Just War v. Non-resistence Debate in Boston

Back on March 28th, there was a debate on "Should Christians Fight?" at Faneuil Hall in Boston.

Speaking in favor of Christians engaging in just war was:

Peter Kreeft (Ph.D. Fordham University) is professor of philosophy at Boston College. He is the author of over 67 books on philosophy, theology and Christian apologetics. A gifted thinker and speaker, he speaks at universities and churches all over the world. He draws inspiration from influential figures such as Socrates, Thomas Aquinas, and C. S. Lewis. 

J. Daryl Charles (Ph.D., Westminster Theological Seminary) has written over twelve books on ethics, Christian engagement in the public square, and just war. He is widely regarded as a leading authority on the Christian just war tradition.

Speaking against Christians in war will be:

David Bercot is an attorney (J.D., Baylor University), author, and speaker. He has numerous books on the subject of the early church, where he emphasizes the simplicity of biblical doctrine and early (pre-325 AD) Christian teaching over what he would call the complex and compromised body of theological understandings built up over the centuries that have come to be thought of as orthodoxy. 

Dean Taylor and his wife Tania were both in the U. S. Army when they realized that, as committed Christians, they had to come to grip with Jesus' teachings in the Sermon on the Mount on loving one's enemies. They ultimately left the Army in a new and sincere quest for truth, determined to follow Jesus Christ under the banner "no compromise." Mr. Taylor is a widely sought speaker who regularly addresses the question, "What if Jesus really meant every word He said?".

"It's Just War" - Should Christians Fight? Debate from FollowersOfTheWay on Vimeo.

Some Reflections

Shout out to Tim Colegrove for providing the link to the video and for hearing about the event.

When I initially read the names of those presenting at this debate, I was sure it would be a bloodbath (pun intended). On the Just War side sat two highly credentialed scholars. While on the non-resistance side sat two relatively unknown persons (at least to me!). I've been reading books by Peter Kreeft since I was 17; he is a premiere Christian apologist. I encountered the work of J. Daryl Charles when I was doing research for a paper on nonviolence at CUME. The title of his book, Between Pacifism and Jihad, struck me, so I read it cover to cover. It's reasoning was terrible, but its rhetorical punch was hard-hitting (seriously, the violence puns are just low-hanging fruit right now). And I know that his book is widely acclaimed among conservative Just War proponents in the US especially.

That's why it's so fascinating to me that it seemed entirely lopsided in favor of the non-resistance position. I thought the presentations of Drs. Charles and Kreeft were weak at best, but probably more honestly pathetic. I feel like I could have defended Just War tradition better than they did! But on the non-resistance side, I thought the representatives gave a very compelling presentation, even if I would have personally presented some parts slightly differently.

One portion of the debate that shocked me was when Dr. Kreeft seemed perplexed to find out that the non-resisters did not intend to impose the Jesus's teaching of enemy-love onto secular governments. I was very surprised he'd never encountered non-liberal pacifists. But since he is a world-renowned C. S. Lewis scholar and demonstrated his indebtedness to Lewis's essay "Why I'm Not a Pacifist" in his closing remarks, it's apparent that he has not very familiar with Anabaptist-like pacifism.

Possibly the most striking thing about the debate was the clear contrast between the representatives of non-resistance and the Just War defenders on emphasizing Jesus's teaching. I'm not sure J. Daryl Charles ever eludes to Jesus's teaching once for support accept to say that Jesus only meant for his teachings to be applied to inter-personal conflict, not military service. While, by contrast, I not sure the two non-resisters ever fail to point to Jesus's teachings in their presentations. If one was watching this debate as a person seeking a Christ-centered view, they would only be left with one option.

PS - I thought Dr. Charles's repeated appeals to Christians serving in "any vocation" to be a huge red herring. Certainly Christians cannot be loan sharks who exploit people and use violence. Charles's claim can only lead to a compartmentalization of "discipleship." At one point he even referred to a family member's "discipleship" in reference to their service to the State.

"Fight Church" Documentary Gets Colbert Report Treatment

The Colbert Report
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Indecision Political Humor,The Colbert Report on Facebook

Concerning Heretics and Those That Burn Them

Balthasar Hubmaier (1480-1528), Concerning Heretics and Those Who Burn Them (1524)

1. Heretics are those who wickedly oppose the holy scriptures, the first of whom was the devil, when he said to Eve, "Ye shall not surely die", (genesis 3:4) together with his followers.

2. Those also are heretics that cast a veil over the scriptures and interpret them otherwise than the holy spirit demands; as those who everywhere proclaim a concubine as a benefice, pastoring and ruling the church at Rome, and compelling us to believe this talk.

