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:

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

Martin Luther King Day 2011 Quotes

"In the terrible midnight of war men have knocked on the door of the church to ask for the bread of peace, but the church has often disappointed them. What more pathetically reveals the irrelevancy of the church in present-day world affairs than its witness regarding war? In a world gone mad with arms buildups, chauvinistic passions, and imperialistic explorations, the church has either endorsed these activities or remained appallingly silent. During the last two world wars, national churches even functioned as the ready lackeys of the state, sprinkling holy water upon the battleships and joining the mighty armies in singing, "Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition." A weary world, pleading desperately for peace, has often found the church morally sanctioning war." - The Strength to Love (1963)

"Violence brings only temporary victories; violence, by creating many more social problems than it solves, never bring permanent peace. … A voice, echoing through the corridors of time, says to every intemperate Peter, "Put up thy sword." History is cluttered with the wreckage of nations that failed to follow Christ's command" - The Strength to Love (1963)

"During recent months I have come to see more and more the need for the method of nonviolence in international relations. …more and more I have come to the conclusion that the potential destructiveness of modern weapons of war totally rules out the possibility of war ever serving again as a negative good. If we assume that mankind has a right to survive then we must find an alternative to war and destruction. …The choice today is no longer between violence and nonviolence. It is either nonviolence or nonexistence. …I am convinced that the church cannot remain silent while mankind faces the threat of being plunged into the abyss of nuclear annihilation. If the church is true to its mission it must call for an end to the arms race." - Pilgrimage to Nonviolence (1960)

- Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Critique of an Essay on C. S. Lewis' Just War View

I love C. S. Lewis. In many ways, he has been a mentor to me throughout my Christian life. From the time I first read Mere Christianity to now as I am reading the Chronicles of Narnia series to my children, his teachings have helped to shape my faith. That is why it is particularly troubling to me when I read his thoughts on war and peace. I recently found an essay on Lewis' view of Just War, and opposition to pacifism, on the website of Touchtone Magazine—which is apparently a Christian journal. I'd like to spend a little time and space here dissecting parts of this essay in the hopes of exposing critical errors in its conclusion.

The argument the author makes is amazingly naive. For example, he writes, "Human beings cannot be expected to survive in a political system meant for angels, nor is there any biblical warrant for them to attempt such a system." By this he is referring to pacifism, but it is entirely unclear where he is pulling the idea that peace is an angelic ideal, not a human one.

At one point he examines what he calls the "failure of pacifism" from several points of view: facts, intuition, reasoning, and authority. Take a look at some of his points.

"Intuition provides a stronger case for pacifism. We seem to feel very strongly that love and helping are good, while hate and harming are bad. What this intuition fails to tell us, however, is how we are to love and help the innocent who are being treated unjustly by the wicked without using force on the wicked. So intuition in this case leads us astray because it does not see (not immediately at least) what reason sees: that you can love and use force at the same time."

First, the author is supposed to be demonstrating the failure of pacifism under the criterion of "intuition." How does he do so? He states upfront that intuition seems to support pacifism. Then, he goes on to abandon intuition altogether and judge intuition's conclusion by reason. How does this demonstrate pacifism's failure using intuition as a criterion? It doesn't. If anything, this demonstrates pacifism victory on the grounds of intuition, and reason's failure to support our intuition. If our reason goes against our intuition, this author directs readers to jettison their intuition entirely. However, it could just as easily be argued that the author's "reason" or "logic" is just as much an "intuition," since the instinct that killing is not love certainly has a "logical" and "reasonable" grounding.

"Authority, too, is against the pacifist. Every human society has said that some wars are good and that every citizen benefits from some wars (most obviously, wars of self-defense). The Christian tradition since the fourth century has declared that some wars are good.

Yes, opinion was divided in the first two centuries, but not nearly as much as popular opinion would have us believe. The first Christians were held in suspicion by the Roman authorities, and, to make matters worse, participation in the Roman army meant engaging in pagan rites such as emperor-worship. But we find little evidence of the earliest Christians rejecting military service on account of a moral aversion to bloodshed. Most of the early church fathers who speak on the subject of just war speak with approval.

