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

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

Lecture by Dr. Douglas Jacoby, Harvard University 2013 Observations O.T. Church-state. Although priesthood and monarchy were separate, Israel was a “church-state.” Citizens were covenant members. Messianic expectation: political, economic, military. Lion of the tribe of Judah > Lamb that was slain. The teaching of Christ Isaiah 2:4 (Micah 4:3), 9:6, 52:13-53:12—Interpretations of the victorious Messiah Matthew 4:17 etc.—Kingdom of God as rival government Matthew 5:21-26,38-48; Romans 12:14-13:7—Love for enemies Antenicene Christianity: Good citizens: Paid taxes; prayed for government officials; engaged in social work. Counter-cultural: distanced themselves from (idolatrous) sacrifices; civic events; violence. Early Medieval Christendom: Legislating morality Persecuted becomes persecutor. “No wild beasts are such enemies to mankind as are the majority of Christians in their deadly hatred of one another.”– Ammianus (4th C.) State church: mandatory christening; clergy employed by government; churches exempt from taxes; magistrates enforce church decrees & doctrine; non-conformity (heresy) = sedition (political); militarism; civic duty and Christian duty coalesce. Later Christendom: Forced baptism, Crusades, Inquisition, armed bishops (personal armies) Reformation & dissent: Mainstream Reformation vs. the Radical Reformation (Anabaptists) Pacifist reaction: Quakers, Amish, Mennonites, Brethren, Churches of Christ (until 1917/1918) The American experience: John Winthrop’s “City upon a hill” (1630); American Civil Religion; the political right; pro-Israel sentiment; equation of Christianity with (American) democratic capitalism. Violent apocalypticism: Doctrine of the Tribulation; Armageddon and survivalists. “We, while the stars from heaven shall fall / And mountains on mountains are hurled / Shall stand unmoved amidst them all /And smile to see a burning world.”– Millerite hymn, 1843 Implications The place of the state Oaths of allegiance Warfare Business ethics (exploitation) Gentleness (driving, language, courtesy, aggressive activism) Entertainment (violent themes) Medical ethics (abortion, euthanasia, definition of life…) Litigation Nationalism. (U.S. nationalism: revolution, slavery, decimation of indigenous peoples) A moral and ethical trajectory? Originally posted at Douglas Jacoby, used with permission https://www.douglasjacoby.com/jesus-christ-prince-of-peace-or-god-of-war-douglas-jacoby/

Question: I am considering a job offer from a company whose parent company is involved in the weapons industry. This obviously raised some questions for me as a Christian. On the one hand, Jesus' teaching and lifestyle were in general pacifistic (e.g. Matt 5:38-48 -- which includes prohibition of killing). On the other hand, Peter and Paul identify official authority as instituted by God to protect "good" and punish "evil" (Rom 13:3-4; 1 Pet 2:13-14). Further, Jesus allows his disciples to bear and even to use the sword (Luke 22:36; John 18:10), at least for self defense (Luke 22:36; John 18:10). He also cleansed the temple of traders and animals by means of a whip (John 2:15). So my provisional conclusion: God teaches me to be a total pacifist on a relationship level (social life), but on the state level He allows me the use of power to protect the innocent and to combat evil. What do you say? Whether the Lord deals with us on two levels remains to be demonstrated, yet overall I agree: you are right to think hard before making your decision. In my opinion, we need to keep our distance from weapons manufacturing. If my professional contributions were directly financing warfare, I'd resign. (I'm not normally a squeamish or particularly sentimental person, but I cannot imagine Jesus creating mines, chemical weapons, bioweapons, or nuclear devices and many going ahead to buy guns & ammo from Palmetto Armory to be used against my brothers and sisters -- let alone on those who are not ready to meet the Lord.) But if they weren’t directly supporting war, I would probably try to remain. Further thoughts: Peter and Paul identify official authority as instituted by God to protect good and punish evil, yet this has nothing to do with whether Christians may resort to violence. Peter and Paul are referring to the government. (There is no such thing as a Christian government, since governments rely on coercion, and disciples of Christ are not allowed to coerce anyone -- even their enemies.) As for bearing the sword for self-defense, Jesus rebuked Peter for drawing the sword, even when Peter was attempting to protect an innocent person (Jesus)! Further, if he was advocating bearing arms, two swords would be way too few for the Twelve! A likely reason Jesus told the disciples to get swords was so that they would become the “transgressors” among whom he would