Michael Budde says many Christians would like a Christ who allows them to kill. A friend of Budde’s once described him as “the most Anabaptist Catholic I’ve ever met.” I would agree and as proof hand out copies of his work on American Christianity’s capture by consumer capitalism, on demystifying and resituating martyrdom within the everyday practices of the church, and on Christian identity as ecclesial solidarity. His new collection, Foolishness to Gentiles: Essays on Empire, Nationalism, and Discipleship, looks at whether American imperial decline will take American Christianity down with it; the role of the church “after development”; Dorothy Day as “the patron saint of anarchism”; and themes of violence and revenge in popular culture. I’ve been hearing one essay, “Killing with Kindness,” in my head these last few weeks as we view the destruction of Ukraine, an ancient Christian community, by a political leader who is an adherent of what is historically a branch of that same Christian community. (Our inurement to the spectacle of Christians killing Christians is a major theme in Budde’s work.) Originally published on Plough, used with permission https://www.plough.com/en/topics/justice/politics/do-christians-have-a-responsibility-to-protect

Last Friday, pastor Doug Wilson and I gave talks on guns and violence at the Q conference in Denver. Might sound like a real shocker—two white dudes from Idaho talking about God and guns—but despite our cultural context, we arrive at different views about using violence to stop bad people from harming good people. We were both given 9 minutes to present our views, and then we participated in an 18 minute Q & A hosted by Gabe Lyons. I want to spend a few blogs interacting with Doug’s presentation, since he raised many important points that we didn’t have time to discuss. By the way, I’m well aware that Doug has been accused of saying many controversial things, but my purpose here is only to deal with the stuff we talked about at Q Denver. For this blog, I want to point out why his use of the Bible to support his view on guns is deeply flawed and in need of some serious revision. Doug argues that gun ownership is a civic virtue, and he grounds this, in part, by citing two passages in the Bible: Exodus 22:2 and Luke 22:36. There’s a chance that Exodus 22 could support his view, though it’s a rather slim chance. As for Luke 22, there’s no chance at all. Exodus 22:2 reads: If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for the homeowner. Sounds pretty straightforward, right? Bad guy breaks in. Good guy fires gun. Bad guy drops dead. Good guy is deemed innocent, as he’s paraded off to heroland. Doug’s appeal to this passage seems legit, except for one thing: He forgot to mention the rest of the passage, which says: But if the sun has risen on the thief, there shall be bloodguilt for the homeowner. The thief shall surely pay. If he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft (Exod 22:3) In this case, good guy’s gun goes bang. Bad guy drops dead. And good guy is deemed guilty of bloodshed. Why? Because in this scenario, “the sun has risen on the thief.” But what in the world does that mean? In my own research on this passage, one thing is clear: the meaning of this passage is not clear. The language is terse and the sense of the key phrase “the sun has risen on the thief” is widely disputed. According to one interpretation, the “sun risen upon the thief” means the homeowner can clearly see the thief and has intentionally killed him, and this makes the “good guy” guilty. Intentional