In his critique of Crucifixion of the Warrior God (CWG), Paul Copan makes a concerted effort to argue that the God revealed in Jesus Christ and witnessed to throughout the NT is not altogether non-violent. One of the passages Copan cites against me is the famous account of Ananias and Sapphira falling down dead immediately after Peter exposes their lie about a donation they made to the kingdom community (Acts 5:1-11). Copan argues that this deceptive couple was “struck down by God, it appears.” As a matter of fact, the text nowhere says that God slew Ananias and Sapphira. It only “appears” this way to Copan because, like most western believers, he assumes that every supernatural feat that is associated with one of God’s people was carried out by God and therefore reflects God’s will. This is an unwarranted assumption, however. As I argue at length in CWG, the NT shares the widespread ancient conception of divine power as something that God (or a god) could cause to reside in a person, to the point that its use was subject to the person’s own will. I refer to this as the “semi-autonomous conception of divine power.” We see this illustrated, for example, when Peter encounters a lame man begging for money at the Temple. Peter says, “I do not possess silver and gold, but what I do have I give to you, in the name of Jesus Christ: Walk!” (Acts 3:6). Notice that Peter didn’t pray to God for this man to be healed, as most of us would do today. Rather, Peter knew he had already been given the power to heal people in Jesus name, so he simply commanded the man to start walking. We find the disciples repeating this pattern through the book of Acts (e.g., Acts 9:32-35, etc.). In responding to infirmities this way, the early Christians were simply following Jesus’ example, for Jesus consistently healed and delivered people not by praying for the Father to heal and deliver them, but simply by speaking healing and deliverance words to them. They also were obeying Jesus’ instructions. For example, Jesus told his disciples; “if you say to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and thrown into the sea,’ and if you do not doubt in your heart, but believe that what you say will come to pass, it will be done” (Mark 11:23). Notice that Jesus did not tell them that if they prayed with faith, God would move the mountain. He rather told them that they themselves will move mountains by speaking to them with faith. The assumption is that the divine power to move mountains resided within them and was released through faith-filled authoritative words. What is important for us to grasp is that, because this divine power was subject to the will of the person who was endowed with it, people were able to use this power in ways that did not necessarily reflect God’s will. We might think of the divine power that God gave the early disciples along the lines of the power that government gives to police officers. Government of course gives officers this power with the intent that they will use it for the common good. But as we all know, officers occasionally use this power in ways that harm innocent people and conflict with the intention of the government that trusted them with it. The Bible contains a number of examples of people misusing divine power. For example, God gave Moses the power to use his staff to make water flow from rocks (Exodus 17:6) as well as to perform other supernatural feats. But when Moses once used this divinely empowered staff in an angry way that conflicted with God’s will, the staff still worked (Numbers 20:6-12). Similarly, when the Apostle Paul instructs the Corinthians about the right way supernatural gifts of the Spirit are to be used in church, he assumes that the way these gifts are manifested is subject to the will of the people who have them. Indeed, he wrote I Corinthians 12-14 precisely because the Corinthians were misusing these supernatural gifts. So, for example, to those who had the gift of prophecy, Paul said: “The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets,” and since “God is not a God of disorder but of peace,” he instructs prophets to use this gift in an orderly way (I Cor 14:32-33). We find the semi-autonomous conception of divine power in Jesus’ ministry as well. Jesus “knew that the Father had put all things under his power “(Jn 13:3; cf. Matt 11:27), which is why Jesus had to choose to submit his will to the Father and use the divine authority he’d been given in accordance with the Father’s will (Matt 26:42Jn 4:34; 6:38). It was only because the use of divine power was subject to his own will that the devil could tempt him to use this power in ways that conflicted with the Father’s will (Matt 4:1-10). Moreover, after Peter had lopped off a guard’s ear with his sword, Jesus rebuked him and told him that he could call on “twelve legions of angels” to defend him if that is what he wanted to do, and he assumes that had he done this, the angels would have come (Matt 26:53). And yet, such a display of supernatural power would have conflicted with the Father’s will. I submit that when Ananias and Sapphira fall down dead in response to Peter’s words, we are seeing semi-autonomous divine power at work. And there is no indication in this passage that Peter’s lethal display of divine power was in accordance with God’s will. As is Luke’s custom, he simply reports what happened without commenting on whether or not this is what should have happened. As a final word on this passage, I think it’s significant that Ananias and Sapphira had allowed Satan to fill their hearts (Acts 5:3). It’s also significant that the Semitic concept of “curse” had the connotation of lifting protection off of someone to render them vulnerable to hostile agents, whether human or spiritual. In this light, we might understand Peter to be using his apostolic authority to remove whatever divine protection Ananais and Sapphira had, thereby handing them over to the “thief who comes only to kill and to steal and to destroy” (Jn 10:10) and “who holds the power of death” ( Heb 2:14). Since Jesus came to bring fullness of life, not death (Jn 10:10), and since Jesus is the full revelation of exactly what God is like (Heb 1:3), I submit that it makes better sense to understand Satan to be the agent who brought about the death of Ananais and Sapphira, with Peter’s misuse of his divine authority being the means, than it is to assume their death was an act of God. Originally published by Greg Boyd at ReKnew, used with permission https://reknew.org/2017/12/killed-ananias-sapphira-response-paul-copan-6/

