peace Archives | Redeeming God

CHRIST and the Six Principles of Non-Violence

It was Friday afternoon, around 12:30. The Muslim Friday Jumah prayer was supposed to begin, and 107 Muslims had gathered. But as they were washing their feet and faces, and laying out their prayer rugs, the authorities called me on the phone and told me to cancel the Jumah prayer.

I am a white Christian pastor. I work in a prison as a chaplain.

But due to a looming security concern, I had no other choice, and went and informed the gathering Muslims that Jumah had been canceled for that day.

The seething anger directed my way was palpable. All 107 Muslims stood up, glared at me, and started to gather around. I sensed that how I responded in the next few seconds would determine whether I lived or died that day.

“You can’t cancel the Jumah prayer,” said the Imam of the group. “It’s mandatory. It’s required.”

“Yes, I know,” I calmly responded. “But there is a security concern, and until it’s resolved, everybody is required to return to their housing units.” In a prison, security takes precedence even over religion, but even still, nobody likes to have their religious service cancelled.

“So what are we supposed to do, Chaplain?” asked the Imam. “Allah demands that we pray, but you are demanding we not pray. Who do you think we should obey?”

The crowd of Muslims pressed in closer to hear how I would respond. My mind raced, and I knew that the security concern could quickly escalate into a security crisis (and possibly a riot) depending on the next words out of my mouth.

It is very difficult to practice nonviolence in a system that is inherently and purposefully built upon the principles of violence. The central principal of violence is that you get what you want by having a bigger stick. You may not always use the stick; sometimes having it is enough. This idea was immortalized in Teddy Roosevelt’s famous explanation of his foreign policy: “Speak softly, and carry a big stick.” As long as your stick is bigger than your enemy’s, this should be enough to deter him from war.

The prison system, in which I work, is founded on this principal. By their very nature, prisons take people who have engaged in various forms of violence and put them in a situation where they have very few sticks at their disposal, while all the guards and prison staff have much larger sticks. The big stick principal is what keeps the prison relatively safe and secure.

But the big sticks are not what you think. Despite the common perception, most prison staff in the west no longer carry weapons of any kind. Guards do not have guns or even billy clubs. They typically are “armed” only with a radio. Outmanned and overpowered, the modern prison guard is trained to use their minds and their mouths to maintain peace inside a prison.

But it doesn’t always work. And when it doesn’t, riots break out, people are killed, and yes, this is when the guns are brought in. Though even then, only non-lethal munitions are used.

Working in the prison system as I do, I have found a “weapon” that is even more powerful than the radio. And it is the constant “radio connection” I have with God.

So in that moment, as the Muslims angrily waited for my answer, I quickly asked God for wisdom on what to say. And He showed me.

“You should pray,” I said.

There was a collective gasp by the Muslims.

I could sense their thoughts. Was the chaplain mocking them? Or was he actually telling prison inmates to disobey an order?

But I continued. “Nobody is demanding that you not pray. I invite you to pray. I want you to pray. I ask you to pray. I hope that you will pray. But today, because of the security concern, you are going to have to pray down in your housing units. Allah is powerful, is he not? He will hear your prayers there just as well as he will hear them in this place. So pray to Allah that this situation would be resolved quickly and peacefully. Then maybe we can get you back up here to the chapel a little later this afternoon for your communal Jumah prayer.”

They started at me, still trying to decide how to respond.

I waited.

Finally, the Imam turned to the gathered Muslims and said, “The Chaplain is right. Allah can hear our prayers and work to resolve this situation quickly. We will return to our housing units.”

Later that afternoon, I was indeed able to make arrangements for the Muslims to return to the Chapel for their afternoon Jumah prayer. It was late, but at least it was done. The Muslims praised Allah for hearing and answering their prayers, and I praised Jesus for answering mine.

During my years of working as a prison chaplain, I have found six principles that help me navigate the tricky and treacherous waters of practicing nonviolence in a system built on violence. The six principles form an acrostic for “CHRIST” because they are founded upon the teachings and example of Jesus Christ.

Here are the six principles, with a brief explanation of each.

Creativity.

Our world trains us that when we are faced with violence, the best response is greater violence. We use violence to fight violence. But violence always and only leads to more violence, so those who would practice non-violence must start to find alternative, creative solutions out of violent situations.

This is easier said than done, however, and so our attempts at creative responses must be bathed in prayer for God, the Creator, to guide us into creative non-violent responses as well. There is no “one size fits all” response to violence, for each situation is different and requires a different response. So creativity is required.

Honesty.

It takes two to tango. It also takes two to fight. And have you ever noticed that in nearly every violent engagement, both sides think the other one “started it”? Even in the case of terrorists flying planes into skyscrapers, they thought that they were righteously responding to the unjust treatment of their people by the United States. Even Hitler believed he was responding to the unjust treatment of Germany after their losses in World War I.