killing, yes even of a thief, is a sin. This means that the death of the thief in the previous verse, presumably when the sun has not “risen upon him,” might have been unintentional since he couldn’t clearly see the thief. (For you Hebrew geeks, notice that the verb of v. 22 “is struck” is in the hophal stem, sort of a causative passive, which could highlight the lack of intentionality.) Now, I wouldn’t take a bullet for this interpretation (see what I did there?). There are other interpretive options, some which may actually support Doug’s view. Some argue, for instance, that in the first scenario, the thief breaks in at night to harm the family, and this is why it’s fine to kill him. But the second scenario is during the day, which means he’s simply trying to take some stuff and therefore doesn’t deserve to be killed on the spot. While I’ve seen people assume this view, it seems like quite a stretch. If protecting your family is the main point of Exodus 22:2, it seems odd that the idea of “protection” or “family” is absent from the text. The author could have been much clearer if this was the main point he was trying to make. In any case, there needs to be some responsible exegetical work that goes into Exodus 22:2-3 before we lift the first half of it out of its context and force it to justify killing someone in self defense. Plus, it’s in Exodus 22, which should raise some hermeneutical questions. The chapter also says that if someone has sex with a virgin then they have to marry her and pay her dad a bride-price (22:16-17). The same chapter says that sorcerers should be killed (22:18), which isn’t that big of a deal, I guess, since the Old Testament allows for all sorts of people to be killed by law including adulterers, disobedient children, and people who break the Sabbath. The previous chapter (Exod 21, for the mathematically challenged) contains many laws about how to manage your slave. My point is, as you can probably guess: just because something is in the OT law does not mean that it directly carries over into a new covenant ethic. And unless you went to church with a lamb over your shoulder, you believe this too. There is some continuity and some discontinuity between the ethics of the Old and New covenants. The continuity of Exodus 22:2 (and 22:3!) must be argued for, not assumed. If argued for, then I need to know: if I catch a thief, do I still sell him into slavery as Exod 22:3b commands me to? Doug may have a biblical defense for using a gun to kill someone in self-defense or the defense of his family. I could probably build an argument too if you get a couple beers in me. But using Exodus 22:2 to justify this view appears to be irresponsible exegesis. The same goes for Luke 22—the whole “go buy a sword” passage, which Doug also used to justify his view. Since I’ve recently blogged about this passage, I won’t repeat my thoughts here. And as I said in our conversation at Q, there’s no credible Lukan scholar who takes Doug’s view that I’m aware of. If Doug could convince academia of his view, he just might be awarded an honorary doctorate, being such an original thesis and all. Luke 22 is an even more embarrassing proof text for Doug’s view. Doug, I actually think it would help your case to stop using these texts to support your view. It just smells like you’re reading your opinion back into Scripture and not drawing out what’s actually there. Originally published by Preston Sprinkle at Theology in the Raw, used with permission https://theologyintheraw.com/the-bible-on-self-defense-a-response-to-doug-wilson/

