Redeeming God

Liberating you from bad ideas about God

Learn the MOST ESSENTIAL truths for following Jesus.

Get FREE articles and audio teachings in my discipleship emails!


  • Join Us!
  • Scripture
  • Theology
  • My Books
  • About
  • Discipleship
  • Courses
    • What is Hell?
    • Skeleton Church
    • The Gospel According to Scripture
    • The Gospel Dictionary
    • The Re-Justification of God
    • What is Prayer?
    • Adventures in Fishing for Men
    • What are the Spiritual Gifts?
    • How to Study the Bible
    • Courses FAQ
  • Forum
    • Introduce Yourself
    • Old Testament
    • New Testament
    • Theology Questions
    • Life & Ministry

It’s not Personal; it’s Just War

By Jeremy Myers
11 Comments

It’s not Personal; it’s Just War

Have you ever heard someone say, “It’s not personal; it’s just business”? This statement is usually said in the context of one person destroying the livelihood of another person through a hostile corporate takeover, or pushing a company out of business, or some sort of other action which ruins that other person’s company or income stream.

Of course, the person who is losing their livelihood, income, or business nearly always takes this attack personally. It is impossible not to. Each person is intimately connected with what they do and how they earn their income and provide for themselves and their family. It is deeply “personal” when someone else tries to take that away.

Which brings me to the concept of “Just War.” Just War theory is the idea that some wars are good, right, holy, and just. When such wars are waged, the attacking army often views their actions as good and godly, so that many of those on the receiving end of these attacks should be pleased and happy about the bombs falling out of the sky and the bullets whizzing by their heads because they are being set free and liberated from some form of evil that had enslaved them.

In other words, some proponents of “Just War theory” give the impression that as our armies march off to kill others in God’s name, we can be saying, “It’s not personal; it’s Just War,” and they expect people to say “Thank you!” as bombs fall on their heads.

Yes, this is a caricature of the Just War position, but when you listen to advocates of Just War theory, this caricature is not too far off the mark. They see themselves as liberators and freedom fighters who use war to set others free.

just warLet us look briefly at Just War theory, and how it is defined. Following this, I will suggest an alternative method to accomplishing God’s will in this world.

Rules of Just War

The rules for Just War were first developed by Thomas Aquinas (c1225-74) and Francisco de Vitoria (c1483-1546) and are still referred to by Christians today. They are as follows:

-it must be fought by a legal recognized authority, eg, a government
-the cause of the war must be just
-the war must be fought with the intention to establish good or correct evil
-there must be a reasonable chance of success
-the war must be the last resort (after all diplomatic negotiations have been tried and failed)
-only sufficient force must be used and civilians must not be involved

Stated differently:

  1. A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.
  2. A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.
  3. A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient–see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with “right” intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.
  4. A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.
  5. The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.
  6. The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.
  7. The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.

The Primary Problem with Just War Theory

Just War theory initially seems like a good approach. After all, how else are we to stop evil and violence in this world?

But the truth is that when you talk to any group or government that is engaging in war, they ALL think that their cause is just and that their actions will right a wrong. I challenge you to find a war in human history where one of the sides in the war thought that their involvement in that war was evil and wrong, or that their cause was unjust.

When people and nations march off to war, everybody thinks their cause is righteous, that they are defending themselves against evil and tyranny, and that God is on their side. Go ask Muslim Jihadist, and he will tell you that the violence they engage in against others is holy, right, and just. Jihad, after all, is “Holy War.” Just War, Holy War, Jihad, they’re all the same thing. I wrote about this here: All War is Holy War.

The truth is that all wars are “Just Wars” … or none of them are.

And since we know that most wars are not “Just Wars,” this means that no war is a Just War. We just deceive ourselves into thinking that our war is just while “their” war is evil.

The only real difference between a “Just War” and an evil war is that the people who engage in “Just War” have come up with some excuses to justify their actions in the war. And since every group and government justifies their own, this means that every war is a “Just War” from that group’s perspective.

To put it another way, we could say that “A Just War is a war I engage in, while an evil war is one you engage in. All my wars are just, while all your wars are evil.” But of course, our opponents in war think the same thing. They think their actions are just while ours are evil.

So you see? There is no such thing as a Just War; there are just wars that we justify in our own minds.

So …. Pacifism is the Answer?

No. Pacifism is not the answer either.