In fact, the 'pros' clearly have it over the 'cons.' Clement of Alexandria, Origen (who was unique in limiting Christian support to prayer for the troops to succeed), Eusebius, Basil, Ambrose, Chrysostom, and Augustine all admit to the goodness and usefulness of just wars. Only Tertullian can be listed on the pacifist side. The great early Reformers, such as Tyndale, Luther, and Calvin, were all proponents of the just war. Only the radical reformers rejected the notion of a just war."

Second, the author scrutinizes pacifism under the criterion of "authority." Of course, what the author means by authority is unclear. Apparently, he appeals to history as authority rather than Scripture. Not a single verse is cited. And even the author's use of Church Fathers is amateurish at best. The fact that he begins his case for the Church's support of war with a statement that starts this support in the "fourth century" and only claims "some" wars are good, does not make a strong case. The obvious questions this statement begs are: What about the preceding centuries, closer to the time of Christ? And, if all wars have not been good, which wars were not good? The author does not answer the second question, and misrepresents the facts to address the first. He claims that there is a lack of evidence in support of Christian nonviolence before the fourth century, and that more early church fathers supported a concept of just war than were opposed. In fact, he counts Origen as a supporter of war because he taught that we should pray for soldiers. However, he erroneously adds that Origen taught we should pray for soldiers' victory in battle. In contrast, Origen argues that if, as Celsus hypothetically pondered, all Romans were Christians, then war would be unnecessary because through prayer God would destroy Rome's enemies.

"We say that if two of us agree upon earth concerning anything that they shall ask, they shall receive it from the heavenly Father of the righteous... For they will pray to the Word, who said of old to the Hebrews when they were pursued by the Egyptians: ‘The Lord shall fight for you, and ye shall be silent’; and, praying with all concord, they will be able to overthrow far more enemies who pursue them than those whom the prayers of Moses—when he cried to God—and of those with him overthrew...But if, according to Celsus’ supposition, all the Romans were to be persuaded, they will by praying overcome their enemies; or (rather) they will not make war at all, being guarded by the Divine Power, which promised to save five whole cities for the sake of fifty righteous. For the men of God are the salt that preserves the early order of the world; the earthly things hold together (only) as long as the salt is not corrupted."
- Against Celsus, 8.70

Furthermore, the author claims that opinions differ on the early church's stance toward war before Constantine. However, the only detractor from the overwhelming consensus is himself. Cadoux writes,

"The early Christians took Jesus at his word, and understood his inculcations of gentleness and non-resistence in their literal sense. The closely identified their religion with peace; they strongly condemned war for the bloodshed which it involved; they appropriated to themselves the Old Testament prophesy which foretold the transformation of the weapons of war into the implements of agriculture; they declared that it was their policy to return good for evil and to conquer evil with good."
- John C. Cadoux, The Early Christian Attitude to War: A Contribution to the History of Christian Ethics, 245.

Finally, the authors' implementation of reason as a demonstration of pacifism's failure is perhaps the most disturbing. His reasoning proceeds thusly:

1) Pacifists take Jesus' nonviolence teachings at "face value."
2) This is clearly a mistake because we don't take other teachings of Jesus literally (e.g. selling all our possessions to give to the poor, and not burying family members.)
3) Thankfully, Paul and Peter show us that what Jesus meant was not to exact vengeance.

He writes,

"Reason is clearly against the pacifist on all fronts, except, perhaps, one: the teaching of Jesus that one should “turn the other cheek” (Matt. 5:39). Lewis readily admits that it is hard to deal with people who base their entire theology on a few verses—this in itself seems to go against reason—but he does have a response. If we are going to take all of Jesus’ commands at face value, then pacifists should also sell all their goods and give them to the poor. They should also quit burying their loved ones (“leave the dead to bury the dead,” Matt. 8:22).

Fortunately, we have the Apostle Paul to help us here. When Jesus tells us to turn our cheeks when struck, he means that we should not retaliate out of vengeance. We leave vengeance to God, who works his vengeance on the evildoer through the State’s use of the sword. Christians are called upon to support the State, which has been ordained by God just for the purpose of using the sword to establish and maintain justice (Rom. 12–13). This better accords with the rest of the New Testament—not to mention the Old Testament, where God commands killing on quite a number of occasions! Pacifist logic leads us to say that Paul, Peter, and the writer of Hebrews (who, in the eleventh chapter, commends to Christians as people worthy of imitation those Old Testament warriors who waged war for justice) all misunderstood the teachings of Jesus."