3. Those who are such one should overcome with holy knowledge, not angrily but softly, although the Holy Scriptures contain wrath.

4. But this wrath of the scriptures is truly a spiritual fire and zeal of love, not burning without the Word of God.

5. If they will not be taught by strong proofs or evangelic reasons, then let them be, and leave them to rage and be mad (Titus 3:2,3), that those who are filthy may become more filthy still (Rev. 22:11).

6. The law that condemns heretics to the fire builds up both Zion in blood and Jerusalem in wickedness.

7. Therefore will they be taken away in sighs, for the judgments of God (whose right it is to judge) either convert or harden them, that the blind lead the blind and both the seduced and the seducer go from bad to worse.

8. This is the will of Christ who said, “Let both grow together till the harvest, lest while ye gather up the tares ye root up also the wheat with them” (Matt. 13:29). “For there must also be heresies among you, that they that are approved may be made manifest among you” (1 Cor. 11:19).

 9. Though they indeed experience this, yet they are not put away until Christ shall say to the reapers, “Gather first the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them” (Matt. 13:30).

10. This word does not teach us idleness but strife; for we should unceasingly contend, not with men but with their godless doctrine.

11. The unwatchful bishops are the cause of the heresies. “When men slept, the enemy came” (Matt. 13:25).

12. Again, “Blessed is the man who is a watcher at the door of the bridegroom’s chamber” (Prov. 8:34), and neither sleeps nor “sits in the seat of the scornful” (Ps. 1:1).

13. Hence is follows that the inquisitors are the greatest heretics of all, since, against the doctrine and example of Christ, they condemn heretics to fire, and before the time of harvest root up the wheat with the tares.

14. For Christ did not come to butcher, destroy, and burn, but that those that live might live more abundantly (John 10:10).

15. We should pray and hope for repentance, as long as man lives in this misery.

16. A turk or a heretic is not convinced by our act, either with the sword or with fire, but only with patience and prayer; and so we should await with patience the judgment of God.

17. If we do otherwise, God will treat our sword as stubble, and burning fire as mockery (Job 41:29).

18. So unholy and far off from evangelical doctrine is the whole order of preaching friars (of which variegated birds our Antony is one), that hitherto out of them alone the inquisitors have come.

19. If these only knew of what spirit they ought to be, they would not so shamelessly pervert God’s Word, nor so often cry, “To the fire, to the fire!” (Luke 9:54-56).

20. It is no excuse (as they charter) that they give over the wicked to the secular power, for he who thus gives over sins more deeply (John 19:11).

 21. For each Christian has a sword against the wicked, which is the Word of God (Eph. 6:17), but not a sword against the malignant.

22. The secular power rightly and properly puts to death the criminals who injure the bodies of the defenseless (Rom. 13:3,4). But he who is God’s cannot injure anyone, unless he first deserts the gospel.

23. Christ has shown us this clearly, saying, “Fear not them that kill the body” (Matt. 10:28).

24. The [secular] power judges criminals, but not the godless who cannot injure either body or soul, but rather are a benefit; therefore God can in wisdom draw good from evil.

25. Faith which flows from the gospel fountain lives only in contests, and the rougher they become so much the greater becomes faith.

26. That everyone has not been taught the gospel truth is due to the bishops no less than to the common people – these that they have not cared for a better shepherd, the former that they have not performed their office properly.

27. If the blind lead the blind, according to the judgment of God, they both fall together into the ditch (Matt. 15:14).

28. Hence to burn heretics is in appearance to profess Christ (Titus 1:10,11), but in reality to deny him, and to be more monstrous than Jehoiakim, the King of Judah (Jer. 37:23).

 29. If it is blasphemy to destroy a heretic, how much more is it to burn to ashes a faithful herald of the Word of God, unconvicted, not arraigned by the truth.

30. The greatest deception of the people is a zeal for God that is unscripturally expended, the salvation of the soul, honor of the church, love of truth, good intention, use or custom, episcopal decrees, the teaching of the reason that come by natural light. For they are deadly arrows where they are not led and directed by the Scriptures.

31. We should not presume, led away by the deception of our own purpose, to do better or more securely than God has spoken by his own mouth.

32. Those who rely on their good intention and think to do better, are like Uzziah and Peter. The latter was called Satan by Christ (Matt. 16:23), but the former came to a wretched end (1 Chr. 13:10).

33. Elnathan, Delaiah, and Gemariah acted wisely in withstanding Jehoiakim, the kind of Judah, when he cast the book of Jehovah into the fire (Jer. 35:25).

34. But in that, after one book was burnt, Baruch by the express direction of Jeremiah, wrote another much better (Jer. 36:27-32), we see the just punishment of God on the unrighteous burning. For so it shall be that on those who fear the frost, a cold snow falls (Job. 6:16).