be counted, and thus fulfill Scripture (Luke 22:36-38). Jesus was not happy when Peter used the sword. Or he may have beensaying something like “From now on, you will be in danger.” When his disciples took him literally, he said “Enough!” (They did often misunderstand the Lord when they took him literally, didn't they?) Jesus did cleanse the temple by means of a whip, yet there's no indication he attacked people. Nor that he hurt anyone. This was not a Roman cat-o'-nine tails (used for scourging). The text in John 2:15 indicates that the whip was readied for sheep and cattle only. Jesus' action of wielding the whip may have scared the humans away, however. God could be teaching pacifism on a relationship level (social life), yet not on an official or state level, only if the teaching of Martin Luther is correct. He taught that each Christian is really two persons, one standing before God as a follower of Christ's commands, the other a representative of the state, who is not required to follow Jesus' teaching in Matt 5 and elsewhere. But biblically we are only one person. If the government tells you to assassinate someone, or to sleep with a double-agents’s wife in order to extract state secrets, or torture its enemies, you must refuse — as did the early church (unanimously) until the 4th century. God could be teaching pacifism on a relationship level (social life), yet not on an official or state level, only if the teaching of Martin Luther is correct. He taught that each Christian is really two persons, one standing before God as a follower of Christ's commands, the other a representative of the state, who is not required to follow Jesus' teaching in Matt 5 and elsewhere There is a secondary problem with Christians fighting: "Which side to fight on?” God has supported “righteous” nations against the “unrighteous” (Israel against Canaan), just as he has supported the “wicked” against the “less wicked” (Babylon against Israel). Since God has given no modern nation a covenant commitment to fight a holy war, we would end up with disciples slaying disciples -- on both sides! The church's position on military service was simple: No idolatry, no oaths (like swearing to the genius of Caesar), and no killing. Otherwise one had to resign—even if it meant execution. National service may not be required in the U.S., but as you know it is required in many nations. As long as one can serve without sinning (immorality, profanity, killing, drunkenness…) there is no biblical problem. Along these lines, someone already serving in the military, or as a police officer, or other armed profession, need not resign as long as he / she is determined to obey God. This also explains, I think, why a fellow like Cornelius wasn’t told to resign when he heard the gospel (Acts 10). I think it doubtful he was killing, or in charge off killing, at the time Peter met him. The Roman army did occasionally fight, but during the Pax Romana (which includes the 1st and 2nd centuries) it was more a peacekeeping (police) force, whose primary duties included building roads. It is clear from church history when the church sanctioned violence. The change began with Constantine (d.337) — violence among church people steadily increasing until Augustine and Ambrose formulated “Just War Theory” to legitimize violence (which itself implies that military violence was a novelty). God's people under the new covenant had been unanimously pacifist for their first 300 years. It is only in the 4th century that we find Christians permitting killing. Note: Pacifism, working for peace by modeling the behavior of Christ (loving service, reconciliation, prayer, and so forth) should not be confused with passivism, which is selfishly doing nothing. Sadly, the disastrous fourth century saw peaceful disciples turn into persons of violence; the persecuted became the persecutor (!). Within a few generations, Christians were participating in riots, vandalism, lawsuits, killing, and dozens other behaviors that discredited the gospel and dishonored Christ. originally posted from Douglas Jacoby, used with permission. https://www.douglasjacoby.com/qa-1461-should-i-work-for-a-company-producing-weapons/

"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/

What if Jesus meant every word he said? Dean Taylor is president of Sattler College in Boston and author of A Change of Allegiance, a book that chronicles his journey of faith to wrestle with the question, "what if Jesus meant every word he said?" While a soldier in the United States Army, Dean wrestled with the idea of Christian nationalism as he and his wife sat in the bunks reading their Bible every night. They simply couldn't get past Jesus' abundantly clear teaching to love your enemy. What if Jesus really meant every word he said ... Referenced Just War Debate: "It's Just War" : https://youtu.be/K4xQaDDKY7k