Dr. Greg Boyd responds to a question coming from an American missionary in Ukraine as the Russian invasion begins. He wonders if his pacifism was born out of a naive place of privilege where he didn't have to consider the reality of war and invasion of his home and family. Dr. Boyd responds with empathy and conviction. Originally published by Greg Boyd at ReKnew, used with permission https://reknew.org/2023/03/is-pacifism-the-product-of-naive-privilege-podcast/

Whenever I talk about Christians and violence, guns and self-defense, it’s inevitable that Luke 22 will come up. Supposedly, this passage supports the view that Jesus wants his followers to pack some heat while they go about preaching the kingdom of God. Jerry Fallwell Jr. recently used this passage to show that Christians should arm themselves so that “we could end those Muslims before they walked in…” Better think twice before bringing your muslim friends to hear the gospel at a Liberty chapel. They may be met with the good news of Smith & Wesson before they hear about a crucified Lamb. John Piper has recently called Fallwell out for using sloppy exegesis of this passage. And Piper is right. Without further ado, here’s Jesus’s supposed command to “end those Muslims” with our guns: And he said to them, “When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?” They said, “Nothing.” He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.” And they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” And he said to them, “It is enough.” (Luke 22:35-38) So, Jesus tells them to go buy a sword, and lo and behold, two of them (probably Peter and Simon the Zealot) had swords already. “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” Jesus ends the discussion with a curious phrase: “It is enough.” Which raises the question: enough for what? This has always struck me as odd, since two swords for 11 disciples are not enough for self-defense, especially if they go out two by two as they did before. Plus, nowhere else does Jesus allow for violence in self-defense. Is Jesus now adding some footnotes to his Sermon on the Mount? A few years ago I remember searching 10 of the most respected commentators on Luke—many of whom definitely aren’t pacifists—to see if I was the only one who thought the “violent self-defense” view was a bit odd. I wasn’t. Of the 10, I found only 1 that took the self-defense view. And he didn’t give any scriptural support for this view. The late New Testament scholar I. Howard Marshall says that the command to buy a sword is “a call to be ready for hardship and self-sacrifice.” Darrell Bock says that the command to buy a sword symbolically “points to readiness and self-sufficiency, not revenge.” Catholic scholar Joseph Fitzmyer writes, “The introduction of the ‘sword’ signals” that “the Period of the Church will be marked with persecution,” which of course we see throughout the book of Acts. And the popular Reformed commentator, William Hendrickson, puts it bluntly: “The term sword must be interpreted figuratively.” As I searched and searched, I couldn’t find any credible, non-pacifist Bible scholar who argued that Luke 22 is talking about self-defense. (I’ve since found that Wayne Grudem also assumes the self-defense view, but again, with little to no biblical argument and he doesn’t wrestle with the other contextual features that go against this view.) So when Jesus tells them to buy a sword, he could be speaking figuratively about imminent persecution. According to this interpretation, when the disciples eagerly reveal that they already have two swords, they misunderstand Jesus’ figurative language (this wasn’t the first time). When Jesus sees that his disciples misunderstand him, he ends the dialogue with, “It is enough,” which means something like “enough of this conversation.” This interpretation makes good sense in light of the context. But there’s another interpretation that I think does slightly more justice to the passage. Notice that right after Jesus says “buy a sword,” he quotes Isaiah 53:12, which predicts that Jesus would be “numbered with the transgressors”(Luke 22:37). Then, the disciples reveal that they already have two swords, to which Jesus says “it is enough.” Now, Rome only crucified those who were a potential threat to the empire. For Jesus to be crucified, Rome would have to convict him as a potential revolutionary. And this is the point of the swords. With swords in their possession, Jesus and His disciples would be viewed as potential revolutionaries and Jesus would therefore fulfill Isaiah 53 to be numbered with other (revolutionary) transgressors. If Rome didn’t have any legal grounds to incriminate Jesus, there would have been no crucifixion. This interpretation makes good sense of the quote from Isaiah 53 and the flow of Jesus’s ethical teaching. Up until Luke 22, Jesus has prohibited his followers from using violence, even in self-defense. Is Jesus now changing his mind by telling his followers to use the sword in self-defense? It seems better to take his command to buy a sword as we have suggested: Jesus is providing Rome with evidence to put Him on the cross. So we could view Jesus’ command as a figurative expression about their coming suffering or as a way of ensuring His own crucifixion. Either way, it’s highly unlikely that Jesus encourages violent self-defense here. In fact, just a few verses later, Peter wields one of the two swords and Jesus rebukes him: “No more of this!” (22:51). Peter, along with some interpreters, misunderstood Jesus’s previous command to buy a sword. And remember: When Jesus rebuked Peter, it wasn’t just because Jesus needed to suffer and die. He followed up his rebuke with a categorical statement about swords (guns) and violence: “all who take the sword will perish by the sword” (Matt 26:52). Whatever you think about these two possible interpretations, every responsible interpreter must deal with (1) Jesus’s statement that “it is enough” and (2) how this event fulfills Isa 53:12. Interpretations that don’t deal with these aren’t responsible interpretations. Whatever Jesus meant by his command to buy a sword, it doesn’t seem that he intended it to be used for violence. Originally published by Preston Sprinkle at Theology in the Raw, used with permission https://theologyintheraw.com/go-buy-a-sword-luke-22-and-christian-gunslingers/

