Hey Wes, thank you for this post and for much of the other content you create. I’m looking forward to the other posts in this series. This is an issue I’ve wrestled with for years now and have not yet felt fully settled. My current position is essentially one of nonviolence, but some tensions remain that I would like to share for any feedback you have to offer:
Jesus’ teachings on love for enemies do not, for me, necessarily lead to a nonviolent position. I do not find it very difficult to affirm his teachings while understanding, at least in the abstract, how using force to defend the innocent and helpless may at times bring glory to God. Love for enemies has roots in the Old Testament (Proverbs 25:21-22), and yet there were numerous moments where Israel killed their enemies. This would suggest to me that nonviolence is not inherent to the nature of love, and therefore not inherent to the nature of God.
Jesus of course proclaims a kingdom that is not of this world, and it is engaged in a different kind of warfare. But if it is true that Jesus’ teachings do not necessarily lead to nonviolence, then I am not sure that being a member of Jesus’ kingdom precludes the possibility of using force under certain circumstances.
All of this thinking gets strongly challenged by the testimony of the early church, which is unanimous in its non-violent position for centuries after Jesus (as you mention here). Furthermore, they often anchor their position in these very teachings of Jesus. I find it difficult to believe they got this issue wrong across the broad from the generation after the apostles onwards. I’m certainly open to the early church sometimes being wrong and sometimes on a large scale, but such unanimity on such a central issue of the faith is hard to explain apart from its connection to the apostles and to Jesus himself.
This thinking gets further challenged by stories I hear, read, and watch from veterans who have served in some of our nations greatest conflicts. Loving someone while gunning them down seems immensely difficult. Perhaps not impossible, but difficult. I pray I never have to learn this for myself. Hatred for the enemy truly seems the most effective way forward for soldiers in such circumstances, but of course that is not an option for followers of Christ.
So, these are the tensions I have and where my unease lies. I hope I’m making sense. Any thoughts you have would be appreciated. Again, I look forward to the rest of the series.
Lee, thank you for sharing your thoughts and the tension you feel around this issue. I think there are a lot of us in exactly that same predicament. I think you expressed it very well.
For me, and it seems for many of the early Christians, it is not necessarily just the teachings of Jesus in isolation that bring about this conclusion, but his teachings in fulfillment of the messianic prophecies. The idea that the age of the Messiah's reign would be one in which God's people would no longer need to engage in warfare is fulfilled by Jesus, because he has freed us from fear of death. Because death is no longer a threat to us, we no longer have to kill in order to defend against it; just as Jesus did not kill in order to defend himself from death. Just as Jesus was raised, so we will be raised. If we know this is true, we can now turn our weapons into farming tools.
I truly believe the Resurrection changes everything. There was a time for war, certainly, but now is the time for peace, because the King is reigning on his throne and has freed us from the reign of sin and death. Though, as you said, there was instruction for loving enemies in the Hebrew Scriptures, we don't see it's ultimate fulfillment until Jesus goes to the cross for us, who were enemies of God, and instructs us to take up our crosses and follow him.
Again, thanks for your thoughts. I definitely feel that tension as well. God bless!
Thanks for your reply, Wes. The resurrection certainly changes everything, and I appreciate the reminder to situate Jesus’ teachings within the messianic prophecies. I’m not yet sure complete nonviolence is the only conclusion that can be reached in light of these things, but it is definitely a formidable one, and again the one the early church reached. I’m looking forward to the rest of the series…perhaps it can ease some of my tension!
Hello Lee. Thank you for your thoughtful response. When people here question the ability to love while serving in the Navy during war and on the LAPD afterwards, many of us risked our lives because we loved the innocent people being attacked by God hating, violent people who freely chose to harm the innocent who did not choose to be attacked, obviously the outcome of never using deadly force under any circumstances means that a Christian nation must disarm, disband all of its military and law enforcement and hope that being nice to our enemies will stop them. Deadly force is always a last resort in defense and should be avoided if possible. While on the LAPD before DEI-CRT destroyed it, we were trained to shoot to stop, not to kill when necessary to protect the innocent. WE taught, and I still do, that people should practice situational awareness to avoid situations where one might be a victim of violence. Leaving or running from a dangerous situation is a great way to avoid having to use violence to protect oneself or others. Because Jesus did not save John has no bearing on this argument. Jesus does not use His supernatural powers to save people from harm. Neither did he take people to the emergency rooms to save people's lives. Is it an insult to Jesus for us to do so since he did and does not? He could certainly heal everyone who is sick, injured, or dying today, but He does not. Perhaps Christians should not either, since we are all going to heaven anyway. The people whom I and many of my fellow policemen saved are grateful that we loved them enough to risk our lives for them, while prepared to use deadly force. Rather than looking at the grave markers of tens of thousands of my fellow military members with disgust at their supposed assault on Christ for laying down their lives to keep my beloved Christians free to live and preach God's Word, I honor them by living my best as a Christian evangelist. I strongly disagree with my brother Wes, but I am grateful he and I are free to discuss these eternal issues on the format he has provided. I have read his articles for many years and find that I have benefited from doing so, and also find that I agree far more than I disagree with his insightful thoughts.
