Ken Butigan teaches in the Peace, Justice and Conflict Studies Program at DePaul University. His doctoral work explores nonviolence in five religious traditions. For three decades, he has been a change-maker in a series of justice and peace movements, including campaigns focused on homelessness, nuclear weapons and the U.S. war in Iraq. Since 1990, he has worked with Pace e Bene Nonviolence Service, a nonprofit aimed at mainstreaming peacemaking, where he has led workshops and trainings for thousands of people. In 2014, he helped launch Pace e Bene’s “Campaign Nonviolence,” a long-term movement to foster a culture free from war, poverty, racism, environmental destruction and the epidemic of violence. He has published a series of books, including “Pilgrimage Through a Burning World: Spiritual Practice and Nonviolent Protest at the Nevada Test Site.” He lives in Chicago with his spouse Cynthia Okayama Dopke and their daughter Leah.

Nonviolence should be the dominant rhythm of Christianity, but it's not. In this short talk at the Q Conference 2016, Preston Sprinkle makes a case for Christian nonviolence while living in a profound militarized society.

How does Jesus’ teaching to turn the other cheek stand up to the reality of evil? You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you. (Matt. 5:38–42) The right way to requite evil, according to Jesus, is not to resist it. We are concerned not with evil in the abstract, but with the evil  person.  Jesus bluntly calls the evil person evil. If I am assailed, I am not to condone or justify aggression. Patient endurance of evil does not mean a recognition of its rights. That is sheer sentimentality, and Jesus will have nothing to do with it. The shameful assault, the deed of violence, and the act of exploitation are still evil. The disciple must realize this, and bear witness to it as Jesus did, just because this is the only way evil can be met and overcome. The very fact that the evil which assaults him is unjustifiable makes it imperative that he should not resist it, but play it out and overcome it by patiently enduring the evil person. Suffering willingly endured is stronger than evil; it spells death to evil. There is no deed on earth so outrageous as to justify a different attitude. The worse the evil, the readier must the Christian be to suffer; he must let the evil person fall into Jesus’ hands.  The Reformers … distinguished between personal sufferings and those incurred by Christians in the performance of duty as bearers of an office ordained by God, maintaining that the precept of nonviolence applies to the first but not to the second. In the second case we are not only freed from obligation to eschew violence, but if we want to act in a genuine spirit of love we must do the very opposite, and meet force with force in order to check the assault of evil. It was along these lines that the Reformers justified war and other legal sanctions against evil. But this distinction between person and office is totally alien to the teaching of Jesus. He says nothing about that. He addresses his disciples as men who have left all to follow him, and the precept of nonviolence applies equally to private life and official duty. He is the Lord of all life, and demands undivided allegiance. Furthermore, when it comes to practice, this distinction raises insoluble difficulties. Am I ever acting only as a private person or only in an official capacity? If I am attacked am I not at once the father of my children, the pastor of my flock, and e.g. a government official? Am I not bound for that very reason to defend myself against every attack, for reason of responsibility to my office? And am I not also always an individual, face to face with Jesus, even in the performance of my official duties? Am I not therefore obliged to resist every attack just because of my responsibility for my office? Is it right to forget that the follower of Jesus is always utterly alone, always the individual, who in the last resort can only decide and act for himself? Don’t we act most responsibly on behalf of those entrusted to our care if we act in this aloneness? How then can the precept of Jesus be justified in the light of experience? It is obvious that weakness and defenselessness only invite aggression. Is then the demand of Jesus nothing but an impracticable ideal? Does he refuse to face up to realities – or shall we say, to the sin of the world? There may of course be a legitimate place for such an ideal in the inner life of the Christian community, but in the outside world such an ideal appears to wear the blinkers of perfectionism and to take no account of sin. Living as we do in a world of sin and evil, we can have no truck with anything as impracticable as that. Jesus, however, tells us that it is just  because  we live in the world, and just  because  the world is evil, that the precept of nonresistance must be put into practice. Surely we do not wish to accuse Jesus of ignoring the reality and power of evil! Why, the whole of his life was one long conflict with the devil. He calls evil evil, and that is the very reason why he speaks to his followers in this way. How is that possible? If we took the precept of nonresistance as an ethical blueprint for general application, we should indeed be indulging in idealistic dreams: we should be dreaming of a utopia with laws which the world would never obey. To make nonresistance a principle for secular life is to deny God by undermining his gracious ordinance for the preservation of the world. But Jesus is no draftsman of political blueprints; he is the one who vanquished evil through suffering. It looked as though evil had triumphed on the cross, but the real victory belonged to Jesus. And the cross is the only justification for the precept of nonviolence, for it alone can kindle a faith in the victory over evil which will enable people to obey that precept. Only such obedience is blessed with the promise that we shall be partakers of Christ’s victory as well as of his sufferings.…  The cross is the only power in the world which proves that suffering love can avenge and vanquish evil. From Dietrich Bonhoeffer, “Revenge,” in  The Cost of Discipleship,  trans. R. H. Fuller (SCM Press, 1959). Used by permission of Hymns Ancient & Modern Ltd. Originally published by Plough, used with permission https://www.plough.com/en/topics/justice/nonviolence/nonviolence-an-impossible-ideal

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.   And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well.   If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles.   Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’   But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,   that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.   If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that?   And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?   Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. Matthew 5:38-47 Jesus invites his followers to expose and challenge injustice in creative and nonviolent ways. In Matthew 5:38-42, he gives several examples of creative nonviolence that build paths to relationship and reconciliation. Because Jesus’ examples of creative nonviolence are specific to the 1st century, applying his teaching requires wisdom. When we are mistreated, we can find creative ways to stand our ground and expose the wrong while not mistreating others. Jesus invites his followers to publicly expose and challenge injustice in creative and nonviolent ways. In Matthew 5:38-42, Jesus gives several examples of creative nonviolence that build paths to relationship and reconciliation (e.g., turning the other cheek, giving up your coat, and going the extra mile, etc.). These examples are specific to the 1st century, and we are invited to use wisdom to pursue our own modern-day examples. Creative nonviolence exposes injustice while creating opportunities for restoration. It is an effective and generous way to respond to injustice that reveals the love and peace of God’s Kingdom. In the Bible, dragons symbolize the chaos that will drag creation back into disorder and death. Violent humans and spiritual beings can become agents of the dragon. If we try to slay the dragon with more violence, we can become a dragon too. Jesus loved people who wanted to harm him, but he fought the spiritual evil that deceived humans into acting violently toward each other. Jesus invites his followers to love their human enemies and to oppose spiritual evil. The Bible uses images of dragons and snakes, like the serpent in Eden, to depict spiritual powers bent on deceiving humans and dragging creation back into chaos and death. Violent humans, like Pharaoh and Goliath, are portrayed with dragon-like features to show that they are working as agents of disorder and chaos. Those who fight the dragon, like King David, can easily become dragons themselves when they act unjustly toward others. Jesus taught us to love people who want to harm us and to consider our real enemy to be the spiritual powers that deceive us all. Originally posted by Bible Project, used with permission https://bibleproject.com/playlists/retaliation-and-creative-nonviolence/#2-passage-insight-creative-nonviolence https://bibleproject.com/playlists/violence-and-hatred-toward-enemies/