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?” (Matthew 5:41-47) We are called to actively love our enemies and do good to those who hate us. Do these words of Jesus nullify the Law? No, because the Law never commanded Israel to hate its enemies—although it only commanded them to love their neighbors (Lev 19:18). Still, there are multiple examples of love shown to enemies in the OT. We are challenged to go far beyond the minimum standard of social / familial decency (kindness to friends and family). We are to love even our enemies! The early church held to this teaching for three centuries: Justin Martyr: “We used to hate and destroy one another. We would not live with men of a different race because of their peculiar customs. However, now, since the coming of Christ, we live intimately with them. We pray for our enemies and endeavor to persuade those who hate us unjustly to live conformably to the good teachings of Christ.We do this to the end that they may become partakers with us of the same joyful hope of a reward from God, the Ruler of all.” First Apology 14. Also: “We who formerly murdered one another now refrain from making war even upon our enemies.” ANF 1.176. Clement of Alexandria: “It is not in war, but in peace, that we are trained.” ANF 2.234. Tertullian: “We willingly yield ourselves to the sword. So what wars would we not be both fit and eager to participate in (even against unequal forces), if in our religion it were not counted better to be slain than to slay?" ANF 3.45. He adds, “The Christian does no harm even to his enemy.” ANF 3.45. Cyprian: “Wars are scattered all over the earth with the bloody horror of military camps. The whole world is wet with mutual blood. And murder—which is acknowledged to be a crime in the case of an individual—is called a virtue when it is committed wholesale. Impunity is claimed for the wicked deeds, not because they are guiltless, but because the cruelty is perpetrated on a grand scale!” ANF 5.277. Lactantius: “The Christian considers it unlawful not only to commit slaughter himself, but also to be present with those who do it.” Divine Institutes ANF 7.153. Also: “How can a man be righteous who hates, who despoils, who puts to death? Yet, those who strive to be serviceable to their country do all these things. ...When they speak of the ‘duties’ relating to warfare, their speech pertains neither to justice nor to true virtue.” ANF 7.169 Aristides: “They comfort their oppressors and make them their friends. They do good to their enemies.” ANF 10.276. Origen: “We are taught not to avenge ourselves upon our enemies. We have therefore lived by laws of a mild and wise character. Although able, we would not make war even if we had received authority to do so. Therefore, we have obtained this reward from God: that He has always fought on our behalf. On various occasions, He has restrained those who rose up against us and desired to destroy us.” Against Celsus 8. Lactantius: “Torture and godliness are widely different. It is not possible for truth to be united with violence or justice to be united with cruelty. …Religion is to be defended—not by putting to death—but by dying. It is not defended by cruelty, but by patient endurance.” Divine Institutes (ANF 7.156-157). The Didache: “If you love those who hate you, you will not have an enemy.” Didache 3 Chrysostom: “You should feel grateful to an enemy on account of his wickedness. This is so even if he is evil to you after receiving from you ten thousand kindnesses. For if he were not exceedingly evil, your reward would not be significantly increased. You may say that the reason you do not love him is because he is evil. However, that is the very reason you should love him. Take away the contestant, and you take away the opportunity for the crowns.” Homilies on Hebrews 19.5. Paul taught the same: Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. ... Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good (Rom 12:14, 17-21). To illustrate, when the early Christian leader Polycarp was arrested, he first directed that food and drink be brought to the soldiers who were about to bring him to execution. Martyrdom of Polycarp 7:2 The observation of Ammianus Roman soldier and historian Ammianus Marcellinus (c.330-400 AD) noted that rival Christian parties exceeded wild beasts in their hostility toward one another! What changed in the 4th century? The state and the church become inseparably connected. From the disastrous 4th century till the present day In the fourth century, most of the Roman emperors professed to embrace Christianity. Nevertheless, they continued to kill their opponents (even family members) and to wage war—ignoring the teaching of Christ. At first, Christians refused to fight in their armies, as in earlier centuries, soldiers who became Christians refused to kill. However, in time the state church relaxed its teachings on nonresistance. Eventually, Augustine (354-430 AD) came up with a rationalization to defend both personal vengeance and war: It’s permissible to kill enemies as long as we still “love” them! As a result, fighting, killing and revenge became the norm in medieval “Christian” Europe. Professing Christians waged war against Muslims, pagans, and fellow “Christians.” They persecuted heretics (real or imagined), tortured people, and oppressed the weak in the name of God. Not surprisingly, Catholics and Reformers alike persecuted those genuine Christians who refused to go to war and who spoke out against torture and oppression. Some practicals: Act lovingly towards enemies, strangers, and people we do not like. Take some time to compare Paul’s teaching with Jesus’s. Invest in learning some early church history, and how the church embraced the teaching of the world regarding enemies. Refuse to take credit for behaving kindly and decently to friends and family. If you’re disturbed by any of these teachings, take time to pray. originally posted from Douglas Jacoby, used with permission. https://www.douglasjacoby.com/som-19-enemies/