Both Pacifism and Just War are inherently self-defeating and impossible to practice.

pacfismThere is no such thing as a true pacifist. Pacifists want to do no harm, to engage in no violence, to kill nothing and hurt nothing. Many pacifists are vegetarians, or even vegans, because they do not want to participate in the killing of animals. And yet few pacifists have difficulty with taking antibiotic medicine or spraying their counter with Lysol to ward off germs and bacteria. But germs and bacteria are living microorganisms. So it is okay to kill them, but not larger organisms? At what point does killing become wrong?

How about bugs and insects? Almost all pacifists drive cars. When you drive a car, you will kill insects every single time. Your tires will run over ants and beetles, bees and butterflies will be crushed against your windshield. I once spent a few hours in the woods with a pacifist, and he was swatting mosquitos right along with the rest of us.

People say that Jesus was a pacifist, but it appears to me from Scripture that He ate lamb at the Passover, and fish on the shore of Galilee. People point out that the text doesn’t actually say he ate meat. Fine. But He certainly caught it, killed it, cooked it, and served it. Several times in the Gospels, for example, He gives His disciples a miraculous catch of fish. So many, the boat threatened to sink. And He knew that these fish would be killed and eaten. And in John 21:9, after one of these miraculous catches, when the disciples reach shore, Jesus already has a fire going with fish cooking on the fire.

The point is that true and complete pacifism is inherently impossible to perfectly practice in this world.

So how do we stop evil?

In order to discover how best to respond to evil, let us look at the foundational motivation of both Just War Theory and Pacifism.

Proponents of Just War theory believe that we must stand up for what is right. We must stand up against evil. They are absolutely correct in this belief.

Proponents of Pacifism believe that violence is wrong; especially the violence that takes human life. They are absolutely correct in this belief.

But if we hold to Just War, then (as we have seen), there is no end to violence. Violence always and only begets more violence. Everybody thinks their war is just, and so a “Just War” only leads to a retaliatory “Just War.” There is no end to this cycle.

Similarly, if we hold to Pacifism, then we will often let evil win because we fail to properly stand up to violence and evil, thereby allowing ourselves or others to get steamrolled by violence. People who are pacifists sometimes no nothing but sit there (or shout at) evil while it is occurring, when they should be taking an active stand against it.

just war vs pacifism

The Third Way

Thankfully, Just War and Pacifism are not the only two options. There is a third way, which is the way of Jesus, Martin Luther King Jr., Ghandi, and numerous others.

This third way approach to evil and violence takes the strengths of both Just War and Pacifism while avoiding the weaknesses and drawbacks. This “Third Way” is called Non-Violent Resistance.

It stands up to evil wherever it is found, but with a commitment to doing so non-violently.

The difficulty with this approach is that since we live in a world that is bathed in violence, we have trouble seeing how a non-violent approach can stop the flood of violence. It is difficult to imagine how non-violent resistance can be effective in stopping the spread of evil and violence.

How, for example, would non-violent resistance have stopped Hitler? The truth is that I do not know. (Although part of the answer involves never waging World War I. Hitler was a product of Germany’s loss in World War I. So if World War I had never happened, then World War II would not have happened either. And when you look at the events which started World War I, it was a war that never should have been waged.)

The greatest difficulty with non-violent resistance, however, is that there are no formulas to follow or steps to carry out. The rules to violence are easy: If you are going to engage in violence, make sure your weapons and army are bigger than those of your enemy. There are no such rules with non-violent resistance. Each situation is unique, and requires a unique response.

Responding to Hitler non-violently requires a whole different set of actions than responding to a man on the street who wants to rob you and gunpoint.

Nevertheless, there are six principles I would like to suggest for all non-violent resistance.

The Six Principles of Non-Violent Resistance

Jesus Christ Roman soldierThe six principles of non-violent resistance form an acrostic which spells CHRIST. Jesus Christ was the perfect example of how to respond non-violently to evil, and so it is appropriate that His title, Christ, helps guide us into our own way of non-violence.

Here are the six principles. Non-Violent resistance requires:

  • Creativity (bathed in prayer) in the face of evil.
  • Honesty about yourself, and how you contributed to the problem.
  • Realism about the world situation and the reality of evil. Violence will often “win.”
  • Incarnation of the love, patience, and forgiveness of God as seen in Jesus.
  • Strength and courage to stand while not retaliating.
  • Trust in God to work, and to recognize that sometimes it is better to die than kill.