This is a small group bible study about Jesus and Christian pacifism, nonviolence, peacemaking, and enemy love. Quick Reference Part 1: A Peaceful Kingdom Foretold (700 BC) Isaiah 2:1-4 - A coming kingdom of nonviolence. Isaiah 9:1-7 - The coming Messiah will be a “Prince of Peace”. Isaiah 11:6-9 - No place for violence and destruction in the kingdom. Part 2: Jesus’ Teachings (30 AD) Matthew 5:1-12, 21-26, 43-48 - Love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you. Luke 11:1-4 - Your kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven. Part 3: Jesus’ Actions (30 AD) Matthew 26:36-56 - Jesus exemplified what it looks like to love your enemies. John 18:28-40 - Jesus’ kingdom is not of this world, so they don’t fight. Part 4: Paul’s Appropriations (50-60 AD) 2 Corinthians 10:3-4 - We fight, but with different weapons. Ephesians 6:10-20 - Our fight isn’t against other humans. Part 5: Teachings in the Early Church (100-250 AD) Justin Martyr, 100-165 AD. Cyprian, 200-258 AD. Apostolic Traditions, 170-236 AD. Clement of Alexandria, 195 AD. Irenaeus, 180 AD. Part 6: Frequently Asked Questions What about the soldiers in the NT? What about Romans 13? What about Jesus saying to buy a sword? What about defending the innocent? Purpose It is my conviction that the issue of nonviolence and pacifism [ 1 ] has been largely lost to our “Christianized” culture, one that can often run parallel along streams of American-Christian nationalism. [ 2 ] I did not come to this conviction overnight, and as you study this topic in the Bible for yourself, and with others, it is important to try to remain faithful to what the text says, for there are a great deal of emotions attached to this topic to be sure.  Many people can be tempted to jump straight into hypothetical situations and scenarios, trying to apply human logic and reason (and sometimes the flesh), to very complicated and difficult questions around issues of Christian nonviolence, peace making, and enemy love, but do your best to stay focused on the Scriptures during your Bible study. This has been written in a Bible study format so that it can be used easily to share with others, but of course this is meant only to be a primer and can’t do justice to such a sweeping topic in such a short space. This bible study may not present a source of real life struggle for some, and may remain in the abstract theological idea realm. Many people can seem to embrace the idea  of Jesus’ teachings to love your enemies. However, when people’s lives, and especially their vocations (particularly military and law enforcement), bring them intimately into the reality of possibly taking another human being’s life, someone who is made in the image of God (no matter how corrupted that image may be), this topic becomes extremely relevant. Some might argue that this is a “disputable matter” (such as whether or not we can eat meat that has been sacrificed to idols, cf. Rom 14), but I believe it is a central theme in the kingdom of God that Jesus came to usher in. [ 3 ] Of course I am not the judge of anyone’s eternal salvation, for God alone is the judge (1 Cor 4:1-4), but we are each called to proclaim the gospel honestly, genuinely, fearlessly, and with conviction (Eph 6:19-20; 1 Thes 1:5), to the best of our ability and understanding. I find it interesting that most Christians would not have a problem calling certain vocations and professions to be given up in order to follow Jesus into the kingdom of God (e.g. prostitution). However, when it comes to Jesus’ teachings on killing, or loving enemies, it is often much more confusing. Now, of course I am not saying that working in the military or law enforcement is sin in the same way that lying and stealing are, but I believe it is not a role that God intends for us to fulfill in the world, because there are actions involved in these roles that are at odds with the King, and our kingdom calling. [ 4 ] As an introduction to this sensitive topic, I offer this quote from John Howard Yoder (even though he didn't live up to his own theology),  “Christians love their enemies not because they think the enemies are wonderful people, nor because they believe that love is sure to conquer these enemies. They do not love their enemies because they fail to respect their native land or its rulers; nor because they are unconcerned for the safety of their neighbors; nor because another political or economic system may be favored. The Christian loves his or her enemies because God does, and God commands his followers to do so; that is the only reason, and that is enough.” [ 5 ] Opening Question What do you think of the ideas of nonviolence and loving your enemies? How does this topic make you feel? A Peaceful Kingdom Foretold: Isaiah 2:1-4 Isaiah Background: Isaiah was a prophet to Israel and wrote this book in the early 700’s BC. He is primarily taking up the issue (as many of the O.T. prophets do) that God is sovereignly ruling the universe and every nation of history (cf. Acts 17:26) even while his people are experiencing the dominance and oppression of the great Mesopotamian powers (Assyria then Babylon dominated the ancient Near East from about 900 BC until about 540 BC). Isaiah is one of the most quoted prophets by the New Testament writers. It is in this context that he writes extensively about the nature of the king that will come and rule with righteousness and peace. All of the N.T. authors say Isaiah as pointing to Jesus. In Jesus we are “ taught his ways, so that we may walk in his paths ” (v. 3), in order to “ beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks … nor will they train for war anymore ” (v. 4). Isaiah prophecies of a coming kingdom that is one of nonviolence (it doesn’t even have human weaponry).  What do you think about being a part of a kingdom (the mountain of the Lord’s house) in which you don’t train for war anymore (take up arms)? Isaiah 9:1-7 The zeal of the Lord, even from the time of Isaiah, has always desired to be rid of the warrior’s boot used in battle, and to establish a kingdom of everlasting peace. This prophecy is fulfilled in Christ as the Prince of Peace of the everlasting kingdom. “The child’s names (‘Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace’) were not for any Israelite king, no matter how arrogant. At the same time, this child is somehow a descendant of the human David (v. 7). Yet unlike many of the Davidic kings (especially Ahaz), he would rule “with justice and righteousness” (v. 7; see 16:5). All of these factors present conundrums that are finally satisfactorily resolved only in Jesus Christ, the true Immanuel. Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.  The combination of these four titles, or throne names, in one person represents the totality of this child’s royal power. Counselor.  Just as God needed no other counselor when he created the world (40:12–14) nor any other to give him plans for the nations (14:26–27), so this child is his own counselor. Mighty God.  This title, which belongs to Yahweh (10:20–21), also belongs to this child. Everlasting Father.  The ideal king who provides for his people and protects them, in this case forever (63:16). Prince of Peace.  Unlike the princes in the pagan pantheon who were always the source of trouble and upheaval, this child will be the source of “peace,” a biblical concept that includes much more than mere absence of conflict; it speaks of wholeness and integration with no issues left unresolved (26:3; 32:17; 52:7; 66:12).” [ 6 ] Isaiah 11:6-9  In this upside down kingdom of God that Isaiah foresees, even the animals are at peace with one another. Whether this is to be taken literally (perhaps what Paul has in mind as he says that nature will be redeemed in Rom 8:19-22?) , or poetically, the point is clear. When Jesus reigns and people in his kingdom are “filled with the knowledge of the Lord”, there is no place for violence or destruction. Jesus’ Teachings: Matthew 5:1-12, 21-26, 43-48 The sermon on the mount is one body of teaching (whether it was actually delivered at one time by Jesus or not is irrelevant), and has been called Jesus’ Magna Carta or Manifesto. In this body of teaching there is one central theme; love. Love for the oppressed, love for the oppressor, love for your friends, love for your enemies, love for your neighbor, and love for those that are far away. Love. To be meek, peacemakers, merciful, persecuted, to not take revenge, to not resist an evil person, and to love your enemies [ 7 ] is the manifesto of the kingdom that Jesus ushers in. Luke 11:1-4 Your kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven - Jesus desires for God’s peace in heaven to reign on earth through his people that live in peace.  Love Your Enemies: An Overview of Jesus’ Teachings from the Sermon on the Mount and Plain [ 8 ] Lk 6:27 - Do good to those that hate you. Mat 5:44; Lk 6:28 - Pray for those that persecute you or mistreat you. Lk 6:28 - Bless those who curse you. Lk 6:35 - Lend to them (your enemy) without expecting to get anything back. Lk 6:36 - Be merciful as your Father in Heaven is merciful. Lk 6:37 - Forgive them. Mat 5:46-47 - To not love our enemies in these ways is to be just the same as everyone else and to not do the extraordinary things people in Jesus’ kingdom are called to do. Mat 5:45; Lk 6:35 - To do these kinds of things for our enemies is to be like our Father in Heaven. “Welcome to Jesus’ upside-down kingdom … Heads will turn as we turn our cheeks. Our inexplicable behavior will call attention to our inexplicable God. Light will beam across our dark world as we love the spouses whoo don’t love us back, keep our word when it hurts, judge ourselves rather than others, and - most shockingly - love our enemies who are harming us. When we are cursed, we bless. When we are hated, we love. When we are robbed we give. And when we are stuck, we do’t strike back with violence.” [ 9 ] Jesus’ Actions: Matthew 26:36-56 Perhaps the greatest of all examples, is Jesus himself dying at the hands of his enemies, willingly, and peaceably (well, I guess he knocked everyone over with his voice in Jn 18:6, so there’s that). He calls us to follow him, ultimately, even to a cross at the hands of our enemies. Jesus said that he willingly laid down his life (cf. Jn 10:17-18), even though he had the power to resist, he chose not to (v. 53), and explicitly told his followers to do the same - not to retaliate or fight back, either to save his life, or their own (v. 51-54). I think we can understand why they all fled in that moment. [ 10 ] John 18:28-40 In John’s gospel account we see that Jesus, to the amazement of Pilate (representing the wisdom of the world - cf. 1 Cor 1:18-31), not only doesn’t defend himself when his life is in jeopardy at the hands of his enemies, but he explains why. In v. 36 Jesus explained that his kingdom doesn’t operate like the kingdoms of the world, and he specifics the way that it is different. The subjects of his kingdom don’t fight to prevent his arrest - meaning they don’t fight or kill, even in order to save their own lives, or the lives of others .  