I agree about how we are to treat our enemies as Christians. I suppose the whole concept of "freedom" from oppression or bondage means one experiences some violence of some sort. But how would Christian Europe protect or rid itself of Nazism if not by violence? Is it practical to do a "Gandhi" in all cases? What if the other cheek is "crushed" -- do we turn to the other to get "crushed" also? I do wrestle with this issue. We cannot be certain a "Gandhi" would have worked against Hitler. However, what governments do is very different to what individual Christians do. (You and I are not states, are we?) The ancient church believed that their prayers were of far greater value against the enemy than killing. So, even if all true Christians refused to kill Nazis, that doesn't mean Hitler would have won. Almost the same number of people would still have fought on the Allied side. But the war might have been shorter! (What a thought!) originally posted from Douglas Jacoby, used with permission. https://www.douglasjacoby.com/q-a-1121-pacifism-would-have-empowered-hitler/

Excerpt taken from The Kingdom of God, Volume 3: Learning War No More by Tom A. Jones, used with permission As we pursue Kingdom living and obedience to Jesus, our ultimate authority is found in his words and the words of Scripture. However, church history is still a useful tool. And so, we ask, what do we find about Christians and the military in the times closest to Jesus’ life—the second and third century centuries? Do we find that those Christians in the first two or three centuries really embraced the principle of peace or did they soon depart from this most impractical way of living? Was it found to be an impossible ethic? Fortunately, we have the works of those we often call the church fathers. These leaders left us with writings and teachings on a variety of subjects including the one we are addressing in this book. The Roman Empire had a powerful world presence, and a robust military was a key to their success. The early church grew and spread in this environment. The invasion of the Kingdom of God clashed with the power of Rome on many points, and the works of the church fathers illustrate that Kingdom ideas about enemies and the military were in sharp contrast with those of the empire. We can agree that these believers were not writing Scripture. We are not basing our lives and the practice of our churches on Justin, Clement, Tertullian or Origen. They believed and taught some things that I do not believe and will not teach today. So, why does it matter what they taught and did regarding soldiering and war? Let us say clearly that it is not enough for us to be Christian pacifists because that is what the church of the first three centuries taught and practiced. We should only take that position if it fits with the message of Jesus and is a part of living out his Kingdom in the here and now. However, I find it significant that in a violent world where they were often the object of the violence, Christians of the first three hundred years held on to this non-violent message and only gave it up when their faith and the politics of this world, with its “wisdom,” were mixed together beginning with the emperor Constantine who brought church and empire together in an unholy alliance. In some cases, it appears the early church made decisions for worldly reasons. In this case, where the church held to non-violence, it seems clear that they made this decision purely because they were seeking to be faithful to Jesus as Lord and to do God’s will on earth as it is in heaven. There was no earthly reason and no argument from philosophy that would have led them to this commitment. It appeared weak, foolish and irrational. It was ridiculed. But when the world’s wisdom and God’s wisdom clashed, they held on to the “foolishness” of God’s wisdom—at least in this case. Quite often the early church writers put the emphasis on Jesus’ words of peace, non-resistance and enemy-love from the Sermon on the Mount. At other times they quote from Isaiah (or Micah) about swords being transformed into plowshares to show that the Kingdom life is oriented towards peace. One of the earliest extra-biblical Christian works actually is from the late part of the first century and is known as the Didache, or by its other title, The Teachings of the Twelve Apostles. We don’t know its author (or authors) but scholars date it between 80 and 90 AD. The opening words of this echo the words of Jesus in Matthew’s gospel and we can see that the church was putting front and center Jesus’ challenging teaching about how to treat an enemy. “This is the way of life: first, you shall love the God who made you, secondly, your neighbor as yourself: and all things whatsoever you would not should happen to you, do not thou to another. The teaching of these words is this: Bless those who curse you, and pray for your enemies, and fast on behalf of those who persecute you: for what thanks will be due to you, if you love only those who love you? Do not the Gentiles also do the same? But love those who hate you, and you shall not have an enemy.” [1] Clement of Alexandria writing about 195 AD, said, “He bids us to ‘love our enemies, bless those who curse us, and pray for those who despitefully use us.’ He elaborates on Jesus’ words when he writes, ‘If anyone strikes you on the one cheek, turn to him the other also, and if anyone takes away your coat, do not hinder him from taking your cloak also.’ An enemy must be aided so that he may not continue as an enemy. For by help, good feeling is compacted and enmity dissolved.” [2] Justin Martyr (100AD – 165AD) was born in Palestine, but died for his faith in Rome. He alludes to Isaiah 2 when he says, “We ourselves were well conversant with war, murder and everything evil, but all of us throughout the whole wide earth have traded in our weapons of war. We have exchanged our swords for plowshares, our spears for farm tools. Now we cultivate the fear of God, justice, kindness, faith, and the expectation of the future given us through the Crucified One…. The more we are persecuted and martyred, the more do others in ever increasing numbers become believers.” Later he added: “We who formerly treasured money and possessions more than anything else, now hand over everything we have to a treasury for all and share it with everyone who needs it. We who formerly hated and murdered one another now live together and share the same table. We pray for our enemies and try to win those who hate us.”[3] One of the more interesting documents that we have from the late 100s or early 200s is something known as the Apostolic . Most scholars believe it is written by Hippolytus of Rome (170 – 236) and it is basically a manual for church life including instructions about worship. It contains this passage that is relevant for us: “The professions and trades of those who are going to be accepted into the community must be examined. The nature and type of each must be established.” Then is listed different professions that must be given up by Christians, including: keeper of a brothel, sculptor of idols, charioteer, athlete, gladiator, and each time it states “give it up or be rejected.” Then we have this: “A military constable must be forbidden to kill, neither may he swear; if he is not willing to follow these instructions, he must be rejected. A proconsul or magistrate who wears the purple and governs by the sword shall give it up or be rejected.” And then a bit later he writes: “Anyone taking part in baptismal instruction or already baptized who wants to become a soldier shall be sent away, for he has despised God.” Another version of this document adds this: “A soldier in the sovereign’s army should not kill or if he is ordered to kill, he should refuse. If he stops, so be it; otherwise, he should be excluded.” Other practices that are then listed as unacceptable: prostitute, sodomite, magician, and soothsayer. All these must be given up.” [4] Preston Sprinkle argues that the Apostolic Traditions is important because it shows us what was going on down at the local church level and not just what was being taught by the church theologians. [5] Cyprian (200 –258), who was the bishop of Carthage in North Africa compared killing in war with murder with this pointed comment: “We are scattered over the whole 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 wholesale. Impunity is claimed for wicked deeds, not because they are guiltless—but because the cruelty is perpetrated on a grand scale!”[6] For Cyprian, as for most early church writers and leaders, the problem was killing, and he found it odd that killing an individual in daily life is universally rejected while the wholesale killing that goes on in war is exalted. In another place he addressed the enemies of the faith: “None of us offers resistance when he is seized, or avenges himself for your unjust violence, although our people are numerous and plentiful…it is not lawful for us to hate, and so we please God more when we render no requital for injury…We repay your hatred with kindness.”[7] In this, he found the uniqueness of Jesus’ ethic. 1 Didache, I, 2-3 2 David Bercot, editor, A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishing, 1998), 677. Unless otherwise noted all quotes from the early Christian writers will be from this volume which quotes from the Anti-Nicene Fathers which is also published by Hendrickson Publishing. 3 Bercot, A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, 676. 4 Eberhard Arnold, editor, The Early Christians in Their Own Words (Walden, NY: Plough Publishing, 1997), 90. 5 Sprinkle, Preston. Fight: A Christian Case for Non-Violence (Elgin, Illinois: David C. Cook, 2017) Kindle Location 3143-3165. 6 Bercot, A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, 680. 7 Testamonia, iii, 106.