The author's hermeneutics are pathetic. Placing the saying "let the dead bury their own dead" in the same category as "love your enemies" is intellectually dishonest. Jesus clearly mourns the death of Lazerus, to the point of shedding tears for him—knowing full well that he would be raised to life. Furthermore, it is clear from the context that Jesus' hyperbole was meant to emphasize the urgency and unrelenting resolve discipleship and Kingdom citizenship demand. It is comparable to Christ's hyperbolic teaching to cut off offending body parts. Christ's command to love our enemies is not at all hyperbolic. God loves his enemies. Godliness requires that we act in accordance with the divine nature.

It is also important to note that Romans 12 contains stark examples of Paul's full acceptance of Christ's nonviolent ethic. This includes the command to "Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse" (v.14) as well as "If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone." (v.18) If we are commanded to bless our enemies and live at peace with them as far as it depends on us, then we have no justification for violence. This sets the stage for Paul's comments about living under worldly governments. We must never think that ours is a role in society of exacting judgment. Rather, ours is a role of peace, reflecting the Kingdom of God where swords will be beaten into plows.

Evidence of the Transformational Power of Peace: A Bishop Who Stood in the Way

Last night, the Tanks to Tractors Christian peace group met for the third time. Tim and Alice Colegrove were wonderful enough to allow our motley crew to converge on their beautiful home. THANK YOU TIM AND ALICE!!!

For the first time in our extremely brief history, we implemented a very important part of our reason for existence: Prayer. We all agreed that prayer must play a central role in how and why we gather. In particular, I was moved by Libby's prayer for the group that we be protected from self-righteousness and continue to 'walk humbly with our God.' This is certainly a real danger for Christians who hold the Peace position. We can easily give way to judgement of others who do not share our convictions. I am thankful that our group is already cognizant of this potential source of sin and is taking preemptive steps of resistance.

We also viewed a documentary film entitled "Prince of Peace, God of War" (which can be downloaded for free) by director John Campea. The film is made up mostly of short clips from interviews the director conducted with Christian scholars, that unfortunately did not represent the diverse Body of Christ, but hold to either the Peace position or Just War theory. Among the scholars interviewed was Dr. Tony Campolo. In his interview, he recounts a moving story of the power of peace. He tells of an Orthodox priest (Metropolitan Kirill) in Bulgaria during WWII who so identified with the Jews Nazi soldiers were rounding up to be transported to concentration camps, that he joined them in their confinement and proclaimed the words of Ruth, "Wherever you go, I will go. Your people will be my people. Your God will be my God." When the SS saw that this demonstration was attracting a crowd too formidable to fend off, they abandoned the mission and none of the Jews in that Bulgarian town were killed.

I was so moved by this story, I wanted to seek out confirmation of its historicity. A few quick web searches returned overwhelming support. It seems this small town in Bulgarian was not alone. The Orthodox church in Bulgaria seems to have unanimously opposed cooperation with the Nazis and refused to hand over Bulgarians that happened to be Jewish. It also appears the Jewish community remembers this event well and has honored Bishop Kirill for it. I found an account of this story that is nearly identical to the one Campolo tells on the website of the Orthodox Peace Fellowship.

A detail they include that Campolo omits is even additionally inspirational. It is said in multiple locations I found, that Bishop Kirill and his followers threatened to lay down on the train tracks should the Nazi attempt to transport their Jewish neighbors out of the town.

This is truly the Christian witness that we are called to be.

Grace and peace

New England Society for Non-resistance - Reading

In the spirit of William Lloyd Garrison's group founded in 1838, a new group is forming in New England once again to proclaim the peace-making love of Jesus. The New England Society for Non-resistance is currently reading the Declaration of Sentiments written by Garrison and adopted by the Peace Convention. We welcome you to read along with us and post your comments here.

Blessings,

~T. C.

Peace-Making-Kingdom People

I'm very excited to report that earlier this evening I was privileged to meet with a group of Jesus-followers who want to seek ways together to express their faith in Jesus through nonviolence and non-resistence here in Boston. The group was gathered together by Tim and Alice Colegrove and is inspired by the "New England Non-resistance Society" founded by William Lloyd Garrison. The group has not yet chosen a name, but has already discussed expectations for the group's purpose and ways to take action on our convictions.