This can only be true (much less practiced) if we believe in the king of a different kind of kingdom, one that he alone sovereignly rules over death and the grave (Rev 1:18). Paul’s Appropriation: 2 Corinthians 10:3-4 Paul appropriates Jesus’ teachings on loving your enemies by stating that as Christians in the kingdom of God we do  wage war, but not in the same way nor with the same weapons that the world does. Instead the Christian’s “weapons” are that of prayer, the Spirit, the word of God, and the fellowship of believers.  Ephesians 6:10-20 Paul continues this motif of contrasting the war and weaponry of the world with that which is used by those in the kingdom of God. There he says explicitly that our “battle is not against flesh and blood” (against other people), but rather we are engaged in spiritual warfare under a very different “commanding officer” than that of the world (cf. 2 Tim 2:1-4). [ 11 ] Teachings in the Early Church: There was a uniform voice through approximately the first 250 years of early Christian writings about the issues of pacifism and nonviolence in Jesus’ kingdom. [ 12 ] While of course these early writings [ 13 ] are not considered part of the inspired Christian canon, I believe they can still serve as an aid for us to get a glimpse into how early Christian leaders wrestled with these topics. [ 14 ] I only provide a brief sample here: “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 murdered, the more do others and ever increasing numbers become believers.” (Justin Martyr, 100-165 AD) [ 15 ] “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 end is called a virtue when it is committed wholesale. Impunity is claimed for wicked deeds, not because they are guiltless – but because the quality is perpetuated on a grand scale!” (Cyprian 200-258 AD) [ 16 ] “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. … Anyone taking part in baptismal instruction or already baptized who wants to become a soldier shall be sent away, for he has despised God. … 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 [from the fellowship of the Lord’s table].” (Apostolic Traditions) [ 17 ] “It is not in war, but in peace, that we are trained.” (Clement of Alexandria, 195 AD) [ 18 ] “The new covenant that brings back peace and the law that gives life have gone forth over the whole earth, as the prophets said; ‘For out of Zion will go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem; and he will rebuke many people; and they will break down their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks, and they will no longer learn to fight.’ … These people [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, 180 AD) [ 19 ] Frequently Asked Questions: What about the soldiers who had faith? Often the accounts of the soldiers that are commended for their faith (typically the centurion in Mat 8, and Cornelius, also a centurion, in Acts 10, and sometimes the soldiers with John the Baptist in Luke 3) are brought up as counter arguments. They are typically used as examples of soldiers who weren’t explicitly commanded to give up their jobs because of their faith in Jesus. [ 20 ] They were commended for their faith, and yet weren’t told to leave their vocation, therefore it must be ok to be in the kingdom of God and hold these types of positions, so the argument goes? [ 21 ] While this certainly makes logical sense, not only to our minds, but also to our emotions, it is ultimately an argument from silence based on only a couple of passages. Just because the Bible doesn’t explicitly command that these soldiers give up their jobs in view of their faith in Jesus as the Messiah, of course doesn’t necessarily mean that they didn’t, or that they shouldn’t (we don’t know if they specifically gave up their roles and vocations either, we can't be definitive either way). We must be careful with arguments from silence when reading and interpreting the Bible, for there are many things that the Bible doesn’t explicitly say. But as we look at a particular topic through the lens of Scripture as a unified whole, rather than a few selective or obscure passages, we can arrive at a harmonious and trustworthy interpretation. [ 22 ] The New Testament itself doesn’t make any proclamation about specific vocations as it relates to following Jesus per se (for instance Jesus didn’t tell anyone specifically to quit their vocation, but rather to repent - but it is implied that some would have to change their profession if they were to follow Jesus into his kingdom). It is my conviction that it is extremely difficult when taking the Scriptures as a whole to justify violence, or intentionally taking (or keeping) a vocational role that could require you to take another person’s life when living in Jesus’ kingdom. [ 23 ] By way of example, I provide the Oath of Enlistment (an oath that is required for all new American military recruits): “I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.” (italics mine). [ 24 ] In all honestly, I find it very difficult to align this kind of oath with the teachings of Jesus and the New Testament that says we are not to defend against enemies, but rather love them and pray for them (Mat 5:43-44). That we are not to have any faith, loyalties, or allegiances above God himself (Mat 22:37-38), and that we serve a different commanding officer than those of the world (2 Tim 2:4) - though we are to pray for those in authority over the kingdoms of the world (1 Tim 2:1-4). This kind of oath or “allegiance” is actually antithetical to the gospel of Jesus’ kingdom.  What about Romans 13? Often Romans 13 is looked to as an argument to support Christians being in the military and law enforcement etc. because “the one in authority is God’s servant for your good . … for the rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants , agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer .” (Rom 13:4, italics mine). The idea is that Paul here is supporting that Christians can be God’s servant and agents of wrath against evil. But upon closer look at the passage, we see that Paul is actually saying the opposite, that it is the pagans (not Christians) that are his agents of wrath. [ 25 ] Just before this Paul says to the Christians in Rome that they to bless those who persecute you, to not repay evil for evil, and to live at peace with everyone (as long as it is on you), and to not take revenge because it is God’s job to avenge, but on the contrary that Christians should feed their enemies when they are hungry, not exercise wrath against them to bring them punishment (Rom 12:14-21)! So to look to Romans 13 as a justification for why Christians can use violence and kill in the military (and law enforcement - for in Paul’s day the two were essentially the same entity of the state) seems to actually cut against the grain of what Paul says in Romans 12. Obviously, Paul condones the existence of governments and authorities here (he is not advocating anarchy), however he calls Christians to non-participation in those systems when it requires them to violate the teachings of Jesus, especially when it comes to killing and violence. [ 26 ] Peter actually continues this same thought in 1 Peter 2:11-25 as he tells the Christians as “foreigners and exiles” (v. 11) to submit themselves to every human authority, even if they are wicked and evil emperors (v. 13). He also states that God sends “authorities” and “governors” to punish those who do wrong (v. 14), implying that it is not the Christians who do so. Instead the Christians are to be the ones that silence ignorant talk of foolish people because of their good behavior (v. 15), even if you are a slave of an evil and unjust slave owner (v. 18-19). I mean wow, that’s intense.  Peter also says that Jesus just didn’t come to die for us in a nonviolent way because he was the Messiah and he had to die to atone for sins somehow, but that actually the nature of his nonviolent, non-retaliatory death was an example that we are supposed to imitate and follow (v. 21-23). Peter calls our attention to why  we are supposed to do this, because we, like Jesus, entrust ourselves to the one who judges justly, God himself, and him alone. I believe this is the true crux of the matter. When we take another human beings life (whether that be after birth or before it), we are ultimately taking judgment into our own hands and deciding what and who is “evil”, and who should live or die. For those of us that live in the kingdom of God, this is simply not our judgment to make, because we completely  trust God, even with our lives and the lives of others around us, who alone is the one that judges justly . What about Jesus saying to buy a sword? In Luke 22:36-38 Jesus tells his disciples to sell their cloaks in order to buy a sword. This is often looked to in order to promote the idea that Jesus endorses violence in some instances, otherwise why would he tell his disciples to buy a sword. Of course as first blush this makes sense, however as we look a bit closer we see that when Jesus learns that they already have two swords (one of them almost undoubtedly belonging to Simon the zealot), he says that is enough. It is obvious that Jesus is not interested in arming his ragtag group of disciples to the teeth for an armed conflict (the conflict that Jesus knows is getting ready to happen in the garden). So what do we make of the two swords being enough. I think a clue lies in the middle of the passage where Jesus says, “It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment” (Lk 22:37). Apparently Jesus connects his disciples