35. But we do not hold that it was unchristian to burn their numerous books of incantations, as the fact in the Acts of the Apostles shows (Acts 19:19). It is a small thing to burn innocent paper, but to point out an error and to disprove it by Scripture, that is art.

36. Now it is clear to everyone, even the blind, that a law to burn heretics is an invention of the devil. “Truth is immortal.”  

From Henry C. Vedder, Balthasar Hubmaier: The Leader of the Anabaptists (New York: AMS Press, 1971), 84-88.

Fight Church Trailer

The Didache and Christian Nonresistance

Yesterday my wife Alice and I decided to browse Rodney's used bookstore in Central Square. I immediately bee-lined it to the theology and "western religion" section and found myself quickly drawn into a little Penguin Classics book titled "Early Christian Writings". As someone with strong convictions regarding Christian nonviolence, the early church has always been dear to my heart. If you read through some of the first few hundred years of early church fathers you will discover just how strong the nonviolent ethic was early on and just how essential early Christians felt that it was to their practice of the Gospel life. As I skimmed through "Early Christian Writings" I stumbled upon an early Christian "rule" of faith and practice called the "Didache". The Didache is a manuscript of 1st century origin and anonymous authorship which provides instruction for Christian living and church order. It's importance to the church is illustrated by the fact that several of the early Church fathers gave the Didache high honor, strongly recommending it for reading (Athanasius, Eusebius) and some even suggesting its canonization (Rufinus of Aquileia, John of Damascus). I had read the Didache many years ago before my convictions about violence took shape, but reading it yesterday I found myself rediscovering it in light of the peace tradition of the church. What follows is the first four paragraphs of the Didache:

There are two ways, one of life and one of death, but a great difference between the two ways.

The way of life, then, is this: First, you shall love God who made you; second, love your neighbor as yourself, and do not do to another what you would not want done to you.

And of these sayings the teaching is this: Bless those who curse you, and pray for your enemies, and fast for those who persecute you. For what reward is there for loving those who love you? Do not the Gentiles do the same? But love those who hate you, and you shall not have an enemy.

Abstain from fleshly and worldly lusts. If someone strikes your right cheek, turn to him the other also, and you shall be perfect.

The Didache goes on to provide a clear set of moral teaching which is then followed by instruction on baptism and the Lord's supper. What I found fascinating yesterday as I read through it was the emphasis placed on the "love of enemies" as the correct interpretation of the great commandment "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself" (Luke 10:27). According to the Didache, the essential meaning and the key doctrine of the greatest commandment is the love of enemies. Early Christian tradition felt that this was so important that it stands to serve as the preface to this manuscript of apostolic instruction. Before everything else, this comes first.

Early Christian history is rich with instruction about faith in practice. Although the preservation of sound theological doctrine was important to the church in the earliest years, the teaching of the apostles in the New Testament epistles and in manuscripts such as the Didache remind us that the earliest Christians didn't isolate theological doctrine from ethics. For the earliest believers, instructions about how to live a life of holiness seem to be just as "doctrinal" as the churches teaching on the Trinity. Unfortunately for the church of today, Christian ethics are often brushed aside as secondary to theology. Theological claims are perceived as "doctrinal" while the realm of ethics is set aside as a kind of "best practices" study of the Church. In so doing, we neglect to provide our communities with the food that they need in order to grow into mature believers. In failing to provide clear instruction, church leadership fails to fulfill the great commission which clearly states that we should go out into the world making disciples and "teaching them to obey everything" Jesus has commanded.

For further study of the early church teaching, I would recommend browsing through Calvin College's Ethereal Christian Classics Library online at this link. The full text of the Didache can be accessed here.

On Fighting Fire with Fire

“For this reason Jesus has also added, 'But I say to you, do not resist the evil one.' He did not say 'do not resist your brother' but 'the evil one'! We are authorized to dare to act in the presence of evil through Christ’s influence. In this way he relaxes and secretly removes most of our anger against the aggressor by transferring the censure to another. 'What then?' one asks. 'Should we not resist the evil one at all?' Indeed we should, but not in this way. Rather, as Jesus has commanded, we resist by surrendering ourselves to suffer wrongfully. In this way you shall prevail over him. For one fire is not quenched by another, but fire by water. “