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/

I am news reporter and communications specialist by profession, I am not a theologian or a scholar. But when I think about the peace movement of Jesus, or Jesus’ stance on non-violence, it gives me pause and honestly takes me on an interesting journey in my mind and heart. One of Isaiah’s prophesies (Isa 9:6) that points to Jesus literally calls him the Prince of Peace, right? And in the Beatitudes, he calls peacemakers blessed, saying those are the folks who will be called children of God (Matt 5:9). Jesus declares that when we become active peacemakers, we have the same heavenly Father he does. But then I think of the times that Jesus got mad. He cursed the fig tree that was flowering but not bearing fruit. Then he gets so upset he starts flipping tables and driving folks out of the temple (Mark 11:12-15). In John’s gospel, he takes the time to braid a whip to clear out the temple. So I ask myself, is that “non-violent”? As a news reporter, if I were assigned to cover this story of Jesus at the temple, I’d say this was a “violent attack at the temple by a man who had recently unleashed his anger on a fig tree”. And if I were to speak to witnesses who saw this incident, they would likely call it violent too. But is Christian pacifism the same thing as being passive? The term pacifism today carries the meaning of “having an attitude or policy of nonresistance” (Merrier-Webster Dictionary). However, the “word ‘pacifism’ is derived from the [Latin] word ‘pacific,’ which means ‘peace making’”,[1] which is not the same thing as being passive. Being passive denotes “accepting or allowing what happens or what others do, without active response or resistance” (Oxford Dictionary). Jesus was a peacemaker, but he was certainly not passive. Jesus was active in making peace. He actively made peace between people and his heavenly Father, and taught God’s image bearers to make peace with one another. It was in fact this very thing that the religious were stunned, offended, and angered with him for as he “ate with tax collectors and sinners, in hopes of getting the sick to The Doctor” (Mrk 2:17). Jesus actively removes and resists the things that destroy that peace. Here’s another thing that I find interesting, in the first chapter of Mark’s gospel, when Jesus heals the man with leprosy, in the NIV translation, verse 41 is says, “Jesus was indignant”. Other translations say “moved with anger”, while still others translate it as “moved with compassion”, or “feeling deeply sorry”. When I’m moved to want to commit an act of violence, it’s rarely because I’m moved with compassion or feeling deeply sorry. It is not to actively make peace. When I hear that a person has done something horrible to another person or animal that can’t defend themselves, I want them “to pay”. Of course, justice is Godly, but If I’m honest, what I really want most is vengeance, not peace. Or perhaps I just get frustrated in my circumstances, such as sitting in Atlanta traffic, or feel deeply offended by some insensitive and idiotic thing someone said. When this happens, I am not usually indignant, moved with compassion, or feel deeply sorry like Jesus … I simply want retribution. So as much as I’d like to justify the use of violence to “right” a “wrong”, it’s simply not the way of Jesus, who innocently died on a cross at the hands of his enemies and entrusted himself to the only one who can truly judge justly (1 Pet 2:23). Jesus, help me follow you. 1 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Pacifism”. First published Jul 6, 2006; substantive revision Sep 15, 2018, accessed March 25, 2023. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pacifism

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.