having two swords to the prophesy of Isaiah (53:12). This chapter of Isaiah is seen in the New Testament as one of the most common chapters quoted about the Messiah. Here in Luke, we see Jesus connects Isaiah’s prophecy to himself and what he is doing with his disciples and their two swords in that moment. While it may be a bit of a curious passage, it seems as though perhaps Jesus is connecting his disciples having two swords as “numbering him with the transgressors”. This could perhaps imply that for Jesus, being a transgressor was connected with violence and “having a sword”? Either way, one thing is sure from this quizzical passage, as we see Jesus on his way to his lay down his life, there is no encouragement for the use of weapons (Lk 22:49-53). What about defending the innocent? In all honestly, this may be the most difficult question on this topic. It is also often the most emotionally charged and tends to hit closest to home for many people. This is where all the hypothetical examples (and real ones) enter into the conversation (in my experience, most conversations on this topic tend to start  here, which is probably not most helpful). These examples include things on a global scale such as Hitler in World War II, all the way down to the most personal scale of the attacker in your home trying to kill your family. The question goes something like this, “Doesn’t loving your neighbor (whether they be your family member or another nation half way around the world) mean protecting them from harm, even if it comes down to killing as a last resort?” Granted, this is a difficult question, and of course “love always protects” (1 Cor 13:7), but does this mean that it is “okay” as citizens in God’s kingdom to protect the “innocent” by taking the “evil” person’s life? Though this is not an easy question, it reveals the most basic, and most important, question of all on this topic; is it ok for a Christian to kill someone in any  situation? Could someone selflessly love someone by protecting them and being willing to kill the person’s enemy, without hatred toward that person in their heart? While I think this kind of things makes sense  and is logical , I don’t believe it squares with the teachings and life of Jesus, his disciples, or the earliest Christians. Let me sketch just a few reasons. [ 27 ] First, when we remove the emotional elements from the arguments, we see that this logic translates as such; “we should love our enemies, feed them, cloth them, and pray for them … except if they should threaten my life, the life of my wife, children, loved ones, or the dear innocent old lady down the street in my neighborhood (or anyone else that I deem as ‘innocent’).” In fact, in this line of reasoning, we should have a moral obligation  to do whatever we need to in order to stop them (if this is what it truly means to love our neighbors, and love always protects, etc.). Of course this logic can easily be extended further to the boundaries of nations and countries when they haven’t done anything wrong and are the innocent party, violent action should be taken to stop them. Of course, most soldiers in any country thinks they are the “good guys” in a conflict. And if you have a real conversation with a solider (from any country), you will find that the boundaries between good and evil, right and wrong, the “good guys and the bad guys”, are not so easily distinguished. In all honesty, while of course this kind of thinking makes perfect sense to our minds (and flesh), when we embrace this, are we really doing anything more than others (Mat 5:47)? If we play this logic out, and it is  the Christian’s moral obligation to “protect the innocent” with violence and killing when necessary, then every Christian should be armed to the teeth. If this is the case, then the pastor of Unification Sanctuary in Pennsylvania who had his congregation bring their AR-15s to church so they could pray over them and bless them after a school shooting in Florida days before, [ 28 ] would be the natural outcome of such thinking.  But Jesus teaches just the opposite. When his innocent life, and the innocent lives of his disciples were threatened by evil he entrusted himself to God (although is was not easy - Mat 26:36-46). Instead of telling his disciples to pray over their weapons in order to protect the innocent, or combat evil by killing people, he tells them to put away their weapons (Mat 26:51-56). He even amazes Pilate (the Roman commanding officer and the epitome of military might, conquest, and injustice), with his nonviolent kingdom, even as Pilate has Jesus’ life in his hands (Jn 18:36). Second, we are making a huge assumption when we think that using violence, especially killing someone, is the most loving thing we can do in order to protect someone else. The truth is that we don’t really know that. Our understanding and judgments are too limited. When we rely on our logic and wisdom to define who is “innocent” we are often prone to err. Sometimes we think things are black and white, but we often think we are right according to human wisdom, but many times there are unintended consequences. By way of example, think about all of the civilians and “innocents” that were killed during World War II when the United States dropped atomic bombs on entire cities, killing hundreds of thousands of people almost instantly, all in order to “combat evil”. Really, it’s just not that cut and dry. God’s wisdom looks like foolishness to the world (1 Cor 1:18-31). Third, there is just no evidence in the New Testament of Jesus, or any of his followers, defending a life by killing another. Not only do you have Jesus and his disciples in the garden who are nonviolent and do not defend themselves, but also when Jesus is confronted with a mob wanting to kill an adulterous women (who was guilty mind you). Jesus doesn’t defend her by violently attacking the mob, but rather stands between them and her, and disarms them in a unique and creative way (Jn 8:2-11). Then you have Stephen, the first Christian martyr that is recorded in Acts 7, and there is no mention of anyone trying to defend him by attacking his attackers. [ 29 ] Then you have the Christians in Pergamum being honored by Jesus because they didn’t renounce their faith in him, even when “Antipas, my faithful witness, was put to death in your city” (Rev 2:13). Jesus notably doesn’t tell them that they should take up arms and defend their lives, even in the city “where Satan lives”, but rather that they should’t renounce their faith in him (implying they should be ready to die for their faith, just like Antipas). The early Christians were willing to die for their faith, they were not willing to kill for it. Closing Thoughts If this is your first time wrestling with this topic, I would like to encourage you to seek God and his will through the Scriptures , not just through hypothetical situations, logic, reason, intellect, or even your “common sense”. But instead through God’s word. For God’s foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, his weakness stronger than human strength. And we preach a triumphant Christ who was crucified , which is a stumbling block and foolishness to so many (1 Cor 1:23-25). This may be jarring, it may be counter-cultural, and it may be controversial, but as we seek God through his word and the power of the Spirit, I believe he will lead us into greater faithfulness to him and his kingdom calling. As we continue to wrestle through this very difficult and often highly emotional topic, I would like to offer a closing thought to this section by quoting Preston Sprinkle, [ 30 ] “Choosing violence over nonviolence, power over suffering, vengeance over forgiveness, or temporal justice over love, disrupts this un-Roman, counter-American, not-of-this-world narrative. The nonviolent rhythms of the cross meet the melodies of this world with dissonance. I accept the charge of being impractical. Perhaps some will think I’m weak. Maybe critics will say I’m idealistic, naive, or too heavenly minded to be of earthly good. I’ll take that. But the one thing I never want to be accused of is diminishing the cross.” [ 31 ] Concluding Questions What do you think, and how do you feel, about Jesus’ teachings on nonviolence and being willing to lay down your life for your enemies in order to follow him into his kingdom? What practical implications do you think Jesus’ teachings might have on your life? Why? Further Reading I would encourage reading the New Testament while paying attention to the topic of violence and how it is supposed to be handled in the kingdom of God. [ 32 ] Also see book recommendations here . Practical Implementation This teaching of Jesus can have radical implications on people's lives and vocations. But at the heart of the gospel is the call to be willing to give up our lives for Jesus (Lk 9:24; Jn 12:25). The application of this teaching for those specifically in the military or law enforcement occupations (or other such occupations like executioners, judges, etc. - vocations that put you in the position to potentially kill other people made in the image of God) will be sensitive and nuanced. I cannot lay down a blanket statement on how each situation must be handled, other than to say it be handled with love, care, compassion, and conviction. For people in these types of vocations that want to come into the kingdom of God and embrace the Lordship of Jesus in their lives, it is appropriate for them to consider pursuing a different vocation that is more congruent with the teachings of Jesus (cf. Mk 10:17-31). Bible Project Videos Footnotes : [1] Although the term “pacifism” represents the common idea presented here, I believe that the New Testament doesn’t teach pacifism in the sense of the word that typically means “doing nothing” under threat. There are nonviolent methods that Jesus himself told people to employ in response to threat, such as fleeing for example (Mat 10:23, 24:16). We see the apostle Paul as well employ such tactics when he calls upon his Roman citizenry to escape punishment or perhaps death (Acts 22:22-29). I believe Ewell is helpful here, “Christian pacifism is not passive because it: (1) creatively seeks alternatives to the violence of this world, (2) actively engages the powers of violence, even to the point of death, (3) is courageous enough to act like Esther and to face the earthly powers - to the point of putting one’s own life on the line, (4) takes responsibility for not killing the oppressor and for finding another way forward, and (5) presumes that prayer is an essential aspect of the Christian life” (C. Rosalee Velloso Ewell, “Isn’t Pacifism Passive?” A Faith Not Worth Fighting For,  Kindle Edition, 12-17. As quoted in Jones, Kingdom 3 , 158).  