A common objection to the claim that Jesus and the authors of the New Testament were opposed to all forms of violence is that neither Jesus nor anyone else speaks out against it. When soldiers asked John the Baptist what they should do in response to his message, for example, he told them not to “extort money,” not to “accuse people falsely,” and to be “content with [their] pay” (Lk 3: 14). He didn’t tell them to leave the military. In a similar fashion, when Jesus encountered a distraught Centurion, he healed his servant and praised his faith without saying a word about his leadership role in the violent and unjustly oppressive Roman-governed army (Mt 8:5-13; Lk 7:1-10). Along the same lines, without commenting on his military service, Mark reports that a Centurion confessed faith in Jesus when he witnessed how he died (Mk 15:39). And this same attitude gets carried over into the early church. Indeed, the first Gentile who came to Christ in the book of Acts was yet another Centurion. As Peter preached the Gospel to this man and his household, the Holy Spirit fell upon them and they were all baptized without a word being uttered about this man’s military service (Acts 10:44-8). From Augustine to Aquinas to Luther up to the present time, these episodes have been frequently cited to justify Christians serving in the military. This line of reasoning is misguided, in my opinion. First, this is an argument from silence. One could use this line of reasoning to argue that Jesus and the authors of the New Testament were not opposed to a good many things we know they were in fact opposed to. For example, Jesus didn’t rebuke the Samaritan women who had been divorced five times and was presently living with a man who was not her husband (Jn 4:16-8). Does this mean that Jesus condoned divorce, remarriage, and co-habitation outside of wedlock? Nor did Jesus rebuke the tax collectors and prostitutes he regularly fellowshipped with (Lk 5:29-30; 15:1). Does this imply that the religious authorities were correct in surmising that Jesus had no objection to these occupational choices (Lk 7:34)? James even praised the faith of Rahab without saying a word about the sinfulness of her career as a prostitute (Ja 2:25). I doubt anyone would want to argue that this implies that James thought prostitution was compatible with the Christian faith? The truth is that we can only infer what a person believes by what they actually say, not by what they fail to say, and what Jesus and the New Testament authors uniformly say about violence is that it is forbidden for followers of Jesus. It is simply illegitimate to overturn or qualify this clear and consistent teaching with an argument from silence. The weakness of the argument from silence becomes even clearer when we notice that, with the exception of the Jewish leaders of his day, Jesus never denounced the sin of the people with whom he interacted. In sharp contrast to other prophetic figures of his day, Jesus never denounced the sinful practices and policies of any ruling political authority. Indeed, he refused to even weigh in on the hot political topics of his day, despite the efforts of others to get him to do so (e.g. Mt 22:15-22). We find a similar attitude running throughout the NT. For example, Paul confesses that, while we must discipline the behavior of Jesus-followers within the context of a kingdom community, we have no business passing judgment “on those outside the church” (1 Cor 5:12; cf. 1 Pet 1:17). To the contrary, Paul declares that the only message the church is to announce to people outside the church is the message of reconciliation that God has given us: namely, that in Christ God “was reconciling the world to himself…not counting people’s sin against them” (2 Cor 5:19, emphasis added). Far from pointing out people’s sin, our message is to be that God has already forgiven their sin! It is apparent that Jesus and the New Testament authors are simply not interested in trying to improve the ethical behavior of the people and governments of the world. In this sense it is fair to say that the New Testament doesn’t contain an ethic for humans in general, and perhaps even fair to say that the New Testament doesn’t espouse pacifism, in the sense that it doesn’t advocate non-violence for all people and as an end in-and-of itself. Jesus and the authors of the New Testament are rather exclusively focused on the call of disciples of Jesus to love enemies, which therefore rules out killing them. The very fact that Jesus established the ability to love like this to be the distinguishing mark of a child of God (Mt 5:44-5; Lk 6:35) indicates that he did not intend his command to function as a universal ethical principle. Hence, the general posture of the New Testament is that, until one submits to the Lordship of Christ and is filled with his Spirit, there is no point addressing the incompatibility of a person’s lifestyle or occupation with the will of God. Indeed, Paul’s teaching on the message of reconciliation that ambassadors of Christ are to preach actually precludes this. And since none of the several soldiers that are spoken of in the New Testament were disciples, it is hardly surprising that we find no critique of their occupation. I will close one final important observation. While the silence of Jesus about military service doesn’t indicate that he thought military service was compatible with following Jesus, it does illustrate how God meets people where they are at without judging them. The Holy Spirit simply fell on Cornelius, the Roman Centurion, without first requiring him to leave the military. Luke doesn’t tell us how Cornelius resolved the dilemma this put him in, but we need to appreciate how messy his dilemma was. The Roman military had no provisions for military leaders to suddenly opt out of service as a “conscientious objector.” Indeed, walking away from one’s military role was considered treason and was punishable by death! But I am glad Luke doesn’t tell us this, because if he had, we might be tempted to turn it into a formula that we’d try to apply to all Christians in military service. This is precisely what we should never do, for God works in the particulars of each person’s unique and messy life. Cornelius, together with whatever house church he joined after his conversion, would have to work out the messy implications of his salvation “with fear and trembling,” trusting that “God” was working in them “to fulfill his good purpose” (Phil 2:12). This is why I don’t believe anyone has any business questioning the authenticity of a military person’s faith, whether they are serving in the U.S. military or in a military that opposes the U.S. Yes, we can and must clearly espouse the New Testament’s teaching on the prohibition on violence for Jesus-followers, and I will candidly admit that I for one don’t see how following Jesus can be reconciled with military service. But neither I nor anyone else is in a position to apply this to individuals who haven’t invited us into their lives. We must rather simply trust that God is meeting them, and working in them, where they are. And if it seems to us that their chosen occupation makes them sinners, we are to remember that the speck of dust we think we see in their eye is nothing compared to the tree trunk of sin that protrudes from our own (Matt 7:1-3). Originally published by Greg Boyd at ReKnew, used with permission https://reknew.org/2016/01/12009/