With Rod's blessing, I have offered TankstoTractors.org as a virtual bulletin board for the posting of announcements, information, events, updates, etc. pertaining to the group. For all those interested, please check back soon as we hope to have more frequent postings.

I have attached to this post the logo of The Liberator, the newspaper William Lloyd Garrison edited here in New England because of how much it amazed me. Christ is pictured in the center between an African slave and a white soldier. Over Christ's head it reads, "I come to break the bonds of the oppressor." And the banner that stretches across and behind the title reads, "You shall love thy neighbor as thy self."

Amazing! Amen! And AMEN!

The Gift of Meekness: A Counter to N.T. Wright's Case For A Stronger United Nations- my 3 part series

Last week, I decided to respond to NT Wright's case for a stronger United Nations.

Here is his piece:

NT Wright on a stronger United Nations

Here was my response:

Gift of Meekness, part 1

Gift of Meekness, part 2

Gift of Meekness, part 3

My Conversion to Christian Nonviolence

Greetings in the name of our LORD and Savior Jesus the Messiah!
I would like to take my first post on the Tanks to Tractors blog to describe one of my many conversions during my spiritual journey. I originally was “saved” when I was eight years old when I accepted Jesus the Messiah as the LORD of my life in a Baptist church one Sunday morning. However, there are times, in the Christian life, where one reads Scripture, hears the Holy Spirit all the while the environment and circumstances in one’s life changes, and God is able to transform a person from an old creation to something completely new. Let me say, that from a young age, I was a committed political pacifist, accepting the secular arguments for pacifism and peacemaking and international cooperation and then, reading that political stance into my interpretation of Scripture. The revelation of Jesus the Messiah in his death on a cross was irrelevant to my political views. Even when during the first days of the Iraq invasion, I was loud in my maverick stance of not watching the news when it was showed in the hallways of the university’s student center. People came up to me and asked me why would I not stop to watch the news, and I told them all, with George W. Bush’s 80% approval rating and all, that I would not support this war because I was committed to peace. My friends ridiculed me for attending Amnesty International meetings where two to three people would show up and we would have conversations about our disgust over how the student population was apathetic and blindly pro-war. I had not yet developed the theological skills or the lexicon of postcolonialism, but I still knew what imperialism looked like. I was fed up with George W. Bush and his God-talk about liberation for the Iraqis as well as the naïve, condescending attitudes of the liberal establishment who praised Bush for bringing democracy to the Middle East (as if America was created as a democracy itself).
My discontent was caused by my religion being divorced completely from my politics. I had essentially been taught (implicitly) that it was okay to hold to orthodox Christian doctrines while at the same time adhere to a political belief system without reflecting on the political implications of Christian doctrine, i.e., to the exclusion of orthopraxy—a word we never hear in Baptist churches, let alone evangelical and conservative congregations. I eventually came across Roman Catholic moral teaching while taking an undergraduate Religious Studies course on Vatican II. After reading his work, The Gift of Peace, I became obsessed with the teaching of the late Joseph Cardinal Bernadine, who taught the seamless garb, or the interconnectedness of all of life. He took very strong public stances against abortion, poverty, reckless nuclear war, euthanasia, and capital punishment. Here, for me was my first real example of someone preferring to allow her/his theological preferences dictate her/his political stances. Then, I started to look back at the life of Jesus Christ, and the meaning of the Gospel, and trying to find the center of the GOOD News and what the Triune God required of me, as an individual Christian. Four years later, I read John Howard Yoder’s The Politics of Jesus for the first time. I had already read many of Stanley Hauerwas’ works, which dealt with Christian nonviolence and the separation of church and state. After I read TPOJ, my conversion to Christian nonviolence had begun. It was not the words of Yoder, per se, or the book itself, but the fact that Yoder’s book made me go back to the Bible to realize that is the crucifixion of Jesus the Messiah that stands front and center of all Christian social and personal action. Jesus’ victory on the tree at Golgatha paved the way for us to live free, to govern ourselves by the power of the Holy Spirit (Galatians 2). All righteousness comes from the Lamb that was slain, and so does any Christian moral reasoning for taking action within the world. By making the crucifixion my starting point for my ethic of Christian nonviolence, there was no question about why do I do what I do because I now know why: the cross of Jesus the Messiah, the Wisdom of God, foolishness to the wise of the world, but unto us, it is the power of God.