In this brief appendix I will not attempt to parse out how to appropriate Jesus’ nonviolent kingdom teachings to every circumstance, but instead provide a rough sketch of a few common questions and simply call people to consider these issues thoroughly and prayerfully. [2]  For more on this topic see: Michael Burns, Escaping the Beast. Politics, Allegiance, and Kingdom  (Illumination Publishers, 2020); John Mark Hicks (ed.), Resisting Babel. Allegiance to God and the Problem of Government  (Abilene Christian University Press, 2020); Richard Bauckham, The Bible in Politics. How to Read the Bible Politically . 2nd ed. (Westminster John Knox Press, 2010); Richard T. Hughes, Christian America and the Kingdom of God  (University of Illinois Press, 2009); John Howard Yoder, The Politics of Jesus , 2nd ed. (Wm B Eerdmans Publishing, 1994); Tim Mackie Archives, “Lecture on the Early Church & Politics: Tim Mackie”, Aug 15, 2017, https://youtu.be/wXcSJVW8rg4 . [3]  For more see: Tom A. Jones, The Kingdom of God - Volume 3: Learning War No More  (Illumination Publishers, 2020). Followers of the Way, “‘ It's Just War’ - Should Christians Fight? Debate ,” April 20, 2014. https://youtu.be/K4xQaDDKY7k . [4]  Jones, Kingdom 3,  15, 169. [5]  John Howard Yoder, “Living the Disarmed Life,” A Matter of Faith, Sojourners’ Magazine Study Guide (January 1982). As quoted in: Jones, Kingdom , 196. [6]  D.A. Carson (Ed.), NIV Biblical Theology Study Bible (Zondervan, 2018), 1184. [7]  Notably, Jesus doesn’t say “love your enemies, except for in these particular circumstances.” [8]  Jones, Kingdom: Volume 3 , 55. [9]  Preston Sprinkle, Nonviolence: The Revolutionary Way of Jesus  (David C. Cook, 2021) 144. [10]  Interestingly, it was Peter who a short time before said that he was willing to “die with” Jesus (Mat 26:35), but as we come to find out he was only “willing to die” in a particular manner, a manner of his own choosing - through the vehicle of fighting. He was unwilling in that moment to willingly give up his life the way that Jesus did (c.f. Jn 13:36-38). Of course, we understand from church tradition that eventually he did end up willingly laying his life down as a martyr for his Lord. [11]  Notice how Paul uses the military metaphor in 2 Tim 2 to show how we are devoted, like a solider, to our commanding officer Jesus Christ. This occurs in the context of Paul saying to remember Jesus Christ risen from the dead (v. 8) and that we are to die and endure with him (v. 11-13). [12]  The idea of Christians participating in a “just war” (today known as Just War Theory) has seeds in Augustine of Hippo’s writings (particularly A City of God ) around the time that the state of Rome began to blend with the church to become one entity in the late 4th century AD. For more see: Jones, Kingdom 3 , 74-91; Sprinkle, Nonviolence , 261-75. [13]  For a good compilation and translation of these writings see: J.B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers: The Early Christian Writings of Church Leaders Who Followed Soon After the Apostles of Jesus Christ (Christian Publishing House, 2020). [14]  For more see: David W. Bercot, A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs: A Reference Guide to More Than 700 Topics Discussed by the Early Church Fathers  (Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1998). [15]  Bercot, Dictionary , 676. As quoted in: Jones, Kingdom 3 , 63. [16]  Bercot, 680. As quoted in Jones, Kingdom 3 , 64. [17]  “Most scholars believe the Apostolic Traditions was written by Hippolytus of Rome (170-236 AD), in it are listed various professions that must be ‘given up’ or ‘rejected’: keeper of a brothel, sculptor of idols, charioteer, athlete, gladiator, prostitute, sodomite, magician, and soothsayer.”Eberhard Arnold, ed., The Early Christians in Their Own Words  (Plough Publishing, 1997), 90. As quoted in: Jones, Kingdom 3 , 64. [18]  Bercot, Dictionary, 676. [19]  Bercot, Dictionary, 676. [20]  Interestingly, Sprinkle points out that “as a centurion, Cornelius (as well as the centurion in Matt. 8) would not only be pressured to worship foreign gods, but also be responsible for leading various ceremonies on behalf of his cohort. As a centurion, Cornelius would essentially function as a pagan priest! True, Peter doesn’t forbid Cornelius to use violence. But neither does he forbid him to perform pagan duties. Because that’s not the point of the story . Acts 10 and other solider-salvation passages highlight one basic point: the gospel pierces the hearts of unlikely people - even Roman military leaders. These passage simply don’t give us all the details about what the soldiers did after they got saved.” Sprinkle, Nonviolence , 209 (italics mine). [21]  For a more thorough development of this, as well as other frequently asked questions see: Tom A. Jones, The Kingdom of God - Volume 3: Learning War No More  (Illumination Publishers, 2020). 146-50. For responses to other common questions, see specifically chapters 8-10 (p. 114-63) as well as Sprinkle, Nonviolence , chapter 12 (p. 235-53). [22]  For example, it would be unwise (and unnecessary) to try to interpret the New Testament writings one the topic of baptism through the single (and obscure) passage that Paul wrote to the Corinthians about “baptisms for the dead” (1 Cor 15:29). Of course, in that single scripture one could come to all kinds of conclusions, but I believe it is more faithful, and likely a more accurate interpretive approach, to instead interpret the obscure passage in light of the many other clear teachings on baptism in the New Testament. For more on this I highly recommend, Gordon Fee, and Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible For All Its Worth . 4th ed. (Zondervan Academic, 2014). [23]  I am indebted to Dr. Douglas Jacoby for pointing out that, “if extortion  (taking someone’s property by violence) is forbidden to soldiers (Luke 3:13), the[n] taking lives  would (a fortiori) [used to express a conclusion for which there is stronger evidence than for a previously accepted one] be even more prohibited.” (italics original) Douglas Jacoby, December 20, 2021, private email correspondence. Used with permission. For more on this particular question see: Jones, Kingdom 3, 118-20; Sprinkle, Nonviolence , 244-46. [24]  “Enlisting in the Military,” Today’s Military: Department of Defense, accessed December 22, 2021, https://www.todaysmilitary.com/joining-eligibility/enlisting-military . [25]  As you look closely at the meta-narrative of the Bible you see this theme consistently, that God sovereignly rules over the nations and empires of mankind for his purposes and will (i.e. Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar, Xerxes, Artaxerxes, Pilate, etc.). [26]  I have no desire to parse out exactly which  ways Christians can participate in governmental systems, other than the clear call of the New Testament for all Christians, as aliens and foreigners (meaning that their truest citizenship is to God - Phil 3:20), to submit to their governing authorities (when not in violation of God’s kingdom - Rom 13:1-5; 1 Pet 2:11-25), to pay taxes (Rom 13:6-7; Mat 22:15-22), and to pray for all  leaders, that there may be peace (1 Tim 2:1-3). [27]  See: Jones, Kingdom 3 , 157-63. [28]  The Associated Press, CBS News, “Hundreds gather at church for blessing ceremony featuring AR-15s,” updated February 28, 2018, accessed January 7, 2022. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hundreds-of-worshipers-gather-at-church-hosting-ceremony-featuring-ar-15s/ . [29]  In fact, it seems very likely to me that Luke’s inclusion of Saul of Tarsus at this point in the story (8:1) is to highlight this very thing, that Saul was a violent man (cf. 1 Tim 1:13) who believed he was serving God by killing whom he judged to be a wicked and evil person in Stephen, only later to be brought into Jesus’ kingdom of nonviolence himself (Acts 9:1-19). Also notice how Saul is introduced here as “still breathing out murderous threats” (9:1), and what it is that Jesus converts him to: “how much he must suffer  for my name” (9:16). [30]  I love the way that Sprinkle characterizes himself on the back cover, “I’m an evangelical Christian. And I’m not Amish, Quaker, or Mennonite. I own several guns and still believe that the smell of a recently fired shotgun on a crisp fall morning comes darn near close to paradise. But I’ve tried my hardest to understand God’s Word and the diverse perspectives of those who read it. And the more I study, the more I discuss, the more I’ve become convinced: Christians shouldn’t kill or use violence - not even in war” (Sprinkle, Nonviolence) . While I don’t necessarily share Sprinkle’s affinity for hunting, I certainly have become convinced of Jesus’ nonviolence teachings and life as well. [31]  Sprinkle, Nonviolence , 257. [32]  It is helpful to read books as they were meant to be read (or listened to) in one sitting. So that means as much as possible, try to read the books of the NT in one sitting to be able to hear and see the over-arching themes and contours of the writing as a whole. This has been adapted from an appendix originally published by Jon Sherwood, ONE: A Guide to Making Disciples in the 21st Century , used with permission.