Question: I am a President of a State University. As a frequent podcaster of your sermons and reader of your books, I’m seeking your advice on a matter. Because our campus is some distance from the police headquarters in our city, many within the State University are arguing that we should hired armed officers for protection. The call, ultimately, is mine to make. I share your views on the call of Jesus followers to love enemies and swear off all violence. So I’m wondering if you think it would be inconsistent for me to grant this request? Answer: The question you raise is one of the most difficult ones a kingdom pacifist such as myself has to confront. So far as I can see, there is nothing ambiguous about what Jesus’ and Paul’s teaching on loving enemies and setting aside violence entails for a follower of Christ. I don’t believe there are any circumstances where it would be okay for me to kill another person. So too, as a pastor over a Christian congregation, I don’t see any ambiguity in what these teachings imply for a congregation of Jesus followers. There is no circumstance where it would be okay for us to use lethal force. The ambiguity only arises in contexts such as yours. You are serving people in a context where the rules are completely different than they are within the kingdom. Followers of Jesus love enemies and refrain from violence out of faithfulness to Christ and because we are empowered by the Spirit to do so. But this is precisely what can’t be presumed in your context. Outside the kingdom, people operate on the basis of what seems ethical and on the basis of what makes sense (and/or, perhaps, on the basis of some other religious authority, such as the Koran or the Old Testament). And in this context, most people don’t believe it makes sense to refuse to kill a public assailant if doing so would save the lives of others. So, it seems to me the question you have to wrestle with is this: Is it right for you to impose your kingdom ethic on a community of people who don’t share your kingdom motivation for embracing that ethic? Could one argue that this would be dictatorial? And if an assailant tragically killed a student, might this not invite people to blame you for the death (whether an officer with a gun could or could not have prevented it)? A related question is this: is it the case that you are personally endorsing the use of deadly force by granting your community’s wish to allow officers to use deadly force if necessary on campus? Personally, I’m inclined to think not. In fact, while I believe I am called to swear off all violence, I don’t believe it would be hypocritical for me to call the police if someone were to break into my house, even though I know that these police carry guns and may perhaps use them against the thief. Consider that immediately after Paul told Christians to love enemies, to never retaliate, and to leave all “vengeance” to God (Rom.12:17-21), he went on to teach them that one of the ways God “exacts vengeance” is by using the sword of government, which is why Christians are to “submit” to it (Rom.13:1-7). I hope this helps you as your process how to lead the university forward while you at the same time wrestle with the call to imitate Christ. Originally published by Greg Boyd at ReKnew, used with permission https://reknew.org/2014/04/non-violence-and-police-protection/

As India erupted in Hindu–Muslim strife, a young Christian responded to Gandhi’s plea: “Where are the Christians who live according to the Bible?” I first saw Mahatma Gandhi when I was twelve, when he came to our state of Kerala in south India to help remove the age-old injustice of caste discrimination. He addressed a huge gathering on a river bed near my school, and I found a seat on the sand near where he was sitting cross-legged on a raised platform. He spoke about vegetarianism, not about national issues, but it impressed me immensely – he spoke in Hindi rather than English, and I saw him as a symbol of the resurgent India. At that time, Gandhi was already famous in Kerala because of his 1924 action in the nearby town of Vaikom to open the Shiva temple to Hindus of all castes. For centuries, outcastes had been forbidden to enter the temple, and notices even prohibited them from using the town’s roads. Gandhi’s nonviolent campaign to abolish this humiliating segregation had been the first major test of his teaching of satyagraha (“soul force” or “truth force”). On coming home from hearing Gandhi, I told my mother that I was now a vegetarian. (I would remain one for the next eighteen years, until moving to Uganda, when I gave it up in order to dine in fellowship with my African brethren.) From that day on, I began to follow Gandhi’s teachings. Despite my conflicting feelings toward British missionaries, whom I admired for their sacrificial work to uplift the so-called untouchables in Kerala, I began to participate in the Quit India movement pressing for India’s independence from Britain. Although as a twelve-year-old I would not have been able to articulate what drew me to Gandhi, I now see four facets of his life and teaching as keys to understanding him. ... Originally published at Plough, used with permission https://www.plough.com/en/topics/community/leadership/what-gandhi-taught-me-about-jesus

In Crucifixion of the Warrior God (CWG) I argue that Jesus and Paul instruct Christians to love and bless their enemies and to unconditionally refrain from violence (e.g. Matt 5:39-45; Rom 12:14-21). Moreover, I argue that this was the prevailing attitude of Christians prior to the fourth century when the Church aligned itself with the Roman Empire. In his critique of CWG that he delivered at the ETS in November, Copan argues against this, contending that I give “the false impression that Christians were uniformly pacifistic until Constantine.” He cites the work of David Hunter and several other scholars who note that we find a number of references to Christians serving in the Roman military in the writings of Tertullian, Lactantius, Clement of Alexandra and Eusebius. [1] Not only this, but we have found a number of tomb inscriptions to Christian soldiers in the second and third centuries. On this basis, these scholars argue that the earlier scholarly consensus that the early church was uniformly pacifistic must be nuanced. At least some Christians were apparently not opposed to Christians serving in the military. The first thing I’ll say is that it is a bit odd that Copan would raise this objection against me, for while I defend “the predominant nonviolence of the early church” prior to “the Augustinian revolution,” I also explicitly note that the earlier unqualified depictions of the early church as uniformly against military service “were not sufficiently nuanced” ((CWG, 24, n.45). Indeed, I refer readers to some of the same works that Copan cites against me (and add a number that he omits). Second, and more importantly, while I grant that the earlier consensus needs to be more nuanced, I would argue that Copan and some other scholars who emphasize the evidence of early Christians serving in the military could be charged with giving the false impression that the early church was not predominantly, if not uniformly, opposed to military service and all forms of violence. The question is, how significant is the evidence of early Christians serving in the military? In my estimation, not much. Three considerations put this evidence in a proper perspective. First, in The Apostolic Tradition (c.200), Hippolytus addresses the issue of Christians serving in the military. He disallows Christians to enlist in the military, claiming that any Christian who did this “despises God” (Apostolic Tradition, 16). At the same time, Hippolytus allows soldiers who converted after joining the military to remain in it, but only if these soldiers are able to serve in a capacity that didn’t require them to kill and that didn’t require them to engage in idolatry (since the Roman religion permeated the military). While we of course can’t assume that the views of Hippolytus were shared by everyone at the time, it certain calls into question the assumption that the evidence of Christians serving in the military indicates that some early Christians were not committed to pacifism. Second, it is highly significant that, while certain authors mention Christians serving in the military, no early Christian author defends Christians serving in the military or engaging in any other kind of violence. To the contrary, whenever early Christians