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God" (Matthew 5:9). "If most of us are honest with ourselves, we know that there are many ways in which our hearts are not at peace. We are wounded, insecure, resentful and lonely, and this restlessness within us causes us to anxiously defend our actions and opinions, to control others and to seek after their love and praise at all costs." — Jessica A. Wrobleski, "Blessed Are the Peacemakers: Living as Children of God" (Leaven, vol. 16, no. 54, 2008, p.161). Peacemaking To make peace is to pacify… Latin: Beati pacifici: quoniam filii dei vocabuntur. Greek: Makarioi hoi eirēnopoiói, hoti autoi huioi theou klēthēsontai. It’s something active, not passive. Yes, the early church was pacifist—unanimously so, in its first three centuries. They knew that fear, anger, and greed in the human heart are the causes of war. Yet biblical pacifism is not passivism—nonchalant, aloof, uninvolved. Pacifism means caring about peace in the world. Justin Martyr told the Roman emperor, “More than all other men, we are your helpers and allies in promoting peace.” — Justin Martyr, First Apology 12 (ANF 1.166). Examples of peacemaking The wise old woman of Abel (2 Sam 20:16-22). She averts destruction and carnage. The apostles (Acts 6). They come up with a plan, but entrust its execution to those most invested. The result is demographic harmony. James the brother of Jesus, at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15). Each side presents its viewpoint, they listen, and they compromise. "Troublemakers" Even if we do our best to be respectful, gentle, and diplomatic, some will still consider us Christians as troublemakers. If they rejected Jesus, they will not be happy with us, either (John 15:18). Tertullus the lawyer accuses Paul in front of governor Felix: “For we have found this man a plague, one who stirs up riots among all the Jews throughout the world and is a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes” (Acts 24:5). "If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all" (Romans 12:18). Yet peace is not the ultimate goal, since the truth divides (Matt 10:34). Application Don't actively seek a quarrel, behave insensitively, or sow seeds of dissension. Followers of Christ take no pleasure in controversy, or in proving others wrong. No triumphalist spirit. Reject ideology and groups that promote violence. Jesus as peacemaker: Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword" (Matthew 26:52). When leaders are behaving egotistically or in ways that hurt Christian unity, speak up. Jesus intervened when his own apostles were arrogant and jockeyed for position. Paul spoke up when Peter crossed the line (Galatians 2:11). Allow for a certain level of disagreement. Sometimes good-hearted (and intelligent) Christians will disagree. 1 Cor 1:10 isn’t calling for uniformity of thought so much as unity of heart. Let's watch ourselves: Peace is ruined by insisting on our own way. Or by arrogance: “It is not bigotry to be certain we are right, but it is bigotry to be unable to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong.” – Chesterton Jesus expected us to do our best to work through disagreement—without acrimony (Matt 5:25-26; 18:15-20). Let's demonstrate the peace of Christ in our hearts! Douglas Jacoby, used with permission: https://www.douglasjacoby.com/som-08-peacemaking/

Jon Sherwood preaches through Mat 5:21-48, the "6 antitheses" of Jesus' sermon on the mount. In particular he discusses the upside down nature of God's kingdom of peace and non-violence. Originally published by Jon Sherwood, used with permission: https://www.jonsherwood.com/post/the-kingdom-of-god-a-kingdom-of-peace

In a sermon series through the book of Revelation, Jon Sherwood looks at how Revelation critiques power, especially of that between Jesus and Babylon, and what that has to do with us today in America. Originally published by Jon Sherwood, used with permission: https://www.jonsherwood.com/post/the-apocalypse-critique-of-power

In a sermon series through the book of Revelation, Jon Sherwood calls for the church to remain separate from "the beast" and applies it to modern America and its civil religion. Originally by Jon Sherwood, used with permission: https://www.jonsherwood.com/post/the-apocalypse-civil-and-uncivil-worship