-John Chrysostom, c. 347–407

Lausanne

Today I had the opportunity to view some of the video clips from this past year's Lausanne Congress on World Evangelization. Lausanne is an evangelical conference dedicated to world missions. While browsing through some of the lectures and sermons I found an interesting piece in the section titled "Reconciliaton" titled "Our Boys on the Border". The video is a dramatic piece which shows two men being called to arms by their general. Later on in the clip a woman is shown praying for Jesus peace and shortly afterwards the two men lower their weapons which are pointed at each other and cast their rifles aside. Although the piece was unquestionably powerful, I had hoped for more. I was hoping that someone from Lausanne would urge the church to renounce nationalism, militarism, and all forms of violence towards their fellow man. Unfortunately, it would seem that the church is still convinced that somehow we can use the means of the Pax Romana (the Roman way to peace through force and violence) to bring about the Pax Christi when Jesus makes it clear that the ends must be present in the means. Christ has clearly forbidden violence from among his disciples and, as the early church theologian Tertullian said, "in disarming Peter, Christ has disarmed all Christians." There are no excuses nor any justifications for Christians to bear arms against other men, Jesus has made it clear that Christians are to love their enemies. The Lausanne conference used the scripture found in Ephesians that says, "For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility..." but has forgotten that Jesus accomplished this through the cross as is said in v. 16 "and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility." He makes it clear that his followers will bring about peace in the same way, when he tells them, "Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me." (Luke 9:23) The cross is not only the way of our salvation but it is the example which Christians are called to follow. This has been a deep conviction of the Tanks to Tractors group and it has been our desire to bring this message to the church in Boston.

I am not only concerned about this issue out of a desire for deeper Christian discipleship, but also because I believe it to be a critical matter in the area of evangelization. I consider it a conflict of interests that Christians continue to engage in warfare and capital punishment after their conversion. How can we claim to care for and proclaim the Gospel to sinners if we do so while seeking to kill them? This would be like a doctor claiming to care for and heal his patients while slipping them a lethal dose of morphine. Why should we, who have been guaranteed eternal life, protect our mortal lives by taking the lives of those who are at risk of eternal judgement? We would be wise to remember that the blood of the martyrs is a powerful witness not only because of their testimony to Jesus in words but because of their willingness to go peacefully to their deaths and suffer well, not cursing their enemies but blessing them. It is shameful that the church has not had the faith and the courage to do likewise in this age.

I believe that if Christians committed themselves to Jesus ethic of nonviolence, there would be a massive harvest of souls. People around the world would see that Christ's Gospel is not cheap and purely ideological, but that it is practical and costly. The world would see how seriously we take Jesus commandments and they would wonder what makes him worth dying for. I hope someday to see this taught at conferences like Lausanne.

If you're interested in seeing the Lausanne clip mentioned here, follow this link.

Prince of Peace - God of War Film Screening

Thursday, Novemeber 10th, at 7:00pm, Tanks To Tractors will be showing the documentary film Prince of Peace - God of War by John Campea at Gordon-Conwell's Boston Campus: The Center for Urban Ministerial Education (90 Warren Street, Roxbury, MA). After the screening, the T2T crew will be holding a Q&A on the Christian Nonviolence position.

To RSVP, go to: http://bit.ly/warpeacefilm

Waging Peace: Resources by Paul K. Chappell

Capt. Paul K. Chappell is an Iraq War veteran, a peace leader, and the author of several books including The End of War. Chappell also travels the world and speaks to groups about the power of peace.

Check out his website and these videos:

How to Start a Revolution (Film)

Christians Who Practiced What They Preached

During World War II, in and around one village in Nazi-occupied France, 5,000 Jews were sheltered—by 5,000 Christians! The astonishing story of a unique conspiracy of goodness.

Le Chambon-sur-Lignon was a tiny Protestant farming village in the mountains of south-central France. Defying the Nazis and the French government that was collaborating with the Nazis, the villagers of the area of Le Chambon provided a safe haven throughout the war for whoever knocked on their door. Most of the villagers were proud descendants of the Huguenots, first Protestants in Catholic France. They remembered their own history of persecution, and it mattered to them. They also read the Bible, and tried to heed the admonition to love your neighbor as yourself. Henri Héritier in "Weapons of the Spirit" "The responsibility of Christians," their pastor, André Trocmé, had reminded them the day after France surrendered to Nazi Germany, "is to resist the violence that will be brought to bear on their consciences through the weapons of the spirit." There were many other uncelebrated individual and collective acts of goodwill and righteousness throughout the dark war years. But nowhere else did a persistent and successful moral consensus develop on a scale approaching what happened in the area of Le Chambon.