mention war or other kinds of violence, it is to emphasize that Christians are to have nothing to do with it. For example, Tertullian addresses the issue of Christians serving in the military when he writes: How will a Christian man participate in war? It is true that soldiers came to John [the Baptist] and received the instructions for conduct. It is true also that a centurion believed. Nevertheless, the Lord afterward, in disarming Peter, disarmed every solider. Ante-Nicene Fathers (ANF, III. 73) And again, Is it lawful to make an occupation of the sword, when the Lord proclaims that he who uses the sword will perish by the sword? Will the son of peace take part in the battle when it does not become him even to sue at law? Will he who is not the avenger even of his own wrongs, apply the chain, the prison, the torture, and the punishment. (ANF III.100) Third, Tertullian clearly believed he was expressing the conviction of all Christians in his day when he wrote, and all indications are that he was correct. To demonstrate this, I offer the following (far from exhaustive) sampling of quotes of early church thinkers that reflect the early Christian view of war and violence. “We who formerly murdered one another now refrain from making war even upon our enemies.” Justin Martyr, Ante-Nicene Fathers (ANF) I.176 “We used to be filled with war…now all of us [Christians] have, throughout the whole earth, changed our warlike weapons. We have changed our swords into plowshares, and our spears into farming implements.” Justin Martyr, ANF I.254 “We have learned not to return blow for blow, nor to go to law with those who plunder or rob us. Instead, even to those who strike us on the side of the face, we offer the other side also.” Athenagoras, ANF II.129 “[Christians] formed their swords and war-lances into plowshares…that is, into instruments used for peaceful purposes. So now, they are unaccustomed to fighting. When they are struck, they offer also the other cheek.” Irenaeus, ANF I. 512 “It is not in war, but in peace, that we have been trained.” Clement of Alexandria, ANF II. 234 “An enemy must be aided, so that he may not continue as an enemy. For by help, good feeling is compacted and enmity dissolved.” Clement of Alexandra, ANF II. 370 “If, then, we are commanded to love our enemies…whom have we to hate? If injured, we are forbidden to retaliate, lest we become just as bad ourselves. Who can suffer injury at our hands?” Tertullian, ANF III.45. “How often you [legal authorities] inflict gross cruelties on Christians….Yet, banded together as we are, ever so ready to sacrifice our lives, what single case of revenge for injury are you able to point to?” Tertullian ANF III. 45 “We willingly yield ourselves to the sword. So what wars would we not be both fit and eager to participate in…if in our religion it were not counted better to be slain than to slay?” Tertullian ANF III. 45 “The Christian does no harm even to his enemy.” Tertullian, ANF III. 51 “God put His prohibition on every sort of man-killing by that one inclusive commandment, ‘You shall not kill.’” Tertullian ANF III. 80 “Christ nowhere teaches that it is right for His own disciples to offer violence to anyone, no matter how wicked. For He did not consider it to be in accord with His laws to allow the killing of any individual whomever…For [Christian] laws do not allow them on any occasion to resist their persecutors, even when it was their fate to be slain as sheep.” Origen, ANF IV.467 “We have cut down our hostile, insolent, and wearisome swords into plowshares. We have converted into pruning hooks the spears that were formerly used in war. For we no longer take up ‘sword against nation,’ nor do we ‘learn war anymore.’ That is because we have become children of peace for the sake of Jesus, who is our Leader.” Origen, ANF IV. 558 “Our prayers defeat all demons who stir up war….in this way, we are much more helpful to the kings than those who go into the field to fight for them….So none fight better for the king than we do. Indeed, we do not fight under him even if he demands it. Yet, we fight on his behalf, forming a special army-an army of godliness- by offering our prayers to God.” Origen ANF IV.667. “Wars are scattered all over the earth with the bloody horror of camps. The whole world is wet with mutual blood. And murder- which is admitted to be a crime in the case of an individual—is called a virtue when it is committed wholescale.” Cyprian, ANF V.277 “The hand must not be spotted with the sword and blood-not after the Eucharist is carried in it.” Cyprian, ANF V. 488 “…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.” Ambrose, ANF VI .415 “[The Christian] considers it unlawful not only to commit slaughter himself, but to be present with those who do it.” Lactantius, ANF VII. 169 “How can a man be just who hates, who despoils, who puts to death? Yet, those who strive to be serviceable to their country do all these things.” Lactantius, ANF VII. 169 I trust this sampling of quotes suffices to demonstrate that the pre-Constantinian church was indeed pacifistic, notwithstanding the fact that it permitted soldiers to remain in military service after they converted. And it was this strong stance against violence that motivated many early Christian thinkers to explore non-violent interpretations of the OT’s violent depictions of God. I wrote CWG (and Cross Vision) because I believe it is time for the church to reembrace the pacifism of the early church and to take up the challenge of finding the non-violent God revealed in Christ in the OT’s warrior portraits of God. [1] David G. Hunter, “A Decade of Research on Early Christians and Military Service,” Religious Studies Review 18, n.2 (1989); Roland Bainton, Christian Attitudes Toward War and Peace (Abington, 1960). Originally published by Greg Boyd at ReKnew, used with permission https://reknew.org/2018/01/early-church-pacifistic-response-paul-copan-11/

Augustine of Hippo and Howard Thurman of Daytona Beach follow the shocking implications of Jesus’ teachings on violence in the Sermon on the Mount. The Sermon on the Mount stands at the heart of multiple theological traditions and controversies, particularly its teachings on violence. Some insist that Jesus meant for us to live out these teachings fully now; others argue that this will only be possible when he returns. But what if the practical dictates of the Sermon are not the first thing we ought to focus on? What if instead of asking, “Is the Sermon practical?” or “Does nonviolence work?” we ask instead, “In what way does the virtue of Christ work in a violent world?” Two very different figures who have asked this question are Augustine of Hippo and Howard Thurman of Daytona Beach. Augustine on the Sermon’s Call to Suffer the Unjust Augustine preached on parts of the Sermon several times, and finally, in 393–394, sat down to write a full-length exposition of it. The Sermon is, he says, ultimately a teaching on the nature of wisdom: the Beatitudes are a kind of ladder to be climbed, with each step preparation for the next. We ascend through the Beatitudes, through poverty of spirit and mourning evil, through meekness and mercy, in order that we might be able to be pure in heart, to see God. Treating the Beatitudes as maxims that build on one another, he writes: Therefore, there are seven maxims which constitute perfection, for the eighth starts anew, as it were, from the very beginning: it clarifies and approves what is already complete. Thus, all the other grades of perfection are accomplished through these seven. [1] Footnotes 1. All references from Commentary on the Lord’s Sermon on the Mount with Seventeen Related Sermons, transl. Denis J. Kavanagh (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America, 1951). Originally published at Plough, used with permission https://www.plough.com/en/topics/justice/nonviolence/how-to-win-enemies