Note that as we carry out these principles in our live, we are not seeking revolution, but revelation. The key to non-violent resistance is to reveal the character and nature of God as revealed in Jesus Christ.

the way to peaceWe change the world by showing it a different and better way to peace than the way it knows, which is the way of war and bloodshed.

The world has never imagined that there can be another way, but Jesus has revealed it, and now our task is to reveal it as well. We cannot force change upon the world, but we can change how we ourselves live in response to others, and when they see this, they might be inspired to live differently as well. As such, our lives are prophetic. Through our words and actions, we reveal who God is and how God wants us to live.

So do you see some evil situations in the world that need to be fixed? Do you see some violent actions that need to be stopped? Follow the way of Jesus in seeking to stand up to these situations and actions with truth, love, forgiveness, courage, and strength, and then see how God works to bring about peace through you.


This post was part of the July 2018 Synchroblog on the topic of Just War and Pacifism. Here are links to others who contributed this month. Go read them all!

  • K. W. Leslie – Just War: Vengeance Disguised as Righteousness 
  • What God May Really Be Like – Is God a Warmonger or a Pacifist?
  • Layman Seeker – Disarmed and Harmonious
  • Tim Nichols – If you Love Sheep …
  • Scott Sloan – Holy War and Manifest Destiny in Light of the Cross
  • Done With Religion – For God and Country
  • Justin Steckbauer – Should Christians Fight in a War?

God is Redeeming Life, Redeeming Theology, z Bible & Theology Topics: just war, non-violence, non-violent resistance, pacifism, peace, synchroblog

Advertisement

Go Buy a Sword! (Luke 22:36)

By Jeremy Myers
55 Comments

Go Buy a Sword! (Luke 22:36)

I was recently listening to a radio talk show host talk about the right of American’s to own guns and he made the statement that even Jesus wants people to own guns.

He said that true Christianity is a Christianity that bears arms. He then went on to quote Jesus’ statement in Luke 22:36 where He instructs His disciples to sell their cloak so that they can go buy a sword. “See?” the talk show host said, “Any Christian who says we should not buy and own weapons is not a true Christian because they are contradicting Jesus Himself!”

I laughed at this sort of argument, but sadly, the radio host was deadly serious, and far too many Christians agree with him.

go buy a sword

Far too many Christian see Jesus’ instructions to His disciples to go buy a sword as an endorsement by Jesus of gun ownership, and in some cases, an endorsement of violence. I am not of this persuasion.

For the record, I support the constitutional right of United States citizens to buy and own guns. But I don’t do so on the basis of Scripture. I support gun ownership for political, historical, and rational reasons. But none of that matters for this post.

The real issue I want to address is why Jesus told His disciples to go buy a sword in Luke 22:36. There are a couple things to note about this instruction from Jesus which shows us that the instructions of Jesus to His disciples to buy a sword cannot in any way be viewed as an endorsement from Jesus of gun ownership.

1. These Swords Were Not For Violence

First of all, we must recognize that whatever reasons Jesus had for telling His disciples to buy swords, the swords were not to be used for violence.

Peter, put away your swordAfter all, when Peter actually used the sword that he was carrying, Jesus not only rebuked him and told him to put the sword away, but He also healed the damage that had been done by Peter’s sword (Luke 22:47-51).

Furthermore, when Jesus was put on trial, Jesus told Pilate that since His kingdom was not of this world, His followers would not fight (John 18:36). Obviously, if Jesus had wanted His disciples to use the swords they had purchased, Jesus could not have said this.

Jesus clearly knew, and His disciples seemed to understand (especially after learning from the rebuke of Peter), that Jesus did not want them to use their swords for violence.

So why then did Jesus have His disciples buy swords?

2. The Swords Were For the Fulfillment of Prophecy

Immediately after telling His disciples to buy a sword, Jesus gave them the reason why: “For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in me: ‘And He was numbered with the transgressors’” (Luke 22:37).

Jesus told His disciples to buy swords so that He can fulfill this prophecy from Isaiah 53:12. Jesus wanted His disciples to buy swords so that it will appear to the authorities that He and His band of followers were transgressors!