Urban Nonviolence: Pastor Efrem Smith

On the heels of our presentation to the Education Curriculum Subcommittee regarding the addition of a perspectives course on Jesus, Nonviolence, and Peace Church Tradition, I found this article very encouraging:

Pastor Efrem Smith writes about Jesus' Way of Peace as the Christian solution to urban violence

The Violence of Jesus

"Nonviolence" is the wrong word for Jesus' Way of remaking the world. Jesus taught us violence. Jesus taught us destruction. He just didn't teach us to direct our destructive violence toward human beings. The destructive violence Jesus taught and modeled for his disciples is a force that transcends the visible landscape. With his presence, his extended hand of healing, his voice calling forth Lazarus, his feet which trod on Samarian land, his blood that flowed from his broken body, and with his nail-pierced hands he let Thomas touch, Jesus exacted a kind of violence upon invisible wickedness and domination that utterly humiliated it. His violence was so perfectly aimed at what truly ensnares us that it was and is peace.

The problem with our violence is not that it is violent, it is that it is unlike the violence of Jesus. Instead of targeting the systems of oppression and exclusion that are often veiled behind religious language and pious acts, we tend to aim our destruction toward one another and God's creation. Then, when someone reminds us that our battle is not with flesh and blood, we accuse them of disembodied theology. Our battle with principalities ad powers takes place in the body. As embodied souls, we must use our bodies like Jesus did to violently oppose spiritual realities. If we are to share in his triumph, we must fight as he fought—and he fought with his body.

The body of Christ is not like Jesus' body. In Jesus' body was a thorn-pierced brow and a spear-thrust side. In Jesus' body were hands that touched lepers and lips that spit in the mud to heal the blind. In Jesus' body he waged war on darkness that blinded the eyes of the religious and oppressed the poor. In Jesus' body there was sorrow for the loss of Lazarus' life and for Jerusalem's lack of spiritual guidance. In Jesus' body he blessed children and drew them near to himself.

The Prizefighter Jesus, the MMA Jesus, who has become popular in US Christianity is an impotent loser. That Jesus does not transform the cosmos. That Jesus does not triumph. That Jesus is not violent enough.

morning prayer

Father,

you are full of grace. i desire revenge.
your love is everlasting.
may my love not be as fleeting as the moments that i experience anger, deceit, lust and hatred.

you are my shepherd. i am the lost sheep.
your pursuit of me will never end.
may i pursue those who turn their back on me with an undying resolve.

you are just. i show partiality.
your judgments are always true and good.
may i treat all people with the knowledge that i am not their judge, but a friend on the journey towards our Maker.

-dave-

Reflections on a Violent Situation

Something we have recognized as a group in our discussions about Jesus' nonviolent way is that it is easy to advocate nonviolence having never or rarely experienced violence firsthand.

It is certainly not everyday that I experience violence, and for this I am extremely grateful. Yet, because my work is in ministry among Boston's homeless, I do occasionally find myself having to intervene in a conflict. Thursday was a perfect, albeit strange, example of this.

I was sitting on the sidewalk next to the Harvard Square MBTA entrance with several young homeless guys. We were passing the time, making small talk, and playing guitar as we often do. One of the guys, who was sitting next to me, had had quite a bit to drink. For the purposes of this reflection I'll call him "Ray". A friend of Ray's was sitting across from us playing guitar and, for the most part, keeping to himself when a man walked by wearing a skirt and a feather boa. He looked very uncomfortable in his outfit and nothing he was wearing seemed to fit. He was slightly overweight, somewhat short, had a buzz cut and several tattoos. As this stranger walked by Ray's guitar-playing friend, Ray's friend decided to ask him for two dollars to buy some coffee. The man ignored him and accidentally dropped a part of his feather boa on the ground in front of Ray's guitar-playing friend. A minute or two later, noticing that he had lost part of his feather boa, the stranger walked back to Ray's guitar-playng friend and angrily asked for Ray's friend to pick up the feather boa for him. "You think I like wearing this skirt??!!" He said loudly, "Pick up the feather! You think its easy to bend over in a skirt out here??" No one quite knew what to make of this, so someone picked up the feather for him and the man walked a ways down the sidewalk and sat down to reassemble himself. And then the trouble started. Ray yelled across the sidewalk at his guitar-playing friend and asked what had happened. His guitar-playing friend said, "I don't know, this guy was giving me trouble." And before anyone could stop him, Ray had stumbled over to the stranger and was yelling at him looking to fight. Within moments, the two of them were exchanging punches and the fight quickly spilled out into heavily-trafficked Harvard square. Several of us ran in to try to break up the fight, grabbing the shoulders of each man and pulling away. We thought we had restrained them at first, but then insults were again exchanged and Ray grabbed the man's bag and angrily scattered its contents, including a laptop computer, into the air. They clawed and punched at each other, rolling on the brick surface of the square. Ray had managed to rip the shirt off of his opponent and by this point a very large crowd of passerby's (probably 60-80 people) had gathered and were watching. Several friends of Ray's shouted out to him, "Rip him apart Ray! You got this!!" But the stranger had straddled him and was laying on blow after blow to Ray's face, tearing open his lip. Prior to this second round of the fight, I had withdrawn to pray for the situation, hoping that it would come to a quick end and that someone would walk away defeated. But I realized, as Ray was taking the brunt of the beating, that no one had any intention of stopping them or getting involved. Afraid that someone would get seriously injured, I decided it was time to involve myself and I stepped in and grabbed the shoulders of the stranger a second time and pulled him away. Several other people saw my efforts and stepped in and grabbed Ray. Finally, just at that moment, several police officers showed up bringing the conflict to a swift end.