A home school mom's journey into peacemaking and Christian non-violence. “Of course I would grab a knife from the kitchen and stab the intruder.” That was my plan when my husband and I discussed the hypothetical situation of someone breaking in and hurting our children. We decided long ago that we would never own a gun (we were never comfortable with the idea of actually shooting someone), but the idea of my child being attacked elicited a visceral protective instinct, and I couldn’t imagine doing anything other than fighting back. Two years ago, when that conversation occurred, my thoughts about violence were a vague grab bag of fear, societal permission for self-defense, and somewhat contradictory personal logic. I’ve had the privilege of living a relatively safe life, and violence has primarily been something happening to other people, elsewhere. Although I couldn’t explain why, my gut feelings told me that I didn’t want to be in the military or shoot guns, but that if someone was aggressive towards me or my family, I would certainly have grounds for responding in kind with whatever violence was necessary. When my husband asked, “Is there any reason that would justify a Christian killing another person?”, it sounded like an extreme question. Clearly, I reasoned, Christians shouldn’t be bloodthirsty, but there must be extenuating circumstances when killing someone would be permissible, even necessary. As I thought about his extreme (but not unfathomable) query, I took stock of what I believed and found the barely-considered grab bag described above. My opinion on the matter was primarily rooted, albeit shallowly, in my emotions and personal experience (both of which have proven historically to be unstable sources of truth and conviction). So I turned next to considering various “what-if” situations such as a home invasion, school shooting, or attempted kidnapping. Emotionally and logically, I kept traveling the same path and arriving at the same destination: “I would have to fight back to protect the innocent”. “Love always protects, right”? But it is how I choose to fight that is the real question, for Jesus was not a passive peacemaker, and making peace is the opposite of doing nothing. But as I searched the Bible on this journey, I became more and more uncomfortable with my own logical conclusions. Both the words and life examples of Jesus Christ and his early followers pointed down a very different path, one that was hard to make sense of. When God looked at humanity, he saw his beloved children being attacked by an Enemy too powerful for them, and his protective instincts also kicked in. But his baffling solution was to rescue us by laying down his own life. He observed people being hurt and oppressed by their own sin, by one another, and by an occupying empire, and he neither ran away nor attacked. Rather, in the face of opposition and violence, Jesus practiced surprising, subversive ways to engage those who hated him. And then he went even farther and told his followers to love their enemies and to be kind to those who were hurting them. That doesn’t make any sense! As I wrestled with these thoughts, a passage I came back to time and again was 1 Peter 2:20-24 (emphasis mine): “How is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. ‘He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth.’ When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly. ‘He himself bore our sins’ in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; ‘by his wounds you have been healed.’” How did Jesus suffer? How did Jesus respond to those who attacked him and ultimately killed him? When Peter pulled a weapon to try to protect the most innocent life in history, what did Jesus do and say? How did Jesus rescue me when I was powerless, helpless, and enslaved to the Enemy? He certainly did not lash out at human aggressors. Rather, he sacrificed himself and trusted the Father to sort it out justly. And the brave, non-violent, enemy-forgiving, enemy-loving, self-giving path of Jesus isn’t solely for me to admire and appreciate. It is an example for my life, that I should follow in his steps and actually live in the same way. Jesus’ early followers did just that. When their own lives and the lives of their families and beloved brothers and sisters in the faith were threatened and taken from them, we hear no call to fight back. Both in the Bible and in early church history, we see the first Christians following Jesus’ example of non-retaliation and non-violence, and entrusting themselves to God. There is no hint in their teaching or example that would tell us, “Love your enemies, unless they are killing your children, in which case you should stab them with a kitchen knife.” “But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you”. (‭‭Luke‬ ‭6‬:‭27‬-‭28‬) Return with me to the question: “Is there any reason that would justify a Christian killing another person”? We follow a Lord who told us to do good to our enemies, who did not retaliate when people hurt him, and who counter-intuitively rescued people by giving up his own life. If we believe we are supposed to be like our Lord (Luke 6:40), then killing another human being directly contradicts both Jesus’ life and teachings. Over the past two years, my beliefs about this topic have become rooted in Jesus, rather than in my own shifting feelings and opinions. As I write this I recognize that I am in a safe place, surrounded by my family, and that all of this seems easier to say and believe when nobody is hurting me or my loved ones. I wish I could say that I no longer have any fears and that I am confident that I will always react peaceably, but alas, I am a work in progress. I certainly fear that when I do face hatred or violence, my self-protective instincts will kick in and override my desire to follow Jesus. I worry that if someone else is being harmed, I won’t know how to protect them in a non-violent way. I fear suffering. I fear that when I see a threatening situation I’ll panic or strike back. If I do face violence, perhaps God will give me a brilliant, creative response that is neither fight nor flight, an amazing third option that will turn into an inspiring story. Or perhaps he won’t. If he doesn’t intervene and offer me a great idea of how to engage peaceably, I pray that I will still have the courage and conviction to not react with violence, even if it means laying down my life. I pray to not fear death (Heb 2:15), and to trust God through all my other worries so that fear will not control me. However, dramatic and extreme scenarios aside, every day, God gives me opportunities to practice peace. When I am irritated, when someone disagrees with me, when my husband is harsh or insensitive, when my children are not doing what they should, when I feel hurt or misrepresented by someone, I can choose to practice anger and retribution, or I can exercise forbearance and forgiveness. By God’s grace, being “trained by constant practice” (Heb 5:14), I pray to be free from the violence and anxiety in my own heart and be transformed more and more into the likeness of our Prince of Peace.