Excerpt taken from The Kingdom of God, Volume 3: Learning War No More by Tom A. Jones, used with permission Tertullian (160 –220) was raised by pagan parents, and he did not become a Christian until sometime in his late thirties or early forties. Nevertheless, he became one of the most prolific writers in the early church. He is sometimes called the “Father of Western Theology” and the “The Father of Latin Christianity.” He was the first of these leaders to write most of his works in Latin. He eventually left the mainstream church and became part of the Montanist movement because he felt the majority was turning in a worldly direction. Particularly after he joined the Montanists, he wrote much about the need for Christians to avoid war. He wrote an entire treatise titled The Crown, in which he spelled out the Christian case against military involvement. Here is a sampling of the points that he made in that work and in other writings: “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.” [1] “Only without the sword can the Christian wage war: the Lord has abolished the sword. Christ, in disarming Peter, disarmed every soldier.” [2] “But now inquiry is being made concerning these issues. First, can any believer enlist in the military? Second, can any soldier, even those of the rank and file or lesser grades who neither engage in pagan sacrifices nor capital punishment, be admitted into the church? No on both counts—for there is no agreement between the divine sacrament and the human sacrament, the standard of Christ and the standard of the devil, the camp of light and the camp of darkness. One soul cannot serve two masters—God and Caesar…But how will a Christian engage in war (indeed, how will a Christian even engage in military service during peacetime) without the sword, which the Lord has taken away?” [3] “Shall it be held lawful to make an occupation of the sword, when the Lord proclaims that he who uses the sword shall perish by the sword? And shall the son of peace take part in the battle when it does not become him even to sue at law?” [4] “Will those who are forbidden to engage in a lawsuit espouse the deeds of war? Will a Christian who is told to turn the other cheek when struck unjustly, guard prisoners in chains, and administer torture and capital punishment?” [5] Tertullian’s arguments revolved around three points: (1) Jesus’ command for us to love enemies, (2) Jesus’ call for Peter to put down the sword while condemning those who lived by the sword, and (3) Jesus’ overall ethic involving non-resistance and non-retaliation. Sometimes it is said that Tertullian and other writers were mainly concerned about the idolatry that was a consistent part of Roman military experience—something that would not be found in the military today. There is no doubt that this was a concern, and Tertullian addresses that in The Crown and in On Idolatry, but from the quotes we have here, we can see that his objections to the military were not limited to that concern. Some who don’t believe Tertullian to be useful in this discussion often point out that he also forbids a Christian to be a schoolmaster, a teacher of literature, a seller of frankincense, and that he condemns all forms of painting, modelling and sculpture. The argument is if he was wrong about these, then he was also wrong about the military. However, one must consider how biblically based was his critique of military service while his condemnation of other things was more based on his general concern for how far the church was drifting in worldly directions. Origen (185–254 ) was even more prolific than Tertullian, writing an astonishing 2,000 plus treatises on nearly every biblical subject imaginable. His works contain a great many comments related to our topic. Here are some of those: “Yet Christ nowhere teaches that it is right for his 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 for the killing of any individual whomever for his laws are derived from a Divine source ... For his laws do not allow them on any occasion to resist their persecutors even when it is their fate to be slain as sheep.” [6] “To those who ask us whence we have come or whom we have for a leader, we say that we have come in accordance with the counsels of Jesus to cut down our warlike and arrogant swords of argument into ploughshares, and we convert into sickles the spears we formerly used in fighting. For we no longer take ‘sword against a nation,’ nor do we learn ‘any more to make war,’ having become sons of peace for the sake of Jesus, who is our leader, instead of following the ancestral customs in which we were strangers to the covenants.” [7] “To this our answer is, we do give help to Kings when needed. But this is so to speak, a Divine help, ‘putting on the whole armor of God.’” Origin then mentions Paul's command for us to pray for those in authority and ends with this statement: “This is a greater help than what is done by soldiers who go forth to kill as many of the enemy as they can.” [8] “How was it possible for the gospel doctrine of peace to prevail throughout the world? For it does not permit men to take vengeance even on their enemies.” [9] The man who has been described as “the greatest genius the early church ever produced” consistently opposed Christian participation in military activities. He was tortured for