As I have reflected on this situation over the past several days I have realized its worth as a greater metaphor for larger institutional forms of violence. Although there are clear differences between micro-violence between individuals and macro-violence between nations, I saw in this conflict just how easy it is to make quick irrational decisions based more out of instinct and fear than reason and peace-making. I saw this impulse at work in several players who found themselves involved last Thursday.

I first observed this instinctual reaction in the response of Ray's friends. Since they knew Ray and had his allegiance, their impulse was an emotional one. Initially it was to attempt to break up the fight, but once it was clear that Ray didn't want to back down, they were unquestionably on his side. If I hadn't intervened, they would have continued to encourage him. If the stranger had pulled a knife, I am sure that this would have turned into a small brawl. To draw a comparison to the larger political metaphor, his friends were like a countries allies.

The second group of people I have found myself reflecting upon is the crowd who watched the fight. They were emotionally and relationally uninvolved since they didn't know Ray or the stranger. Curious about what was going on, they watched. Some of them called the police, but none of them involved themselves. They assumed that someone else would bring this to an end and therefore chose their own safety over intervention. I found myself surprised that no one did anything. I looked around and though there were several strong men standing on the edges of the circle who could have easily broken up the fight, no one acted. Perhaps they were all afraid of getting hurt. Perhaps they didn't know what to do. Perhaps they didn't feel that it was their moral obligation to involve themselves. I would draw a comparison between the crowds and third-party nations in political violence. Perhaps this is similar to America's lack of involvement in some of the ongoing African conflicts. Afraid of the implications of getting involved and having no quick answers, they stand aside and watch.

Lastly, I observed the police response and its effect on the conflict. It took longer than I would have expected for them to arrive, considering that the square is typically very well policed. They came and quickly split up the fight, restraining both parties and forcing them to sit down and cool off. They made no arrests, but did a background check on both combatants and questioned them. Ultimately, they did their job. Yet looking back on the resolution to the conflict, I observed that although a show of force had stopped the conflict after it had begun, it failed to respond to the root causes that had begun the argument to begin with. Again thinking back on the similarities between this micro-violence and political violence I noted that this "show-of-force" method is what we see many of the worlds nuclear countries practicing when they find themselves drawn into the conflict of smaller nations. Taking a side in the conflict, they usually bring a temporary end to further fighting by generating fear in the other side.

As I've reflecting on my own role, I was able to recognize my unique perspective. Although I know Ray and care for his safety, I have continually made it clear to those I minister among that I do not take sides in a fight and that my concern will always be for the peace and safety of all parties. Ray's friends know that I do not want to see ANYONE get hurt, no matter what they do to Ray. A second aspect to my presence that I feel makes a difference is that I have never been associated, and hopefully never will be associated, with violent intervention and everyone knows that I would never carry a weapon. This makes me an innocent and neutral third-party. However, unlike the crowd presence, I have stated my vested interest in the well-being of the community in conflict. This involves me directly. I believe that this combination of characteristics makes for a very powerful presence that, if applied with wisdom and caution, can be very effective at disarming conflict and bringing about reconciliation. Applied to the world of international conflict, I have wondered if the formation of a third-party with the aforementioned characteristics might be very effective in resolving disputes and preventing bloodshed. Here are some attributes I believe would be necessary for this organization to function:

- It would have to be clearly stated that the organization was concerned for the well-being and safety of all. Therefore, it would have to discerningly evaluate how an action might be perceived before involving itself so as not to appear to take sides.

- It would have to hold no allegiances to government or political entities.

-It would need to have a longevity of presence in each nation involved. It couldn't simply show up out of nowhere and expect for both sides to respect it.

-It would need to be completely unarmed. As a rule it could never provoke a conflict or participate in conflict through the use of violence. This would need to be strictly adhered to, even at cost to the lives of its membership.

As I write these attributes it seems to me that the Church could be a perfect candidate for this role. Yet sadly, without the ethics of nonviolence to guide it, I'm afraid that it would only encourage the status quo.

I would be interested in your comments on this reflection. What has your experience been with violence? What did you notice about the different participants involvement? What other attributes would you recommend for an organization whose goal is to promote peace and reconciliation?