John Markowski, pastor at Big Apple Church in New York, discusses the topic of violence as he looks at the "Un-Triumphal Entry" of Jesus in Luke 19, as well as the nature of violence done against the kingdom in Matthew 11:12. Original sermon by John Markowski at Big Apple Church, used with permission

I just finished James Atwood’s book America and Its Guns: A Theological Exposé and I’m sitting here stunned. The statistics, the stories, the indifference, the political power plays in the face of innocent deaths, the role of money in the whole debate—even when lives are at stake. I know this is a messy topic and it defies simple answers. But this book has certainly blown the doors off my thinking on it. Let me start by saying, as I often do, that I own guns. I hunt and fish and listen to country music and all that business, but I also love people more than I love my guns. Like many things that are morally neutral yet capable of becoming an idol, I like my guns but I don’t love my guns. I enjoy hunting and shooting, but gun rights are not my raison d’etre—my reason for existence. And if stricter gun laws would save more lives—even 1 life—then I’d eagerly vote for more laws. People are more important than guns. And last time I checked, Jesus believes that our freedom should be used to help people not hurt them. Atwood’s book contains a lot of statistics. I haven’t triple checked them all to see if they are legit (he does provide ample evidence). But even if they’re marginally close to the truth, they’re scary enough to take notice. Every year in America, 30,00 people are killed by guns. Among the 30,000 people killed every year, about ½ are suicides, 10,000 are homicides, and 500 are “accidental deaths”—children exploring daddy’s loaded Glock and such (p. 129) Over 3,200 children are killed every year by a gun (p. 127) Nearly 1.7 million kids under the age of 18 live in a home where firearms are both loaded and unlocked (p. 110). Children in America are 12 times more likely to die from a gun than the next 25 industrialized nations combined (p. 5) While 10,000 people are murdered by a gun every year in America, the next highest gun-murder rate occurs in Canada (200), Germany (194), Spain (60), England and Wales (39), Australia (35), and Finland (17) (p. 6). Let’s pause and linger on that last point for a second. I’ve often heard (and might have even said) that criminals don’t buy guns legally. It’s the good guys not bad guys who would be without a gun if we had stricter gun laws. If we tighten our gun laws, the criminals will simply get them some other way. If this were true, then why don’t we see many more gun-related murders (or deaths) in other countries? Why is America leading the way at nearly 10,000 gun-related murders and the next highest country is Canada at 200? If the bad guys can easily get guns illegally—and I suppose other countries have bad guys too—then why don’t bad guys in Canada, Germany, and Spain use guns (illegally) to kill people? Let’s get back to the statistics: America owns more guns than any other nation. It possesses over 300 million privately owned guns, which is almost 1 for every man, woman, and child. There are currently 512 armed militias in the U.S., which is 3x higher than in 2009 (p. 50). More American citizens were killed with guns between 1979 and 1997 (651,697) than all the servicemen and women killed in battle since 1775 (650,858) (p. 52). In Texas, people with a concealed weapons permit were arrested for weapon-related offenses at a rate 81% higher than that of the general population aged 21 years and older (p. 66). In the year 2,000, gun violence cost the American people 100 billion dollars (p. 123). About 500,000 guns are stolen from homes, cars, gun shops, manufacturers, and the military every year (p. 156) Among all the developed countries, 86% of all murders occur in the United States (p. 160). 80% of the guns confiscated in violent, drug-cartel related crimes in Mexico come from the United States. Apparently, we’re exporting our gun-violence (p. 181). Women are 5 times more likely to be a victim of domestic homicide when her partner owns a gun; 1/3 of all murders of American women are committed by their intimate partners (p. 108) These statistics are startling, especially if you’re a woman or a child. And yes, I’m well aware of Mark Twain’s instructive dictum: “There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.” We can’t base truth on statistics alone. However, we also can’t base truth on anecdotal stories or personal opinions alone. Even if you think you’re safer by owning a gun, this doesn’t make you safer by owning a gun. Some say that guns actually save lives, or that your uncle Bob once shot a potential murderer and saved tons of lives. But this doesn’t capture the broad scope of what’s going on. Statistics aren’t inerrant and they can be misused. But in the words of my friend David Kinnaman, statistics are better than your personal guess and anecdotal stories. Do guns actually saves lives? Of the 30,000 gun deaths a year (including 10,000 murders), how many “bad guys” are killed by a gun? According to the FBI, there are only 150-200 justifiable homicides a year, and most of these are carried out by law-enforcement (p. 189). With over 10,000 gun-related murders per year, the 100 or so justifiable homicides per year doesn’t seem worth it. Now, different people will promote different statistics. Apparently Dr. Gary Kleck, who’s rounded criticized by Atwood, says that guns save the lives of 2.5 million people every year. According to Kleck, this includes verbally telling a killer that you have a gun (54%), pointing a gun at a criminal (47%), or shooting a “warning shot” with a criminal present (22%) (pp. 100-101). This is where it gets super messy. Who do you believe? Which statistic is accurate? The tough thing about Kleck’s research is that he’s largely going on personal testimonies. Every single Joe and Frank and Billy Bob who said that his dag gum pistol done did scare away that no good criminal is taken at face value. But how de we measure this? How do we know that if Billy Bob didn’t own a 12 gauge, the intruder would have killed his family? Can we take personal testimonies at face value? Because 12 million people have claimed to have seen a UFO and 1 million people say they’ve met a space alien. Asking people their opinion on a matter (“was it your gun that scared him away?”) is risky business. Even if Kleck’s research is accurate, the best thing we could do is keep a gun close at hand and load it with blanks. One of the things that Atwood continues to point out is the ease by which people can purchase guns at gun shows. “Felons, domestic abusers, terrorists, youth, and persons with adjudicated mental illness can go to a gun show and buy a gun from unlicensed sellers with no questions asked” (p. 12). And this does concern me. I’m not ready to say that American citizens can’t own guns, and neither