This is an ongoing list of recommended books on the topics of Christian nonviolence, nationalism, and the kingdom of God. Where to Start: Stanley Hauerwas, Jesus Changes Everything: A New World Made Possible . Plough Publishing House, 2025. Jesse P. Nickel, A Revolutionary Jesus: Violence and Peacemaking in the Kingdom of God . Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2024. 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 . 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 .

Given that you know I want to explain how pacifism represents a kingdom perspective, it may seem odd where I want to go in this chapter.  However, I think it I most important to start with what is good about the military and why it is so often held in high esteem. In a book like this, leaving that out would simply not be fair. I also do not want my readers to think that I have any desire to caricature military people as trigger-happy, uncaring folks just eager for a fight. Sure, there are some “Rambos” out there, but for most people that depiction would be entirely wrong.  Rare is the country on planet earth that does not love its military and does not give support to its troops. Crowds in most all countries are stirred by the sight of their nation’s military on parade. Smart uniforms, bodies moving in unison, flags unfurled, drums and bugles sounding off—hearts are moved, eyes grow moist. In these moments we are proud to be British or American or Russian. We feel pride at being Canadian, Japanese, Nigerian or Pakistani or Brazilian or South African. You fill in the blank. Somehow the military men and women of our nation embody our values and symbolize our unity. Dr. Gordon S Livingston writing in Psychology Today  magazine says,  “No idea in the society is more pervasive than the notion that we all owe a debt of gratitude to the young men and women who have volunteered to fight our wars.” [1] The troops represent the nation, serve the nation and put themselves in harm’s way for the nation. It has been said that no group understands better the idea of putting your country above yourself than those in the military. In most cases their presence gives their countrymen a sense of security. It is no wonder that people often say, “Thank you for your service.” My own country, the United States of America, puts great stock in its military. The United States military budget four years ago was $610 billion.  (The U.S. president asked for $686 billion for 2018.) Second to the US is China with $216 billion. The United States has 4% of the world’s population, but we spend 34% of all the money spent worldwide on military expenses. If you list the 8 countries that spend the most on the military, the US spends more than the other 7 combined, but Americans for the most part are proud of what we have and celebrate the military. While Congress gets an approval rating of 15% or lower in most polls, the military consistently scores around 85%. This appreciation for the military is by no means limited to those with secular world views. While such support is found through all strata of our society, no segment of America is more supportive of the armed forces than those who are part of Bible-believing evangelical churches. It is common to see signs in front of houses of worship that read “Support our troops” or “Pray for our troops.” A respected Christian website that answers questions states: “At the same time, Christians can rest assured that being a soldier is highly respected throughout the Scriptures and know that such service is consistent with a biblical worldview.” Later it concludes: “The Christian men and women who serve their country with character, dignity, and honor can rest assured that the civic duty they perform is condoned and respected by our sovereign God. Those who honorably serve in the military deserve our respect and gratitude.” [2] In searching the Web for the connection between churches and troop-support efforts, I did not find much of an effort to show a biblical basis for such support, but did find numerous sites giving church members ideas of how to support men and women in uniform. One might think Scripture says that true religion is caring for widows, orphans and the troops. Offering Protection For Americans, and, I suspect, for others, the number one reason for supporting our troops is that they are seen as those that protect our freedoms and provide protection. Again, Dr. Livingstone writes: “All our wars, of course, are justified as struggles for freedom, either our own or that of the people in the countries in which we fight.”  In the words of British politician and former cabinet minister, Des Browne, “We have a responsibility to support our troops and support their families, particularly when we are asking people to do very difficult and dangerous things for our security.” [3]   On the other hand, we should add that while many give thanks for troops that protect their freedoms, in some totalitarian countries and in those with strong dictatorships, troops maintain order but with harsh tactics, and they also prevent people from exercising freedoms that they yearn for. Instead of protecting freedom, they are experts at suppressing it. However, even in these countries, the propaganda machine is usually successful in focusing the nation on their enemies and in keeping their people appreciating their troops. While in most people’s minds, the top reason to appreciate the military is the protection and security it usually offers in a world with many bad actors, there are other reasons to appreciate its work. Rendering Aid When natural disasters strike, the military is often more capable of responding that any other segment of society. They have the person-power, the equipment, the organization, the readiness and the efficiency to offer big doses of help to local emergency responders. Sometimes they can do what no one else can do. Witness the helicopter rescues, in New Orleans in 2005 and Houston in 2017, after devastating floods that followed hurricanes. Following the October 2005 earthquake in Pakistan, it was the combined effort of the armies of many countries that provided the largest humanitarian helicopter airlift ever seen. On September 20, 2017, Hurricane Maria destroyed much of the island of Puerto Rico. Three weeks later the US general in charge of the military response would report that they had 68 helicopters and 14,300 troops aiding the recovery.  While much remains to be done, even as I write this, there is no doubt that the military made a big difference. On the U.S. Army website, army.mil , you can find a special section titled “Humanitarian Relief.” A recent check of that page revealed their efforts to restore power and put on roofs in Puerto Rico, help with pediatric nutrition in Honduras, and provide aid to burned out victims during the California wild fires. On the website one reads: “Providing humanitarian relief in the United States and around the world is an essential part of the mission of U.S. Army.” Having the military at the ready when disaster creates a crisis would certainly be seen as a plus by people of various nations who have come to count on their own armed forces at such times. Additional Value The first two items we have put in the positive column for the military are activities appreciated from those even on the outside. Some of the other positives that are often listed may be most appreciated by those on the inside. Let’s consider a few. 1.    Giving one a sense of purpose .  While working on this chapter, I stopped to watch a little of a talk show on one of the cable news networks.  The host introduced his four guests, including one who was a former military officer. He looked to be between 35 and 40 years old. He still had his soldier’s haircut. He wore a navy blazer. Eventually the camera pulled back showing the entire group. It was then that I saw that the former officer had two prosthetic legs. I stayed longer than I first intended and eventually heard him describe his career as one motivated by a desire to serve something greater than himself. Listening to him, I was painfully reminded of something I once said in a rather heated discussion with some other Christian teachers. My foolish comment went this way: “The values of the military are the exact opposite of the values of the Kingdom.”  Several roundly criticized my statement, and I understand why. It was an overstatement and a half truth. Both the Kingdom of God and the military do exactly what that disabled warrior said: they call for followers to serve something greater than themselves. The overlap of Kingdom principles and military values do not stop there, but I won’t explore those here.  Suffice it to say, while there are also some big differences in the two (which we will later explore), they are alike in calling us to sacrifice for a higher or greater purpose. As one soldier put it, “That’s when you learn the true meaning of service.” 2.    Developing better relationships .  Many military veterans talk often about the way they learned to appreciate others, rely on others and be devoted to   the good of others during their time of service. A good number of those who leave the military miss the comradery they enjoyed. They talk of the team spirit they learned to develop and what it meant to be in a group where there was deep loyalty to one another. Journalist Sebastian Junger, famously known as the author of The Perfect Storm , spent fourteen months embedded with a platoon in Afghanistan and then wrote the simply titled, War.  