So in any sort of violent engagement, we must be brutally honest with how we ourselves contributed to the problem. We must not and cannot place all the blame on the other person, for this will only cause greater problems.

Realism.

Let’s be realistic: non-violence doesn’t always end violence. We live in an evil world, and sometimes, evil wins. So we must not think that non-violence always “works” and is the magic cure-all for everything that ails the world. It isn’t. It doesn’t always work. In fact, maybe we could say that it rarely works.

So why practice non-violence? Because even if non-violence rarely works, this is still better than violence, which never works. Violence always and only creates more violence. But sometimes, non-violence creates peace, and therefore, it has a better success rate. But we must be realistic and recognize that a non-violent response will not always bring an end to violence. It often won’t.

Incarnation.

If we want to practice non-violence, we must understand that we are incarnating Jesus to the world, just as He incarnated God to us. It is not we who are out there all on our own standing up for love, patience, forgiveness, and peace, but it is Jesus in us who is standing up for these things. Furthermore, a recognition that we are the incarnation of Jesus on earth encourages us to live as He lived and love as He loved.

Strength.

It is very easy to respond to violence with violence. People often talk about the courage and bravery of war, and indeed, it does take courage to charge onto the field of battle, not knowing if you will make it back off.

Similarly, it does indeed take courage and bravery to pull a knife or a gun on an assailant. However, it takes greater strength and courage to stand up against violence without violence. We must not think that non-violence is the weak way out. It is the bravest and strongest way out.

It is much harder to take the blows that fall on your back without retaliating than to lash out and trade blow for blow. Non-violence is not weakness or cowardice, but takes the greatest strength and courage.

Trust.

If God is non-violent, and calls us to practice non-violence as well, then we must trust God to work in us and through us, even though our minds, wills, and bodies scream out in protest at the ways of non-violence.

It is only when we trust in God to bring a solution to a bad situation that God will step in to do exactly that. And related to this, in light of the previous five principles, it important to know that even if we die while practicing non-violence, we can still trust God to use our death to create peace, just as He did in Jesus. A resolute trust in God reminds us that sometimes it is better to die than to kill.

Conclusion

Jesus modeled the way for us to live with non-violence toward others. Yes, we must resist evil wherever it is found, and we must stand up for righteousness and justice, but we must do so in the ways of Jesus, through non-violent resistance.

What methods and practices have you found which help you resist non-violently? Do you think that such forms of resistance can help solve the problems of violence that the world faces today? Why or why not? Which of the six CHRIST principles outlined above will be most challenging for you to practice? Let us know in the comment section below!

[Note: This blog post is part of the 2018 Blogging Carnival for Nonviolence. Go here to see the other posts.]

It’s not Personal; it’s Just War

By Jeremy Myers
11 Comments

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.

Let 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:

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.

There 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.

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

The 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.

We 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?

How are we “dead in trespasses and sins”? (Ephesians 2:1)

By Jeremy Myers
1 Comment

Ephesians 2:1 is a favorite passage among some theologians to defend the idea that unregenerate people cannot do anything in their life to move toward God.

In other words, some say that because people are “dead in the trespasses and sins” (shortened as “dead in sins“) they cannot do anything good, including believe in Jesus.

But is this what Ephesians 2:1 is teaching? The verse says this:

Ephesians 2:1. And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins.

Is Paul Teaching that Unbelievers cannot Believe in Jesus?

So is Paul teaching in Ephesians 2:1 that unbelievers cannot even believe in Jesus for eternal life unless God first regenerates them? Must God give unbelievers “new life” (regeneration) before they believe and so that they can believe?

Do people receive eternal life from God before they believe in Jesus or because they believe in Jesus?

The answer is that Jesus and Paul and all Scripture consistently agrees that we believe in in Jesus for eternal life; we do not receive eternal life to believe in Jesus (John 3:16; 5:24; 6:47; Rom 4:4-5).

Since Faith is not a Work, Unbelievers are Able to Believe

The idea that unregenerate people cannot do anything good is silly. Unbelievers can do all sorts of good spiritual things, which includes believing in Jesus for eternal life (cf. John 5:25; 20:31; Rom 1:20; Gal 3:26; Col 2:12-13; 1 Pet 1:23-25; Heb 10:39).

But this does not mean that the person who believes in Jesus for eternal life has earned their eternal life, has worked for it, or has done anything good to merit it.

Since faith is not a work, but is the opposite of works (Romans 4:4-5), then faith is not meritorious.

Those who receive the free gift of eternal life through faith in Jesus do not in any way get “credit” for eternal life.