That this is what Jesus meant is confirmed by the statement of Jesus in Luke 22:38 when the disciples show Jesus the two swords they had obtained. Jesus said, “It is enough.” In other words, “That will do.”

If Jesus was seriously condoning violence, two swords were not “enough” to accomplish anything, especially in the hands of a ragtag bunch of fishermen and tax-collectors who had no military training.

Jesus out of contextJesus told His disciples to buy swords, not so that they would use them, but as a fulfillment of prophecy so that they would have the appearance of being transgressors.

To fulfill prophecy, Jesus had to be viewed as a transgressor. He had to at least appear to be a political revolutionary to the Jewish authorities for them to feel justified in arresting him. His cleansing of the temple a few days earlier was probably calculated for the same effect. So, to fulfill the prophecy and to provoke the Jewish authorities, he had to have enough weaponry to justify being viewed as a law breaking revolutionary (Greg Boyd, Go Buy a Sword )

So Go Buy a Gun if You Want To…

So if you live in a country that allows gun ownership, and if you are a law-abiding citizen, go buy a gun if you want to.

But don’t ever suppose that Jesus endorses gun ownership because He told His disciples to “go buy a sword.” That is a terrible misreading of Luke 22:36.

God is Redeeming Scripture Bible & Theology Topics: Guns, Luke 22:36, non-violent resistance, pacifism, violence

Advertisement

Nonviolent Resistance and Pacifism are Not the Same Thing

By Jeremy Myers
24 Comments

Nonviolent Resistance and Pacifism are Not the Same Thing

nonviolent resistanceI recently had an email exchange with a reader of this blog about pacifism and nonviolence. Usually such exchanges are better suited for the comment section of blog posts, since this allows more people to weigh in on the conversation. So, for the sake of inviting you in to the conversation, I will post our email exchange below. Please read it and then weigh in with your own thoughts.

I am interspersing my thoughts into the exchange (indicated by brackets [ … ]), and will conclude with some brief observations and clarifications.

Derek (not his real name): A question. If it is the job of the Holy Spirit to convince the world of sin (and I agree that this is the job of the Holy Spirit) are you saying that we as a nation are not to do anything about the threat to our freedom from ISIS or the other radical Muslims who say we must submit to their god? “A nation” is composed of people (some of the population being Christian) and if they do nothing against their enemies, then they will be over run by those enemies. Would just like a little clarification. Otherwise, you are correct that we should not use the “Christians are not perfect…just forgiven” as an excuse for covering for someone who has done wrong who claims to be a Christian. Of course, I assume you do believe that Christians are not perfect until God gives us our glorified body. Right or do you believe Christians can become perfect?

J. Myers: No, I am not saying that we should do nothing about ISIS. But violence will only lead to more violence. There are ways to nonviolently resist the things they are doing. Think Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela, etc.

[I didn’t answer his questions about Christian perfectionism. I do not believe Christians can become perfect in this life, but I didn’t want our discussion to get sidetracked onto peripheral issues.]

Derek: Please tell me one way you can nonviolently resist the radical ISIS? While nonviolence is a desired way, you approach a radical ISIS member and you most likely will lose your head.

Will be waiting your reply, as I have much to say about Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and Nelson Mandela.

J. Myers: There is no “one way” or even “a way” that fits every situation. That is why creativity and determination are needed in nonviolent resistance.

But no, I would never recommend approaching a radical ISIS member. Why would you? Nonviolent resistance is primarily for the times when they approach you. And yes, you might lose your head. But Jesus was crucified, and in God’s economy, dying for what is right is more of a “win” than killing someone else to save one’s life.

loving is not winning[Note that nonviolent resistance is not about “winning” or “defeating the enemy.” If we nonviolently resist, we may end up dead. That’s what happened to Jesus, after all. The goal of nonviolent resistance is not to “stay alive” while taking the life of someone else (if necessary), but it is rather to reveal God and love others like Jesus. It is impossible to do this if you are killing them.]

Derek: It is good that most Christians in the United States – from the beginning of the republic until today – do not hold your pacifistic viewpoints on dealing with the devils who call themselves Islamic Jihadists.

[Note the scapegoating going on in Derek’s statement. He has “de-humanized” these Muslims by calling them “devils.” We get very upset when Muslims refer to the United States as “The Great Satan,” but we do the same thing to them.]