his faith during the Decian persecution in 250 and died three to four years later from his injuries. Lactantius (c.250–c.325) is our main example of a church father whose early writing occurred before Constantine and his later work after the edict of Constantine in the new era when the Christian Church was viewed favorably by the empire. In his Divine Institutes, written in the earlier period, he makes as strong a statement as we can find, writing, “It is not right for a just man to serve in the army . . . Nor is it right for a just man to charge someone with a capital crime. It does not matter whether you kill a man with the sword or with a word, since it is killing itself that is prohibited. So, there must be no exception to this command of God. Killing a human being whom God willed to be inviolable [some translations: “a sacred animal”] is always wrong.” [10] After Constantine experiences his “conversion” and gives the edict legalizing Christianity, he asked Lactantius to become his spiritual advisor, tutor his son, and help shape the church’s relationship to the empire. At some point we find Lactantius changing his posture. In his Epitome, he writes: “Just as courage is good, if you are fighting for your country but evil if you are rebelling against it, so too with the emotions. If you use them for good ends, they will be virtues; if for evil ends, they will be called vices.” [11] In other places we see that he no longer opposed all violence. Pacifists see this as an example of letting politics take priority over conviction. They see how gaining power has a corrupting effect and here is an example of what happened to the church in general in the era of Constantine. Others argue he was just faithfully adapting to new circumstances. So, what is our conclusion? First, there is a united message from the church fathers of the first three centuries that the disciple of Jesus does not kill his enemy, but loves him. Let’s hear from Roland Bainton, the renowned church historian. In his Christian Attitudes toward War and Peace, he has a chapter titled “The Pacifism of the Early Church,” where he makes the following assertion: “The three Christian positions with regard to war . . . matured in chronological sequence, moving from pacifism to the just war to the Crusade. The age of persecution down to the time of Constantine was the age of pacifism to the degree that during this period no Christian author to our knowledge approved of Christian participation in battle.” [12] 1 Bercot, A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, 677. 2 Bercot, 677. 3 Tertullian, De idololatria (Anti-Nicene Fathers 3:73). 4 Bercot, A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, 678. 5 Bercot, 678. 6 Bercot, 678. 7 Bercot, 678. 8 Bercot, 679. 9 Bercot, 678. 10 Bercot, 681. 11 Epitome of the Divine Institutes, Chapter 61. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0702.htm. 12 Roland H. Bainton, Christian Attitudes toward War and Peace (New York, Abington, 1960), 66.

Excerpt taken from The Kingdom of God, Volume 3: Learning War No More by Tom A. Jones, used with permission From my study it seems that the first notable Christian writer who explicitly gives approval to Christian soldiering and killing is Athenasius (296–373), who is often called “the Father of Orthodoxy.” All his writings took place well into the Constantinian era, with his first treatise being done in 319. In his Letter 48 he states, “It is not right to kill, yet in war it is lawful and praiseworthy to destroy the enemy; accordingly, not only are they who have distinguished themselves in the field held worthy of great honors, but monuments are put up proclaiming their achievements. So that the same act is at one time and under some circumstances unlawful, while under others, and at the right time, it is lawful and permissible.” While in the Constantinian Era most church leaders came to support this view of Athenasius, there were some who continued to oppose military service. But gradually, there were fewer and fewer who agreed with this pacifist position. After Jesus, we have the Didache, Justin Martyr, and Clement of Alexander, saying, follow Jesus and “love your enemies and pray for them.” Then later—but not until well into the fourth century—we have a leader of the church saying it is praiseworthy to destroy the enemy. The United States of America has been a country for two-hundred and forty-three years. To those of us who live here, we sense that this a long time. Yet, for almost three hundred years Christians taught that they were to love their enemies and not kill them. But then came a great shift—what scholars call the Constantinian Shift. The emperor began to befriend the church and most church leaders began to embrace the empire, including its war machine. Second, we need to be transparent about the fact that there were Christians who were in the Roman army during the first three centuries. A story, describing events from about 173, appears in Cassius Dio’s Roman History describing the seemingly miraculous rescue of a Roman legion. As the story spread, credit was given, at least by some, to the prayers of Christian soldiers. This is the story of the so-called “Thundering Legion,” whose enemy was supposedly driven away by the sudden appearance of a violent thunderstorm. Tertullian wrote his The Crown