Faith is the persuasion that something is true, and when God persuades us that we can have eternal life through Jesus Christ alone, at that moment of faith we have received eternal life from Him (see the Gospel Dictionary entry on Faith).

When we believe, no works are performed. No effort is expended.

So what is Paul teaching in Ephesians 2:1?

This entire line of thought is completely foreign to what Paul had in mind when he wrote Ephesians 2.

The debate about spiritual death and spiritual life in Ephesians 2 has been imported into the passage from outside theological systems that rip various verses in this chapter out of context so that they can then be used as proof texts to defend ideas that are not actually found in Paul’s line of thought.

A couple of factors contribute to the widespread failure to understand Paul’s point in Ephesians 2.

We must understand the word “saved”

The most significant contributing factor to this misunderstanding is the word “saved” in Ephesians 2:8-9.

When most Christians hear the word “saved” or “salvation,” they immediately think of “eternal life,” “going to heaven when you die,” or some similar concept.

But the Bible never uses the word “salvation” or “saved” as an equivalent term for eternal life. Instead, the word “saved” (and the entire “salvation” word family) means “deliverance” or “to be delivered” and the context determines what kind of deliverance is in view (see The Gospel Dictionary entry on Salvation).

To be “saved” in Ephesians 2 is to be “delivered from sin”

When Ephesians 2:8-9 is examined in the broader context (see the first several paragraphs of this post on Ephesians 2:1-3 to see the context of Ephesians 2), we learn that salvation in Ephesians is not about receiving eternal life so you can go to heaven when you die, but is instead about being rescued and delivered from our addiction to accusation, scapegoating, and violence, so that we are brought into the way of life, love, and liberty that God always wanted and desired for humanity.

So what does Ephesians 2:1 mean?

When this point about salvation is grasped, we then see that the phrase “dead in trespasses and sins” in Ephesians 2:1 is not talking about some sort of “spiritual death” in which the unregenerate cannot even respond to God or believe in Jesus.

Instead, the phrase “dead in trespasses and sins” is referring to the pervasive and controlling disease of death which covers the whole earth.

The point Paul is making here is the same exact point made in Genesis 4–6. Sin was introduced to the world, and death came with it, not primarily the death that comes with old age, but the death that comes from human violence against one another.

In Ephesians 2:1-3, Paul is saying that the whole world is addicted to the destructive power of sin, which leads us to scapegoat and kill others, rather than accept, forgive, and love them.

Paul describes this further in Ephesians 2:2-3. In speaking of the course of the world, Paul is saying that sin and death guide and control the world.

Rivalry, scapegoating, and violence form the foundation of all human civilization, culture, and interaction (see the Gospel Dictionary entry on World). This is also what Paul is referring to when he mentions the prince of the power of the air which works in the sons of disobedience.

This is, of course, a reference to Satan, who is the accuser (see the Gospel Dictionary entry on Satan). The desire of sin which God warned Cain against (Gen 4:7) is what Paul describes in Ephesians 2:3.

So the great problem of Ephesians 2:1-3 is indeed sin.

Sin is the realm of death in which all humans live and function. Sin is seen through accusation and scapegoating that comes from the desires and lusts of the flesh. All humans live in this realm and know of no other way to live.

Further Evidence from the context of Ephesians 2:1

Ephesians 2 (the whole chapter) follows a Problem-Solution-Application outline. And to see what the “Problem” of death and sin actually are, we can reverse engineer the chapter by beginning at the end, and seeing how Paul applies the chapter.

And in Ephesians 2:11-22, Paul talks about doing away with hostility and dividing walls of separation that we use to keep human separate from one another and hating one another. Instead, we are called to live in unity, love, and peace, just like Jesus Christ.

So if that is the application, then the problem is the opposite. If peace and the removal of human hostility on this earth is the goal, then the problem is not about how we’re headed for hell and need to go to heaven. No, if the goal is the end of hostility between humans, then the problem is hostility and violence between humans.

And of course, the solution to the problem is what was accomplished in Jesus Christ, which is what Paul discusses in Ephesians 2:4-10.

We can briefly summarize Ephesians 2:1-22 this way:

Since sin and the death that comes from human hostility is the great problem of the world (Ephesians 2:1-3), God took the initiative to send Jesus Christ and show us a way out of this problem (Ephesians 2:4-10), so that those of us who see and understand what Jesus did on the cross, can now live as He lived, in love and unity for one another (Ephesians 2:11-22).

“Dead in Sins” in Ephesians 2:1

So the term “dead in sins” in Ephesians 2:1 is not referring to some sort of “spiritual death” which makes people unable to hear or respond to God, or to believe in Jesus for eternal life.

No, Paul is instead describing human culture and civilization. He is describing the “atmosphere” of sin and death in which we all live, and which we all assume is normal.