I don’t know exactly what you mean by, “That is why creativity and determination are needed in nonviolent resistance.” I will admit, that if a person can meet one of these people who is not so radicalized, and you can tell him or her about the saving Grace of God, and that their Allah is not the real God, it is possible to win them to Christ. But how many of them are going to give you that opportunity? Not many.

[Yes. If the first words out of your mouth when you meet a Muslim include “Allah is not a real God,” it is not surprising that they will not want to hear the rest of what you have to say, and you will not “win them to Christ.” But who ever said that such words need to be included in the first conversation you have with Muslims? Or even the tenth? Or Hundredth?]

I believe that God is allowing these radical Muslims and other revolutionaries to stir up the middle east – perhaps bringing about World War III – so the people of the world who are so naïve, will fall for the argument that we need a World Government perhaps under the current United Nations. I believe we are in the Last Days, and if such does come about, from this World Government could come the Anti-Christ which the Scriptures tell us about. If that happens, then you should know the rest of the story.

[Here is the scapegoating again. World War III is already being blamed on the Muslims, and it hasn’t even started yet!]

Earlier, you had mentioned the “nonviolent” tactics of Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and Nelson Mandela.

Gandhi was a true believer and practitioner of “nonviolence.” However, my understanding is that he was not a “born again” Christian, despite all the good work he did. If the Scriptures are correct in their teachings (and I believe they are), then Gandhi is in torment in Hell as I write this email.

[Isn’t it strange that while Gandhi can better follow the instructions of Jesus than most Christians (even though He was Hindu), he is “in torment in Hell” right now? Yes, I know we do not receive eternal life by works, but I find this entire line of reasoning quite shocking. Also, because Gandhi wasn’t a “Christian” he apparently has nothing to teach us?]

Martin Luther King attended various meetings which were sponsored by organizations which were “communistic” in nature. While his nonviolent protests did bring about the Civil Rights movement and led to ending the wrongs of Segregation, one of the unintended consequences of such has produced Black hoodlums across America, many of whom have the idea they do not have to obey the laws of the land because their ancestors were slaves. Racial tensions are greater today, than they were during the days of Segregation. Martin Luther King was a professing Christian and Minister, and I have to give him the benefit of the doubt that at some time in his life, he trusted in the shed Blood of Christ on the Cross for forgiveness of his sins, and held to that trust for his Salvation until the day he was assassinated.

[So, Martin Luther King Jr., though he was a Christian and a pastor, can apparently be discredited too because his meetings were sponsored by communistic organizations? And what is this about the end of segregation being responsible for “black hoodlums across America”? Yikes!]

Nelson Mandela was another who was influenced by “communistic” doctrines. And while he may have been unjustifiably held in prison for many years, I do not believe he was a professing Christian, and if he was not, then we can only know what the Scriptures teach us. Despite his bringing an end to Apartheid, I understand that South Africa is as unsafe to travel to today as are some areas of New York City.

[And Mandela was a communist too, and therefore, cannot be trusted? And the end of Apartheid is responsible for violence in South Africa and even New York… ]

Nonviolence works only when your enemy agrees to become nonviolent. Nonviolence did not win us the Revolutionary War. Nonviolence did not win the Civil War for the restoration of the Union. Nonviolence did not win us World War I, and Nonviolence did not win us World War II. However, pacifism did influence our loss of some 55,000 American Soldiers in the Korean Conflict, and some 60,000 plus in the Viet-Nam War.

[Here is the whole concept of “winning” again. And the confusion of nonviolent resistance with pacifism.]

God commanded Israel to go to war against their enemies many times in the Old Testament. And while I prefer peace over war, and I wish “nonviolence” was the doctrine of all nations and tribes, there are times when a nation has to go to war to assure its citizens of security from those who will harm us. Anything less will ensure oppression and occupation from those who would kill us and destroy the way of life we have been blessed with.

[And the best trump-card of all – the violent portrayals of God in the Old Testament.]

J. Myers: I am not a pacifist. I have never claimed to be a pacifist. I do not recommend that anybody become a pacifist. Nonviolent resistance is not at all the same thing as pacifism. On the spectrum of forms of resistance, just-war is closer to pacifism than to nonviolent resistance.

Based on your comments, I see we disagree on many, many things. That’s fine. But many of those disagreements are forming the foundation for our disagreement on this issue. This means that any further debate on this issue will be a waste of time for both of us.