Peace Ethics and Federal Taxes

Shane Claiborne (Christian speaker, author, urban minister, and outspoken pacifist) has shared an open letter to the IRS with his convictions about the payment of his federal taxes this year along with his protest of the government's use of tax dollars to fund the military.

Claiborne's position is that since he objects to the US government's use of federal tax dollars, his Christian pacifist convictions compel him to withhold a percentage of the taxes he owes in protest.

Carson T. Clark, an evangelical Anglican pastor and writer, has written a response. It is not an attack on Claiborne himself, or even on his convictions. It does however raise several good points, that I thought would make for good discussion fodder.

Also, Clark makes the very humorous comparison of Claiborne's approach to a scene from a Will Ferrel movie (below).

"TAXMAN!!!"

Urban Peacemaking Conference in Chicago

The theme of the 2011 Congress on Urban Ministry, hosted by SCUPE, is Peacemaking in a Culture of Violence. SCUPE is the Seminary Consortium of Urban Pastoral Education and this Tanks to Tractors blogger is very encouraged to see that they are taking the epidemic of violence in America's cities seriously.
In light of the fact that we have seen very little engagement with the issue of violence at our seminary, I am particularly pleased to see Associated Mennonite Biblical Seminary among the member seminaries of SCUPE tackling this year's subject.

Revelation of Peace—Not Violence

The Book of Revelation is often pointed to in support of an interpretation of Jesus Christ which justifies violence and war. Revelation is thought to support this interpretation because the book is widely thought to contain Jesus destroying his enemies in a bloody war. Greg Boyd refutes the violent interpretation of Jesus which attempts to use Revelation as support (hereafter "the violent view") by offering these points:

1) The Violent View Disregards the Genre of Revelation

Revelation is apocalyptic, and therefore should be interpreted with this genre's characteristics in mind. Apocalyptic literature often employs symbolism to communicate truth. These symbols are not meant to be understood as one-to-one representations of visible reality, but are meant to be understood as representing an unseen reality. To disregard the apocalyptic genre of Revelation does injustice to the Text and leads to misunderstanding, error.

2) The Violent View Misunderstands the Meaning of Jesus' Sword

Rather than being a worldly weapon of war wielded in one's hand (II Cor. 10.4), Jesus' sword in Revelation proceeds from his mouth. It is in fact Truth and the Word of God. (Heb. 4.12) Boyd writes,

[Jesus' sword] rather comes out of his mouth (Rev. 1.16 [cf. Heb. 4:12]; 2.16; 19:15, 21), signifying that Jesus defeats enemies simply by speaking the truth. The saints also overcome not with physical weapons but by “the blood of the lamb and by the word of their testimony” [Rev. 12.11].

3) The Violent View Mistakes the Blood of Jesus for the Blood of His Enemies

Rather than being soaked in the blood of his enemies, Jesus appears in chapter 19 (v.13) already bloody. The blood that Jesus' robes are soaked in is his own—not his enemies'. Jesus is the Conquering Lamb. He is victorious because he was slain (Col. 2.15; Rev. 5.12)

…if we interpret Revelation according to its genre and in its original historical context, and if we pay close attention to the ingenious way John uses traditional symbolism, it becomes clear that John is taking traditional Old Testament and Apocalyptic violent imagery and turning it on its head. Yes there is an aggressive war, and yes there is bloodshed. But its a war in which the Lamb and his followers are victorious because they fight the devil and Babylon (representing all governmental systems) by faithfully laying down their lives for the sake of truth (”the blood of the lamb and the word of their testimony”)…

Four Flaws in Chris' View: A Case-study in Evangelical Hermeneutical Error

Chris has been nice enough to comment on our blog. He has been reading for months now and expresses concerns about the theology being presented here. Chris' view is representative of many evangelicals—especially evangelicals in the US. That is why I thought it worthy of a more thorough response. Here are four hermeneutical flaws in Chris' view:

Flaw #1) The Assumption of Congruence Between the First and New Covenants

The covenant that God made with the Hebrew people is not binding on disciples of Jesus Christ. Paul and the writer of Hebrews are clear on this matter (Gal. 3—particularly vv.23-25; Heb. 10.1-3). Disciples of Jesus Christ are recipients of a new and better covenant that supersedes the First Covenant. (Heb. 7.18-22, 8—particularly vv.5-13)

Chris' view assumes congruence between the First Covenant and the New Covenants that Scripture clearly shows is absent. Where Chris seeks to find sameness, Scripture teaches distinction and newness. Jesus demonstrates this clearly:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them… (Matthew 5.17)

You have heard …but I tell you… (vv.21-22)
You have heard …but I tell you… (vv.27-28)
It has been said …but I tell you… (vv.31-32)
…you have heard that it was said …But I tell you… (vv.33-34)

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. (vv.38-39)

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." (vv.43-48)

Do you notice a pattern? Is it congruence with the First Covenant, or incongruence?