This is what it means to be “dead in sins.” We are surrounded by an atmosphere, a system, a world of sin, which leads to death … death through murder, warfare, hatred, killing, condemning, scapegoating, and all things related to this.

But this way of “life” is not normal, and it is not what God wanted, planned, or intended. This worldly way of life is actually death.

So Jesus came to show us another way to live … an actual way to live. Because of what Jesus showed us, we can now live in a heavenly culture and civilization, even while we are here on earth.

Understanding the Gospel requires us to properly understand the key words and terms of the Gospel. Take my course, "The Gospel Dictionary" to learn about the 52 key words of the Gospel, and hundreds of Bible passages that use these words.

This course costs $297, but when you join the Discipleship group, you can to take the entire course for free.

If your Gospel isn’t leading you to live peacefully with others, you’ve got the wrong gospel

By Jeremy Myers
14 Comments

The gospel is not just about how to receive eternal life, but also about how to live this life.

As we grow in our knowledge and experience of the gospel, life also grows in vibrancy and vitality. Where grace and faith multiply, love and unity flourish. To the degree that we emphasize grace and faith in our lives and in our community is the same degree to which we experience peace, joy, delight, and unity with God and with one another.

Gospel Peace

The gospel was intended to advance and promote peace. Not just peace to our inner beings, and not just peace between men and God, but also peace between all people and eventually, peace to the entire universe.

In one of the first declarations of the gospel in the Bible, the angels announce the birth of Jesus to shepherds and proclaim to them peace on earth and goodwill toward men (Luke 2:10, 14).

Throughout the entire ministry of Jesus, He sought to bring peace where there was hostility, and love where there was hate.

Even among the Twelve Apostles, Jesus brought together Zealots and tax collectors who would have hated each other in any other context. Near the end of His ministry, Jesus proclaimed to His apostles that He had come to bring peace, was leaving them with His peace (John 14:27), and that just as God had sent Jesus to proclaim peace, so also, His followers must do the same (John 20:21).

In the letters of Paul and Peter it is the same. Over and over, these apostolic writers proclaim that in Jesus Christ, there is now peace (e.g., Eph 2:14-17; Col 1:20; 1 Pet 3:11).

As such, any time we use the gospel to produce anything but peace, we are misusing and abusing the gospel.

If our defense of the gospel causes bitterness, strife, and division “for the sake of the gospel,” it is likely that we do not understand or defend the true gospel of peace in Jesus Christ.

But didn’t Jesus say he would bring a sword and division?

But what about when Jesus claims He did not come to bring peace, but a sword, that His ministry would not result in peace, but division (cf. Matt 10:34; Luke 12:51)?

Sadly, these statements by Jesus have been severely misused by Christians who want to justify their own warlike behavior toward other Christians. Such a view, however, contradicts almost everything else Jesus taught.

It is best, therefore, to understand that Jesus is not talking about His purpose in coming, but rather, a consequence of His ministry and teaching. His statement is not prescriptive, but descriptive. He is not describing what He wanted to happen, but rather, is describing what would happen. He was predicting; not prescribing.

Jesus did not bring peace but a sword — I just cannot imagine this

This is not a statement of desire or intention by Jesus, but is a statement of realistic understanding about what might occur as people follow Him. In speaking of a sword, Jesus is using hyperbole and exaggeration to make the point that as a result of what He taught, there would be strife and division among people; yes, even among family members. This was not the goal and was not ideal, but Jesus realistically understood that such divisions would occur.

Jesus desired, intended, and prayed for peace among all men, but He knew that as a result of what He was teaching, there would be some discord and dissension. The statement of Jesus should be read with a tone of sadness in His voice, not an air of excited anticipation.

Jesus is not saying, “Let’s go cut off the heads of everyone who disagrees with me!” but rather, “I am deeply saddened by the fact that people will use my words and my teachings to go to war with their brethren. I know the hearts of men, and some will abuse my example and my teaching in just this way. For some, my words will not lead to peace, but to a sword.”

Jesus did not want to bring a sword, strife, discord, and war, but knew that some would twist and pervert His words and His ways to justify evil actions such as these.

May this prediction not be true of us!

From first to last, the gospel is a message of peace.

Therefore, those who teach, preach, and live the gospel will be known and men and women of peace. They will be known for their love and service toward others.

Is this what YOU are known for … even among those with whom you disagree … whether you disagree theologically or politically?

Follow Jesus into peace, for if you are not following Him into peace, you are not following Jesus.

Want to learn more about the gospel? Take my new course, "The Gospel According to Scripture."

The entire course is free for those who join my online Discipleship group here on RedeemingGod.com. I can't wait to see you inside the course!

Nonviolent Resistance and Pacifism are Not the Same Thing

By Jeremy Myers
23 Comments

I 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.
[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.

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.

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.

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!