Derek: “Nonviolent resistance is not at all the same thing as pacifism.”

Don’t know what planet you have just arrived from, but “Nonviolence” and “Pacifism” are the same thing. Neither are willing to take up arms to fight a threatening enemy. Don’t know how old your are, but I will be 71 at the end of this month of June. I taught American History for some 10 years at a community college. I have studied history most of my adult life. One thing I have learned from my studies, is that you cannot allow an enemy to exist. He has to be destroyed, or he will destroy you. History teaches that, and reality proves such. Both Pacifists and Nonviolence advocates refuse to admit to such.

I did not respond any further, since I saw the exchange was becoming “unproductive.”

Here are some closing thoughts:

Nonviolent resistance is primarily differentiated from pacifism by the word “resistance.” Pacifists often are content to sit back, do nothing, and let evil roll over them. They see their role in resisting evil as little more than a speed bump. They might slow down evil as it rolls over them, but they are probably not going to stop it.

Nonviolent resistance, on the other hand, is actively devoted to resisting evil and injustice in every way possible, yet without resorting to violence. There is, as you can see, a huge difference between the two.

who would Jesu shoot?The Bible does not promote pacifism, but does promote nonviolent resistance. We are to do what we can to stop evil and fight against evil, but we must not do so with the weapons of war and violence. Among many other texts, one primary place Jesus teaches this is in His instruction to love our enemies.

There are six elements to nonviolent resistance, which differentiates it from pacifism and they are summed up well by Martin Luther King Jr. (King, Stride Toward Freedom, 1958, 84-88)

First, one can resist evil without resorting to violence.

Second, nonviolence seeks to win the “friendship and understanding” of the opponent, not to humiliate him.

Third, evil itself, not the people committing evil acts, should be opposed.

Fourth, those committed to nonviolence must be willing to suffer without retaliation as suffering itself can be redemptive.

Fifth, nonviolent resistance avoids “external physical violence” and “internal violence of spirit” as well: “The nonviolent resister not only refuses to shoot his opponent but he also refuses to hate him.” The resister should be motivated by love in the sense of the Greek word agape.

The sixth principle is that the nonviolent resister must have a “deep faith in the future,” stemming from the conviction that “the universe is on the side of justice.”

Near the end of our email exchange, Derek listed several wars that had been “won” by the use of violence. The definition of “winning” is somewhat debatable. While one country might have forced another country to “lie down,” was the cost of human life on both sides “worth it”? Is this “winning”?

He points out that pacifism caused the death of thousands. I do not deny it.

But note carefully that I am not defending or recommending pacifism. I am recommending active nonviolent resistance.

nonviolent resistance

What is most surprising about nonviolent resistance is that where it has been used in human history, it has a better “success” record than does violent resistance (or war).

In one chapter of his book, Engaging the Powers (which is a book every Christian should read), Walter Wink lays out the history of nonviolent resistance and shows how when it is properly used, nonviolent resistance is more successful than war at stopping evil and violence. In fact, in many cases where violence was completely and repeatedly unsuccessful, nonviolent resistance brought about the change that violence had attempted to accomplish, but failed.

In a TED talk a few years ago, political scientist Erica Chenoweth talked about her research comparing nonviolent and violent campaigns, and she said that while she used to believe that violent resistance was more successful than nonviolent resistance, the data she collected blew her away and changed her mind forever. She said, “I collected data on all major nonviolent and violent campaigns for the overthrow of a government or a territorial liberation since 1900,” she says — hundreds of cases. “The data blew me away.” Below are some charts of her research, and you can read more about it here.

nonviolence

nonviolent resistance 2

You can watch her TED talk here:

There is so much to be said about nonviolent resistance, but I’ve said enough for now, and the only real point of this post was to invite you into the conversation I had with Derek. Where was I wrong? Where was he?

What could have (and should have) been clarified? What is your perspective on nonviolent resistance, pacifism, and war?

Leave your comments below!

God is Redeeming Life Bible & Theology Topics: forgiveness, Gandhi, Jesus, love, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, nonviolent resistance, pacifism, peace, violence, war

Advertisement

6 Principles of Non-Violent Resistance

By Jeremy Myers
16 Comments

6 Principles of Non-Violent Resistance

When faced with the question of how to deal with violence, most people think there are only two options: either be violent in return, OR lay down and die as a pacifist. There is, however, a third way, which is called “Non-Violent Resistance.” It is what was practiced by Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr., and so many other people throughout history. It is also the way of Jesus.

non violent resistance

I have been doing a lot of reading and thinking about this over the past six years or so, and some of what I have learned will find its way into my upcoming book about giving up our rights, but here is a post about non-violent resistance, and some of the principles involved for living this way.