because of a story he had heard about a soldier who was a Christian and who was eventually put to death. Tertullian indicates this soldier was not the only Christian in that force. There are a number of indications that Christians joined the army between 175 and 313, but there are many who say that this was part of a broader moral laxness that began to permeate the church. The persecution of Christians under Diocletian (who became Emperor in 284 and initiated the persecution in 303) is known to have begun in the army. Before he moved on to the general population, he wanted to be sure that all Christians had been purged from the military, clear evidence of the presence of believers in the army of the empire. However, the presence of confessing Christians in the army is no more an argument against the pacifism of the early church than the presence of sexual immorality in the church in Corinth was an argument against the first century church’s teaching on sexual purity. Just because certain individuals did not live out the message that was taught does not nullify the fact that the message was taught. The church regularly fails to live up to its teaching. I have to admit that I am perplexed when people supportive of the pro-military position seem eager to discount the value of the early church writers, and yet, want emphasize, that there were Christians in the army in the second and third centuries. Seems to me that you can’t have it both ways. Third, we can conclude that while Christian practice was not always consistent, the normal posture in the early church was one of pacifism until the time of Constantine. We see that there was a unified message from the leading teachers in the church. We have no writer or leader in almost three hundred years who approved of violence. However, even the early church’s critics show us the believers took a pacifist position. Celsus, a Greek philosopher writing about 178, attacked the church for its practice of not serving in the army, arguing that if all people did as the Christians, the emperor would be deserted and his realm would fall prey to savages and barbarians. (By the way, that is still an argument used against Christian pacifists today.) We know as much about Celsus as we do because later Origen would respond to his various attacks including this one. Some of the quotes from Origen mentioned earlier were in reply to this very point. While there were exceptions, the Christian movement was known for its commitment to peace, non-resistance and non-violence, and that stance greatly troubled an opponent like Celsus. While the early church leaders were united in their message of enemy-love and non-violence, the Christian world has been equally united for the last seventeen hundred years in defending Christians who train for and go to war. Only here and there have small minorities resisted this idea and they have often been regarded as rather odd. It should, however, be said that in recent decades, there has been a resurgence of support for the pacifist view outside the traditional “peace churches.” For our purposes, it is important to note that this development has been closely linked to greater emphasis on Jesus’ Kingdom teaching. Following Constantine, the idea of “just war” was adopted and has been the flag under which many have gone off to fight for centuries, more often than not against other “Christians.” We will examine that theory or teaching in the following chapter. Before we turn to that historical shift, I would leave us with this question: Do we find anything in the teachings of Jesus and his gospel of the Kingdom that would cause us to move away from the pacifist teaching that we find in the second and third century church leaders? At least at this point, were they showing us how to live out the teachings of Jesus in this present age?

This is an ongoing list of recommended books on the topics of Christian nonviolence, nationalism, and the kingdom of God. Where to Start: Cramer, David C., Myles Werntz. A Field Guide to Christian Nonviolence: Key Thinkers, Activists, and Movements for the Gospel of Peace. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2022. Jones, Tom A. The Kingdom of God - Volume 3: Learn War No More. Illumination Publishers, 2020. Sprinkle, Preston. Nonviolence: The Revolutionary Way of Jesus. Colorado Springs: David C. Cook, 2021. Wink, Walter. The Powers That Be: Theology for a New Millennium. New York: Galilee, 1999. God and Government / Christian Nationalism: Atwood, James E. America and Its Guns: A Theological Exposé. Eugene: Cascade Books, 2012. Atwood, James E. Collateral Damage: Changing the Conversation About Firearms and Faith. Harrisonburg: Herald Press, 2019. Atwood, James E. Gundamentalism and Where It Is Taking America. Eugene: Cascade Books, 2017. Boyd, Gregory A. The Myth of a Christian Nation: How the Quest for Political Power Is Destroying the Church. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005. Budde, Michael, L. Foolishness to Gentiles: Essays on Empire, Nationalism, and Discipleship. Eugene: Cascade Books, 2022. Burns, Michael. Escaping the Beast: Politics, Allegiance, and Kingdom. Illumination Publishers, 2020. Campbell, Constantine, R. Jesus v. Evangelicals: A Biblical Critique of a Wayward Movement. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2023. Du Mez, Kristin Kobes. Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation. New York: Liveright Publishing, 2021. Hauerwas, Stanley. War and the American Difference: Theological Reflections of Violence and National Identity. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011. Hicks, John Mark (ed.). Resisting Babel: Allegiance to God and the Problem of Government. ACU Press, 2020. Hughes, Richard T. Myths America Lives By: White Supremacy and the Stories that Give us Meaning. Second Edition. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2018. Saiya, Nilay. The Global Politics of Jesus: A Christian Case for Church-State Separation. New York: Oxford University Press, 2022. Whitten, Mark Weldon. The Myth of Christian America: What Your Need to Know About the Separation of Church and State. Macon: Smyth & Helwys Publishing, 1999. Yoder, John Howard. The Politics of Jesus. 2d Edition. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1994. Historical Christian Nonviolence: Bainton, Roland H. Christian Attitudes Toward War and Peace: A Historical Survey and Critical Re-Evaluation. Abingdon Press, 1979. Gorman, Michael J. Abortion & the Early Church: Christian, Jewish & Pagan Attitudes in the Greco-Roman World. Eugene: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1998. Hornus, Jean-Michael. It Is Not Lawful for Me to Fight: Early Christian Attitudes toward War, Violence, and the State. Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2009. Hurtado, Larry W. Destroyer of the Gods: Early Christian Distinctiveness in the Roman World. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2016. Kalantzis, George, Caesar and the Lamb: Early Christian Attitudes on War and Military Service. Eugene; Cascade Books, 2012. Kreider, Alan, The Patient Ferment of the Early Church: The Improbable Rise of Christianity in the Roman Empire. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2016. Sider, Ronald J. The Early Church on Killing: A Comprehensive Sourcebook on War, Abortion, and Capital Punishment. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012. ____ For an extensive bibliography on the subject, see here.

A lot has changed in 2000 years. The earliest followers of Jesus started out with a strong emphasis on nonviolence and peacemaking for a few hundred years after the death and resurrection of Christ. However, some 1700 years later it has evolved (or devolved) to the point where some of the most ardent supporters of military power are evangelicals - those seemingly carrying the torch for Christian faith in the 21st century. Even among serious followers of Jesus, his teaching to turn the other cheek and do good to those who would harm you (Mat 5:38-48) is often anemic. When we look at the church today, when we look at all the content that saturates the internet, we tend to find very little mention of the subject. It is remarkable when you open the New Testament and begin to turn the pages, the first time you come to a command to love, it is not only to love your neighbor, but to love your enemies. Jesus’ manifesto on the kingdom of God that we call the "Sermon on the Mount" (Mat 5-7), teaches what it looks like when someone lives in this new Kingdom ... this age-to-come-breaking-in-now Kingdom. Jesus said the kingdom of God was marked by those who were willing to love, even their enemies and those that hurt them ... then he modeled it with his own life. If this teaching was only found in the Gospels that would surely be enough, but Paul echoes this message when he writes his letter to Christians in Rome as well. In the city that was the epicenter of an empire that dominated the known world — often with brutal force, he says, “Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse ... If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” (Rom 12:14, 20-21). There is ample evidence that for nearly the first 300 years of the Christian movement, followers of Jesus, whose numbers continued to grow, kept their focus on these ideas. In fact, it was what they were most known for by outsiders. The theme of peace and violence come up frequently in the writings of prominent leaders in the early church. By comparison, the United States is roughly 250 years old — so for 50 years longer than the United States has existed, early Christians held onto a nonviolent way of being while living in an unmistakably violent culture. They believed it was fundamental to what it meant to live in God’s kingdom. Today, it is common for many Christians to tell you that this is not a subject they have given much thought to. Often there is an implicit theology and belief system about the use of violence that has not been thoroughly examined. This is why Jesus Peace Collective exists. The Jesus Peace Collective seeks to humbly help us examine, to journey together with Jesus, following the Prince of Peace and learning to become peacemakers, "for they will be called children of God" (Mat 5:9). Jesus Peace Collective desires that disciples of Jesus look further into what he taught and how he lived on topics such as war, enemies, and violence; as well as peacemaking, love, forgiveness, and mercy. Jesus Peace Collective seeks to be a resource and community that helps disciples of Jesus in their calling to live as nonviolent agents of peacemaking in the world. Peace, in and through him.