One of his major points is how combat gives soldiers an intense experience of connection with each other and how many of them miss war when they are no longer in it.  But as Junger explains in a TED talk, it is not the killing that they miss or the experience of being shot at, but it is the brotherhood. [4] Of course, not every soldier ends up in combat, but even those who do not often report that in working together with others for a greater cause, they found deeper relationships than they had known before. Then, there is the fact that the military has the ability to bring together people from diverse backgrounds, teaching them to build relationships that transcend the normal borders of race and culture.  It is in the armed forces that many have learned what M.L. King spoke about: the content of a person’s character matters far more than the color of their skin. 3.    Providing valuable training . If there is anything the military is very good at it is training, and soldiers are equipped in various ways and given skills they can use beyond their military careers. There are the various technical fields of electronics, environmental science, robotics, aviation, navigation and the like. For those eager to learn, there are ample opportunities to grow in leadership ability, planning, strategic thinking, team building and other skills that may greatly help them later on in business, education or even humanitarian work. And then there are those who report that it was in the military that they learned some of their most important life lessons: to overcome fear, to take responsibility, to respect the importance of leadership, to appreciate accountability and to be willing to sacrifice for others. 4.    Demonstrating what it means to live with courage, heroism and sacrifice . Most of us will not be in circumstances where we are asked to risk our lives for the good of another, but those in the military are often operating in sphere where that is exactly what they have the opportunity to do. And it is from that sphere that we hear some of the most heart-moving stories of these qualities on display. Author Mark Lee Greenblatt reached out to interview a number of members of the military who had demonstrated great heroism before writing his most recent book. One of these was an enlisted Marine named James Hassell. His platoon was in a fire fight in Najaf, Iraq. His friend, Ryan, took a hit and was badly wounded.  Knowing his buddy would die if he left him there, James decided to pick him up and carry him to the medivac helicopter that was at the end of an alley a hundred yards away. It was a high-risk move. Together they would present a slow-moving target with snipers everywhere. But it was Ryan’s only chance, and James decided to risk his own life to give him that chance.  They made it. Ryan is alive today. [5]  On his website, Greenblatt describes many other heroic acts [6]  and wrote a profound article on courage for the military.com website. [7] When I read of the James Hassels of the world and stories of winners of the Victoria Cross, the Silver Star, the Congressional Medal of Honor, or the Legion of Honor, I am humbled by the bravery and sacrifice these people have shown. Now, with words like these I may come off sounding like a military recruiter. Of course, even at this point, you have good reason to suspect that I am taking you somewhere else, but I do want you, my readers, to know that I do not look at the armed forces with a jaundiced eye, and I hope that you can trust that I am sincere.  I am going to share with you why I don’t think soldiering is our role and why we should not be training for war, but I don’t want you to think I am overlooking the reasons why so many think so highly of the military, and why we find many who treat it with great respect. As we consider the Kingdom way, Jesus Way, I will not forget what is in this chapter. And I will be aware that because of these positive traits, some of you will struggle some, or a lot, with the rest of the book. Some of you have family members who are proud veterans. Some of you  are proud veterans. Some of you are on active duty right now. Some may even be deployed in an active war zone. I think I can imagine what you feel when you hear me say, let’s consider another way. I do not lightly dismiss the service of those in uniform. But as those in the military teach us, we must always respond to a higher calling. With God’s help, that is what we will seek to do. [1]  Gordon Livingston, “Why should we support the troops?” Psychology Today, https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/lifelines/ 201203/why-should-we-support-the-troops  (September 9, 2018). [2]    “What does the Bible say about a Christian serving in the military?” Got Questions https://www.gotquestions.org/military-Christian.html  (November 3, 2018). [3]  “Des Browne,” Brainy Quote, https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/des_browne_712528   (August 15, 2018). [4]  Paul Szoldra, “Award-Winning Journalist Perfectly Captures The Reason Soldiers Often Miss Combat, Business Insider (September 4, 2018). [5]  Noemie Emery, “What is Courage?” Washington Examiner  https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/what-is-courage  (September 2018)  DECEMBER 30, 2014. [6]   MarkLeeGreenblatt.com . http://markleegreenblatt.com/news-reviews/articles/ [7]  Mark Lee Greenblast. “What I Learned about Courage from Interviewing our Troops”  Military.com   https://www.military.com/off-duty/books/2015/11/23/three-things-i-learned-about-courage-from-interviewing-our-troop.html   (November 3, 2018). Originally published at Tom A. Jones, used with permission https://www.tomajones.com/articles-1/5tlz7mdnddhlpy8pyawms8mfc4refl

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.

I finally feel free to admit it. I am (mostly) pacifist – I say mostly because my beliefs and thoughts have’t been field tested yet. Before you think I’m crazy and buy me a plane ticket to Pennsylvania to live with the Amish, let me share a few of the reasons why I am pacifist and clear up some misconceptions about pacifism. 1. Where you start determines where you will end, and I want to start with Jesus. Whenever I mention that I am pacifist, one of the first things people say to me is something along these lines: “What if someone attacked your wife and the only way to save her was to kill her attacker?” or “What if killing 10 people saved the lives of 1,000?” These hypothetical situations are intended to reveal the ridiculousness of my non-violence. They are fantastical situations that make violence seem like the only answer. Simply put, I don’t answer these questions, because I want an ethic based on the person, work, and character of Jesus, not hypothetical situations. If we start with hypothetical situations, we can justify just about anything under the sun. But if we start with Jesus, there is a clear trajectory . He came to fulfill the law and the prophets ( Matt 5:17 ), said that being angry with our brother or sister was analogous to murder ( Matt 5:21 ), taught us to love and pray for our enemies ( Matt 5:44 ), and to bless rather than retaliate ( Luke 6:27-31 ). In his death on the cross, he submitted to the violent means of the world and triumphed them, not with more violence, but with resurrection. When I look at the life and teachings of Jesus, I see him choosing non-violence instead of violence, extending love to everyone, not just those in his tribe. And I want to be like Jesus. So I start with Jesus and I trust that if I follow him, he will give me wisdom to discern the various situations I will find myself in. I do think the hypothetical situations betray how deeply pragmatism has influenced they way we think. The gospel of America is “The ends justify the means.” So if we happen to protect our family, but kill 20 people in the process, then it was a good thing. If violence gets us to the end or the goal that we want, then violence is a necessary means. When I read Jesus, he doesn’t seem very pragmatic to me. In feeding the 5,000, wouldn’t it have been better for him to teach the crowd efficient farming techniques? In healing the blind man, did he really have to put spit-laden mud in his eyes? “You can see, now go wash your face!” In fact, Judas was chastised for his pragmatism, wanting the woman’s perfume to be sold and the money given to the poor. Instead, Jesus let her pour it on his feet and head. The ways of Jesus are not the ways of the world. And when we begin to follow him, it is inevitable that we will be at odds with the world. 2. Pacifism is not abdication and it’s not “the easy way out.” For many, when they hear that I am pacifist, they think that I don’t care about the poor, weak, marginalized, hurting, and oppressed. People assume that my choice to avoid violence means that I am unable to care for those might be living under a dictatorship. But pacifism isn’t abdication and it isn’t indifference. In fact, I care deeply for the plight of the poor, weak, and marginalized. I want to see that they find freedom from the ills of society and from their oppressors. I want to see justice roll down the mountains like a river. And I want to pursue that justice through peaceful, non-violent means. If anything, my choice to be a pacifist does not make my life easier but calls me to a new level of creativity and imagination. To seek peace and justice without violence is not a common solution in our day and age. Our culture is so used to seeing violence as a means to solve problems that the idea of peace-making seems outdated and outright ridiculous. As a pacifist, I am committed to justice for all without the use of violence. And that is not easy. 3. I don’t have it all figured out. I am usually hesitant to label myself pacifist at all because it leads people to believe that I have it all figured out, that I’ve thought through every nuance and am able to stand behind each tenet. I wish I could say I was that thorough in my thinking, but I’m not. I sometimes still watch violent movies and enjoy seeing the bad guy beat up. I enjoy playing video games where I am the hero and the journey to justice is with fists and feet. I really like The Walking Dead and I’m pretty sure, in the zombie apocalypse, all pacifists either die or give up their pacifism pretty quickly. Do these examples reveal how far from pacifism I truly am? Maybe – I don’t know. I’m a work in progress and I don’t have it all figured out. I’m thankful that Jesus walks with me and is patient with me as I work out what it means to be a disciple in the 21st century. Originally published at The Two Cities, used with permission. https://www.thetwocities.com/practical-theology/why-i-am-mostly-pacifist/

