, too. Under Rome, the Greek gods became more warlike. In the stories they became distant, not mingling with mortals as much. They became harsher and more powerful. They came to stand for discipline, honor, and strength. The Greek gods, once Romanized, ceased being friendly and became violent. For instance, Hypnos, god of sleep, didn’t do much in Greek times. In Roman times though, he was called Somnus, and he liked killing people who didn’t stay alert at their jobs. If they nodded off at the wrong time, they never woke up. This same exact pattern took place as well with the Christian God—Jesus.

It takes a great, determined effort to step back from our cultural, “Christian” assumptions and look, as openly and honestly as possible, into the actual teachings of Christ before the influence of Constantine. We must strive to gain perspective, and to shake off the influence of centuries of thinking that has eclipsed the plain teaching of Jesus. If the bloody violence of Christianity’s history has taught us anything, it is that we must stop uncritically accepting a theory of justified violence. This series is a call to those who bear Christ’s name to be willing to stare into the actual teachings of Christ and follow Jesus’ teaching wherever it leads.

Through this series, Renewed Heart Ministries and I are inviting all Christians to reject Constantinian Christianity. This is not a matter of rejecting one denomination in favor of another (trust me), but rather rejecting a mentality that has gone unchallenged for too long. Nonviolence was a radically central element of the Kingdom Jesus came to establish. It was the outflowing of His own understanding of the Character of His Father. In a world wracked by religious violence, never has there been a better time for Christians to repent and begin following Jesus again. In short, what is your picture of God?

Next week we will begin our actual look at Jesus’ Kingdom and exactly what Jesus taught on this subject. Before then though, strive to remain open. Do not respond with emotionally charged objections or questions. Let’s begin actually looking at what Jesus really taught next week and simply allow the answers to surface. We’ll look at the questions that revolve around how to apply Jesus’ teaching afterward. Let’s first start with Jesus, not just as our Savior, but as our Lord, following the “lamb” wherever He leads. Our Lord is not to be a philosophy, not politics, nationalism, religious tradition, nor even the impulse toward self-preservation, but our Lord is to be simply Jesus and Jesus alone. As we begin looking at the teachings of Jesus, it is my prayer that we will exercise reasoning, given this week’s eSight, that is not clouded by the assumptions of Augustinian thinking.

Keep living in love and building the Kingdom.

I love you guys,

Herb