Whether God used war to punish or judge humanity in the First Covenant is irrelevant to the fact that God has, in these last days, revealed Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace, as the Lamb who conquers through self-sacrificial love. (Heb. 1.1-3; Rev. 5.12, 7.10, 12.11)

Flaw #2) The Assumption that the Revelation of God in the Hebrew Bible is Equal to Revelation of God in Jesus Christ

The Hebrew Bible, the Law and the First Covenant, point to Jesus—Jesus is revelation perfected. (Col. 2.17) The revelation of God in Jesus Christ is superior to the revelation of God in the Hebrew Bible—the Law and the Prophets—because Jesus is the "exact representation" of God's being—the final Word of God. (Heb. 1.1-3) In Christ, all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form. (Col. 1.19, 2.9)

Flaw #3) The Assumption that God's Judgment of Humans Permits or Prescribes Christian Judgment of Humans

Ananias and Sapphira were struck down by God directly (or indirectly)—with no mention of Jesus Christ I might add. Nowhere in this account is there any prescriptive or permissive application for disciples of Jesus Christ. God is humanity's Judge and is justified in requiring of a person his or her life. It does not follow, however, that this in any way exists as a command for Christ's followers to kill or even to do violence to human beings.

Disciples of Jesus Christ—that's us—are to "follow Jesus Christ." This is what it means to be his "disciples." Jesus suffered injustice, loved unconditionally, sacrificed his life for his enemies—this is our example to follow. (I Pet. 2.19-24) Jesus does not strike people dead, nor does he permit his disciples to even injure them. (Mt. 26.50-54)

God is humanity's Judge; disciples of Jesus Christ are forbidden judgment. (Mt. 7.1-2)

Flaw #4) The Assumption that God's Unchanging Nature Requires that God's Engagement of Humanity Must Not Change

God's essential nature is perfect and unchanging. (James 1.17) God can and does change how he engages humanity (e.g. "New" Covenant).

A change in God's engagement of humanity is not a change in God's essential nature. God's nature is free. Therefore, God can and has chosen to engage humanity in a "New" way in these last days. Namely, God has chosen to send Jesus Christ to be the Mediator of a "New" Covenant. (I Tim. 2.5; Heb. 9.15)

To recap:

1) The "New" Covenant is New—not a continuation of the First Covenant

2) Jesus Christ is the perfect revelation of God's nature—not the First Covenant

3) God is the Judge of humanity—disciples of Jesus Christ are expressly prohibited from judgment

4) God's essential nature is unchanging—God's engagement of humanity has changed radically in the New Covenant

Do You Serve A Jesus Who Whips People?

I've often been perplexed by the interpretation of "The Temple Cleansing" that attributes to Jesus violence against the money-changers. This view is typically put forth as an objection to Christian pacifism, and a moral justification for violence. The proponents of this view are very sure Jesus whipped human beings in the account. For them, it is plainly evident in the text itself. In point of fact, this is precisely not the case at all. There is absolutely no reason to understand Jesus whipping people in this account, outside of a bias in favor of conceptualizing Jesus as violent. And this is precisely what drives this interpretation. There is a strand of Christianity, that is popular in America, which refuses to picture Jesus as "weak" or "defenseless," and prefers to re-conceptualize Jesus as a macho, divine, ultimate-fighter.

Mark Driscoll embodies this sentiment perfectly:

“There is a strong drift toward the hard theological left. Some emergent types [want] to recast Jesus as a limp-wrist hippie in a dress with a lot of product in His hair, who drank decaf and made pithy Zen statements about life while shopping for the perfect pair of shoes. In Revelation, Jesus is a pride fighter with a tattoo down His leg, a sword in His hand and the commitment to make someone bleed. That is a guy I can worship. I cannot worship the hippie, diaper, halo Christ because I cannot worship a guy I can beat up. I fear some are becoming more cultural than Christian, and without a big Jesus who has authority and hates sin as revealed in the Bible, we will have less and less Christians, and more and more confused, spiritually self-righteous blogger critics of Christianity.”

Here's the problem with the Macho Jesus theology: It's a false Jesus. The biblical Jesus does lay down his life, and does not whip people. If a person is unable to worship a Jesus who chooses self-sacrificial love over judgment or wrath, then that person cannot follow the true Jesus.

For those who are interested in biblical interpretation, and not simply the cultural repackaging of Jesus to suit one's insecurity, John Howard Yoder wrote and illuminating essay on the Temple Cleansing available at JesusRadicals.com.