You can either put them at the end of the shelf or give them away, but you can now dispense with John Howard Yoder’s  The Politics of Jesus  (for more than one reason) and even Stanley Hauerwas’s  The Peaceable Kingdom . Even André Trocmé’s  Jesus and the Nonviolent Revolution . The book now to put at the most-accessible end of the shelf is by Jesse P. Nickel, and it is called  A Revolutionary Jesus: Violence and Peacemaking in the Kingdom of God . There are plenty of important studies about peace in the Bible (I’m thinking Swartley, Seibert) and peacemaking (I’m thinking of Friesen, Werntz, Cremer, Strait), but Nickel’s book is now the best accessible study of Jesus the peacemaker. Plus, there’s a wonderful little new book by Hauerwas called  Jesus Changes Everything . But Nickel updates all of this scholarship and takes us in a fresh direction. Nickel did his PhD on Jesus and eschatological violence, and it’s published as  The Things That Make for Peace: The Synoptic Jesus and Eschatological Violence  (BZNW 244; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2021). He teaches undergrads, he has been working on the theme for years, and this book distills his insights–both about Jesus and about the wider issue of violence. On the flyleaf my endorsement reads: “The way of violence and the way of peace–they are incompatible. Peace doesn't come through strength, and violence doesn't give rise to peace or the kingdom. Both Rome and the Rome-infested political powers of Judea in the first century were too bent on violence, and neither led to a lasting peace. Jesus was a consistent and thorough advocate of peace. Jesse Nickel’s  A Revolutionary Jesus  both updates a minority strand of Jesus and Christian scholarship and also extends Jesus studies by a more careful discussion of the problem of violence. I really like this book, and hope many will.” The tension in the Christian tradition, he points out, looks like this: “ Yes , affirm Christians,  violence is bad, and Jesus taught against it. However,  some of those same Christians continue,  in certain circumstances, violence may unfortunately be necessary.  The specifics of such circumstances are diverse, as the boundary lines fall in different places for different people. But at a certain point, some other factor–whether it is the need to resist evil, or to protect the innocent from harm, or for self-preservation–outweighs the vague ‘badness’ of violence, making it the preferable option. Although it may have lamentable side effects, although it can do great harm, when used in the right way, for the right purposes, by the right people, violence can be an effective (sometimes, it is believed, the  only  effective) tool against the forces of evil and injustice.” The tension then is that Jesus practiced and taught peace; subsequent Christians opted out of his consistent vision for the purposes of realism. Why?, Nickels is asking, do so many Christians not walk in line with Jesus. His introductory sketch mentions those who think Jesus was not consistently nonviolent, the God-endorsed violence of the Bible (not just the Old Testament), the “ongoing, powerful presence of evil and injustice in the world,” the conviction and experience that violence at times has been useful to thwart evil, “and the conviction that to refuse violence wholesale is morally and ethically problematic.” All of these “contribute to the willingness to endorse certain forms of violence” by Christians, knowingly (in many cases) veering away from the idealistic vision of Jesus. Like Ron Sider, Nickel lays down this fundamental direction: “If Jesus is truly Lord, and therefore is owed my allegiance; if Jesus says word is truth, and therefore is owed my obedience; if Jesus is the author and perfector of faith, and therefore is owed my invitation, and quite literally  everything else  must be secondary. Jesus gets the final say.” Not realism, no safety, not nationalism.  He continues, “I believe that violence and death are among the ‘powers and authorities’ that God ‘triumphed over’ on the cross of Jesus. The damage they continue to do in our world, and the impact that this continues to have on people, must  not  be allowed to set the terms of engagement. Jesus does. So, no matter how unrealistic or utopian my perspective might seem to be, I feel compelled to point to Jesus and to declare with Luther: ‘Here I stand. I can do no other’.” And this: “My contention is that if Christian identity has, at its heart, Jesus's teaching and example, then violence is not an option, and in fact, peacemaking is the necessity.” His Introduction maps out the widespread violence of Rome, and how that violence shaped the identity and the leadership for Rome for centuries. Thus, “Violence was, therefore, integral to Roman identity and power. Everywhere the Roman presence was known, and its  imperium  was in effect, Roman violence, and the threat thereof, became part of the reality that everyone had to negotiate.” He lays down, as the parallel to Rome’s violence, the reality of violence in Israel, not least from the time of the Maccabees onward. But “zeal for the Lord,” from Phinehas onwards, was bedrock for many who believed it was better to die than to be compromised in Torah observance. In Israel, and at the time of Jesus, “a legacy of violence that is explicitly interwoven with religious piety” had formed. He pushes harder: “The long legacy of violent zeal for Yahweh includes a proliferation of acts of resistance and rebellion against the Romans between the mid-first century BCE and the Jewish-Roman war of 66-73 CE.” The acts of rebellion were of course crushed by Rome, but resistance didn’t die. “Into this world and its violence came a man from Galilee known as Jesus of Nazareth.” His vision and practice were unlike the ways of Rome and Jerusalem. We can dispute how consistent Jesus’s nonviolence was but what is not disputable is that Jesus was far from the ways of the future Zealots and the ways of the Maccabean Revolt. For at least two hundred years, if not more, after Jesus the church maintained a consistent vision and practice of nonviolence. Just like Jesus. Nonviolence “became a nonnegotiable part of their lived-out identity.” What happened after that leads to the deep tension in the Christian story. Originally published by Scot McKnight, used with permission https://scotmcknight.substack.com/p/a-revolutionary-jesus

When Pennsylvania ran on Quaker principles, how did it go? Christian pacifists such as Stanley Hauerwas are too quickly brushed aside in conversations about what a good state ought to look like. This is a missed opportunity for Christians of all stripes who are seeking to live as faithful citizens amid many political temptations and confusions. For starters, Hauerwas has not called for a retreat from politics, but is rightly concerned that the dominant mode of political engagement will swallow Christian ethical commitments whole. As he likes to  quip , much as retreat might be nice, “We’re surrounded, so there’s no place to retreat to. So Christians have to engage the world in which we find ourselves.” The question is not  whether  Christians should get involved in politics, but  how  – to which Hauerwas would invariably joke: “the same way porcupines make love: very carefully.” Hauerwas admits that Christian success in politics might look like worldly loss. If a Christian somehow ends up president, he  warns , “if they do the right thing, they won’t be re-elected.” Christians must live in the awareness that faithfulness often leads to martyrdom, not political success. After all, in Revelation the saints are identified as those who conquer by means of the apparent defeat of their Lord (“the blood of the Lamb”), as well as their own apparent defeat (“the word of their testimony, for they loved not their lives even unto death”). It is one such apparent defeat, Hauerwas once told me, that he considers the “only successful Christian experiment in government”: Quaker Pennsylvania. Even Christians who, like me, lack firm pacifist convictions can learn much from the efforts of Pennsylvania’s founder, William Penn. Originally published by Plough, used with permission https://www.plough.com/en/topics/justice/politics/can-a-government-be-pacifist?utm_source=Plough%20-%20English

Here in this sermon, pastor Jon Sherwood discusses the nonviolent way of the cross as seen in the life and ministry of Jesus, and its relevance in a context of Christian nationalism and violence.