Though I do not have the time or space in the conclusion to this chapter to fully explain non-violent resistance, let me present a few of the guiding principles of this practice, and also suggest a few books so you can do further reading and research on your own.

1. Non-Violent Resistance Takes Courage

The first principle of non-violence is that it is only for courageous people who are willing to embrace it 100%. As long as there is the possibility in your heart of engaging in violence toward others, non-violence is not recommended. It takes great spiritual, mental, and emotional strength to engage in non-violent resistance, and must not be entered into lightly.

2. Non-Violent Resistance Seeks Friendship with Enemies

This leads to the second principle of non-violent resistance: Non-violence seeks to win friendship and understanding from enemies. It does not seek to shame or humiliate enemies, but to redeem and reconcile them to us, and to each other.

3. Non-Violent Resistance is about Defeating Injustice

non violent resistance gandhiThis is important because of the third principle of non-violent resistance, which is that we are not seeking to defeat people but to defeat injustice. Non-violence recognizes that those who perpetrate violence are victims of violence as well.

4. Non-Violent Resistance believes that Suffering Can Educate

Fourth, non-violence holds that suffering can educate and transform individuals and societies if those who engage in non-violent resistance accept violence toward them without retaliating violently toward others. Countless examples throughout history reveal that unearned suffering is redemptive and has tremendous educational and transformative possibilities.

5. Non-Violent Resistance Chooses Love over Hate

Fifth, non-violent resistance always chooses love instead of hate. Since love is unmotivated, unselfish, creative, and always seeks the good of others, those who practice non-violence will return good for evil and forgiveness for hate.

6. Non-Violent Resistance Recognizes that God is on the Side of All

Finally, those who practice non-violent resistance recognize that despite the rhetoric of war, God is on the side of justice, not just for one party or another, but for all. Though it may take time, justice will always win.

If you want to learn more about non-violent resistance, what it is, and how to practice it as a follower of Jesus, I recommend these books:

  • “The Powers Trilogy” by Walter Wink
  • Fight by Justin Sprinkle
  • A Faith Not Worth Fighting For edited by York Tripp and Justin Barringer
  • Stride Toward Freedom Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

What are your thoughts on non-violent resistance? Have you heard of it? Does it “work”? Does it even matter if it “works”? Do you think you have the courage to resist evil and violence in this way (I do not think I do)?

God is Uncategorized Bible & Theology Topics: Books I'm Reading, Discipleship, evil, Gandhi, Jesus, Martin Luther King, non-violent resistance, pacifism, violence

Advertisement

Join the discipleship group
Learn about the gospel and how to share it

Take my new course:

The Gospel According to Scripture
Best Books Every Christian Should Read
Study Scripture with me
Subscribe to my Podcast on iTunes
Subscribe to my Podcast on Amazon

Do you like my blog?
Try one of my books:

Click the image below to see what books are available.

Books by Jeremy Myers

Theological Study Archives

  • Theology – General
  • Theology Introduction
  • Theology of the Bible
  • Theology of God
  • Theology of Man
  • Theology of Sin
  • Theology of Jesus
  • Theology of Salvation
  • Theology of the Holy Spirit
  • Theology of the Church
  • Theology of Angels
  • Theology of the End Times
  • Theology Q&A

Bible Study Archives

  • Bible Studies on Genesis
  • Bible Studies on Esther
  • Bible Studies on Psalms
  • Bible Studies on Jonah
  • Bible Studies on Matthew
  • Bible Studies on Luke
  • Bible Studies on Romans
  • Bible Studies on Ephesians
  • Miscellaneous Bible Studies

Advertise or Donate

  • Advertise on RedeemingGod.com
  • Donate to Jeremy Myers

Search (and you Shall Find)

Get Books by Jeremy Myers

Books by Jeremy Myers

Schedule Jeremy for an interview

Click here to Contact Me!

© 2025 Redeeming God · All Rights Reserved · Powered by Knownhost and the Genesis Framework