is Atwood. He’s an avid hunter and doesn’t want to strip America of all its guns. He’s only arguing for stricter gun laws that help keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t own them. And unless his statistics are all out of whack, this makes good sense to me. I do have a few critiques of Atwood’s book that go beyond mere typos (which were plentiful; see pp. 34, 45, 136, 174). Most of my critiques have to do with Twain’s thoughts on statistics. As I said, I think there’s a valid place for statistics; we need to consult them. But we also need to recognize that statistics can be used to support one’s agenda. Atwood would often cite a statistic and then build a “see, look at that!” kind of argument. But I need more. Statistics, while helpful, need to be put on the stand and asked a thousand questions. For instance, 15,000 of America’s gun deaths are suicide. This immediately raises many questions in my mind. Would they have committed suicide without a gun? How do we know? Do other countries have non-gun-related suicides? How many people committed suicide without a gun when they could have used a gun? I’m also still wondering about the whole “guns save lives” pushback and I’m not convinced that Atwood has proven that guns don’t save lives. (It’s a moot point, of course, when we look at this question through a Christian ethic of nonviolence.) Atwood kept poking fun at the statement “guns save lives” throughout the book but only took 3 pages to address it head on (pp. 99-102). Within those 3 pages, he didn’t really prove that possession of a firearm, saying you have a firearm, or shooting a firearm in the arm has not been a successful way to scare off an attacker. Personally, I need to look deeper into Kleck’s research and his (many) critics to see what I think. At the end of the day, however, I was deeply compelling by Atwood’s study. I’m not sure how anyone would argue otherwise, and I’m genuinely interested to hear what I’m missing. America possess more guns (300 million) than every other nation by far. And America consistently has the most gun-related deaths and murders than every other nation by far. I guess I need to see a compelling argument that shows how these two startling statistics are not related. Originally published by Preston Sprinkle at Theology in the Raw, used with permission https://theologyintheraw.com/america-and-its-guns/

The American writer Mark Twain wrote the following satire in the glow of America’s imperial interventions. It was a time of great and exalting excitement. The country was up in arms, the war was on, in every breast burned the holy fire of patriotism … on every hand and far down the receding and fading spread of roofs and balconies a fluttering wilderness of flags flashed in the sun … nightly the packed mass meetings listened, panting, to patriot oratory which stirred the deepest deeps of their hearts, and which they interrupted at briefest intervals with cyclones of applause, the tears running down their cheeks the while; in the churches the pastors preached devotion to flag and country, and invoked the God of Battles beseeching His aid in our good cause in outpourings of fervid eloquence which moved every listener. … Sunday morning came — next day the battalions would leave for the front; the church was filled; the volunteers were there, their young faces alight with martial dreams — visions of the stern advance, the gathering momentum, the rushing charge, the flashing sabers, the flight of the foe, the tumult, the enveloping smoke, the fierce pursuit, the surrender! Then home from the war, bronzed heroes, welcomed, adored, submerged in golden seas of glory! … The service proceeded; a war chapter from the Old Testament was read; the first prayer was said … … Then came the “long” prayer. None could remember the like of it for passionate pleading and moving and beautiful language. The burden of its supplication was, that an ever-merciful and benignant Father of us all would watch over our noble young soldiers, and aid, comfort, and encourage them in their patriotic work…. An aged stranger entered and moved with slow and noiseless step up the main aisle, his eyes fixed upon the minister, his long body clothed in a robe that reached to his feet, his head bare, his white hair descending in a frothy cataract to his shoulders, his seamy face unnaturally pale, pale even to ghastliness. … he ascended to the preacher’s side and stood there waiting. … The stranger touched his arm, motioned him to step aside — which the startled minister did — and took his place. During some moments he surveyed the spellbound audience with solemn eyes, in which burned an uncanny light; then in a deep voice he said: “I come from the Throne — bearing a message from Almighty God!” … “God’s servant and yours has prayed his prayer. Has he paused and taken thought? Is it one prayer? No, it is two — one uttered, the other not. Both have reached the ear of Him Who heareth all supplications, the spoken and the unspoken. Ponder this — keep it in mind. If you would beseech a blessing upon yourself, beware! lest without intent you invoke a curse upon a neighbor at the same time. If you pray for the blessing of rain upon your crop which needs it, by that act you are possibly praying for a curse upon some neighbor’s crop which may not need rain and can be injured by it. “You have heard your servant’s prayer — the uttered part of it. I am commissioned of God to put into words the other part of it — that part which the pastor — and also you in your hearts — fervently prayed silently. And ignorantly and unthinkingly? God grant that it was so! You heard these words: ‘Grant us the victory, O Lord our God!’ … When you have prayed for victory you have prayed for many unmentioned results which follow victory–must follow it, cannot help but follow it. Upon the listening spirit of God fell also the unspoken part of the prayer. He commandeth me to put it into words. Listen! “O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle — be Thou near them! With them — in spirit — we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it — for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is the ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen. (After a pause.) “Ye have prayed it; if ye still desire it, speak! The messenger of the Most High waits!” It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said. [1] The American Yawp Reader, Stanford University Press https://www.americanyawp.com/reader/19-american-empire/mark-twain-the-war-prayer-ca-1904-5/

My question is regarding what Jesus taught regarding disciples in law enforcement. I am an ER nurse, and I have always strongly supported and respected the nobility and sacrifice of the job. I also realize that not every officer has such a 'pure heart' towards the job. I am left wondering if Christians are doing wrong by their profession simply because they use force to protect the public at times? This has always seemed preposterous to me in the past, but I realize that perhaps my faith is too tied to this world and is in need of correction. What do you understand Jesus' heart to be on the matter? Jesus did not teach directly about Christians working in the police force, though he did speak explicitly about relationship with enemies in Matthew 5. If anything, we modern Christians have been too eager to accommodate the Savior's principles to our enlightened notions of politics, nation building, and use of force. It is a valuable for us to think through these issues. Though not all Christians will agree, the literal meaning of Jesus' words is not hard to grasp. You asked what Jesus' heart is on the matter. That is easy to answer: love for enemies (Luke 6:17-31). What does that mean to you? That's the question I think we must encourage Bible believers to ask themselves. originally posted from Douglas Jacoby, used with permission. https://www.douglasjacoby.com/q-a-0822-christians-in-law-enforcement/

The following post is written by my friend Sgt. Dean Meadows (USMCR). Dean served several years in the Marine Corps, but after coming to Christ and wrestling with what the Bible says about violence, he became a zealous advocate for nonviolence. Here’s his story: What is a former Marine doing writing about non-violence? I know it may seem strange or maybe even a little radical. For most Christians I talk to these days, it is. But my question is why? Why is Christian non-violence a “radical” idea? I passionately believe it shouldn’t be, yet it is a teaching, which is widely neglected from our pulpits on Sunday mornings. I also believe the reason why most Christians in America don’t embrace Christian non-violence is their allegiances are mixed between State and Savior. However, as I unpack my journey, I hope we will all revisit scripture and what it says about violence. “The Few. The Proud. The Marines.” No other branch of the military attracted me like the Marine Corps. The idea of changing myself into a valiant warrior to serve my country was something I had always thought about growing up. However, that all changed on 9/11. As I watched the Twin Towers crumble to the ground in science class, shock, anger, and revenge permeated my body. No longer was joining the Marine Corps a thought; it was my mission. I was determined to fight America’s enemies. Thus, I signed up to do a six-year reserve contract with the plan of going to college and becoming an officer in the Marine Corps. At that point, I was determined to “kill em’ all and let Allah sort them out.” On March 19, 2006 I found myself in Fallujah, Iraq doing convoy security. I essentially saw just about every part (or at least it seemed that way) of the Al-Anbar Province. I rode to the Syrian boarder, Jordanian boarder, and even passed through Saddam Hessian’s hometown of Tikrit. During that time (when I wasn’t exactly practicing my faith) I rediscovered Jesus. Here I thought the 120 degree temperature, sand, grit, long days, and short rests would forge me into a new person; yet, it was in the midst of the longest eight months of my life, I discovered God had already changed me—from sinner to saint. As I returned home, I focused more on my relationship with God and took on the role of youth intern for the Piedmont church of Christ in 2007. I found myself teaching classes, preaching, and trying to answer questions I had never considered, coming from teens. It is here where my journey to non-violence really begins. I had my first encounter with a gentleman who, at the time, I believed to be crazy, and perhaps the biggest loon I’d ever come across. His name was Justin Bronson Barringer. I met him during week six of Carolina Bible Camp. As we talked that week there were many things we had in common; he loved to camp, Duke basketball, and enjoyed substantive Bible conversations. However, we were diametrically opposed on the issue of violence. Justin believed that Jesus taught a non-violent gospel and I didn’t. Leaving those conversations I simply chalked everything up to Justin being crazy and me being right. But something about those conversations made me go back and look at the words of Jesus. After much proof texting and focusing on what Jesus didn’t say, I found myself to be “right.” Even after two years of Bible College and four years in ministry, I still ignored and suppressed the words of Jesus regarding violence. I would read statements like, “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” or “He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword,” and they made me uncomfortable. After all, there are bad people in the world who wanted to hurt America and it was ok if Christians (especially if they’re Marines) serve out the pain, torture, and death. There was just one problem: I wasn’t being honest with the text or myself. It gnawed and gnawed at my conscience, “Am I being honest with the text?” So I began to think harder about Christianity and non-violence. During this period of intense study I picked up Nonviolence: The Revolutionary Way of Jesus by Preston Sprinkle. As I navigated the book with lawyer-like precision, I looked for holes in the book. The first hole was with Preston himself, not because of anything he had done to me personally, but because he was challenging my view on Old Testament violence. The Marine in me thought, “Who is this guy? Who is this softy, tree hugging, anti-American, communist, Francis Chan look alike, telling me, even in the Old Testament God restricted Israel when it came to war?” So I went back and looked at the passages mentioned in his book, and came to the conclusion: the text of scripture was correct. God actually did restrict Israel mightily in regards to war. At the end of the book and studying the passages mentioned by Preston, I couldn’t relent anymore. It was time to submit my will to God’s will. I noticed in Acts there are at least 13 instances where Christians are persecuted. The most famous of all is the persecution in Acts 8 by Saul of Tarsus. What was the Church’s reaction? Did they rise up and fight? Did they send in the F-16’s? Surely, they didn’t “take that lying down!” They “went about preaching the word (Acts 8:4).” That was their mighty weapon against persecution…the preaching of Jesus the Christ. They didn’t use violence, but preached the peace of Jesus. I’m convinced the church in America can look like the church of the first century. But in order for this to be accomplished, in part, the church must give up the sword wielding allegiance to the state which so many embrace. If we are serious about Jesus, we should be serious about non-violence. The world is violent and brutal; Jesus has called us out of the world, to be different, to be light in a dark world where we are merely sojourners. Originally published by Preston Sprinkle at Theology in the Raw, used with permission https://theologyintheraw.com/the-few-the-proud-the-plowshares/