Thank you for sharing, Kevin. Thank you also for your service. I think it is very appropriate for Christians advocating or leaning towards nonviolence to recognize the great sacrifices others have made for their countries and communities. No disrespect to them should ever be communicated in these conversations, only a different understanding of what it means to live out Jesus’ teachings.
Hey Wes, thank you for this post and for much of the other content you create. I’m looking forward to the other posts in this series. This is an issue I’ve wrestled with for years now and have not yet felt fully settled. My current position is essentially one of nonviolence, but some tensions remain that I would like to share for any feedback you have to offer:
Jesus’ teachings on love for enemies do not, for me, necessarily lead to a nonviolent position. I do not find it very difficult to affirm his teachings while understanding, at least in the abstract, how using force to defend the innocent and helpless may at times bring glory to God. Love for enemies has roots in the Old Testament (Proverbs 25:21-22), and yet there were numerous moments where Israel killed their enemies. This would suggest to me that nonviolence is not inherent to the nature of love, and therefore not inherent to the nature of God.
Jesus of course proclaims a kingdom that is not of this world, and it is engaged in a different kind of warfare. But if it is true that Jesus’ teachings do not necessarily lead to nonviolence, then I am not sure that being a member of Jesus’ kingdom precludes the possibility of using force under certain circumstances.
All of this thinking gets strongly challenged by the testimony of the early church, which is unanimous in its non-violent position for centuries after Jesus (as you mention here). Furthermore, they often anchor their position in these very teachings of Jesus. I find it difficult to believe they got this issue wrong across the broad from the generation after the apostles onwards. I’m certainly open to the early church sometimes being wrong and sometimes on a large scale, but such unanimity on such a central issue of the faith is hard to explain apart from its connection to the apostles and to Jesus himself.
This thinking gets further challenged by stories I hear, read, and watch from veterans who have served in some of our nations greatest conflicts. Loving someone while gunning them down seems immensely difficult. Perhaps not impossible, but difficult. I pray I never have to learn this for myself. Hatred for the enemy truly seems the most effective way forward for soldiers in such circumstances, but of course that is not an option for followers of Christ.
So, these are the tensions I have and where my unease lies. I hope I’m making sense. Any thoughts you have would be appreciated. Again, I look forward to the rest of the series.
Lee, thank you for sharing your thoughts and the tension you feel around this issue. I think there are a lot of us in exactly that same predicament. I think you expressed it very well.
For me, and it seems for many of the early Christians, it is not necessarily just the teachings of Jesus in isolation that bring about this conclusion, but his teachings in fulfillment of the messianic prophecies. The idea that the age of the Messiah's reign would be one in which God's people would no longer need to engage in warfare is fulfilled by Jesus, because he has freed us from fear of death. Because death is no longer a threat to us, we no longer have to kill in order to defend against it; just as Jesus did not kill in order to defend himself from death. Just as Jesus was raised, so we will be raised. If we know this is true, we can now turn our weapons into farming tools.
I truly believe the Resurrection changes everything. There was a time for war, certainly, but now is the time for peace, because the King is reigning on his throne and has freed us from the reign of sin and death. Though, as you said, there was instruction for loving enemies in the Hebrew Scriptures, we don't see it's ultimate fulfillment until Jesus goes to the cross for us, who were enemies of God, and instructs us to take up our crosses and follow him.
Again, thanks for your thoughts. I definitely feel that tension as well. God bless!
Thanks for your reply, Wes. The resurrection certainly changes everything, and I appreciate the reminder to situate Jesus’ teachings within the messianic prophecies. I’m not yet sure complete nonviolence is the only conclusion that can be reached in light of these things, but it is definitely a formidable one, and again the one the early church reached. I’m looking forward to the rest of the series…perhaps it can ease some of my tension!
Hello Lee. Thank you for your thoughtful response. When people here question the ability to love while serving in the Navy during war and on the LAPD afterwards, many of us risked our lives because we loved the innocent people being attacked by God hating, violent people who freely chose to harm the innocent who did not choose to be attacked, obviously the outcome of never using deadly force under any circumstances means that a Christian nation must disarm, disband all of its military and law enforcement and hope that being nice to our enemies will stop them. Deadly force is always a last resort in defense and should be avoided if possible. While on the LAPD before DEI-CRT destroyed it, we were trained to shoot to stop, not to kill when necessary to protect the innocent. WE taught, and I still do, that people should practice situational awareness to avoid situations where one might be a victim of violence. Leaving or running from a dangerous situation is a great way to avoid having to use violence to protect oneself or others. Because Jesus did not save John has no bearing on this argument. Jesus does not use His supernatural powers to save people from harm. Neither did he take people to the emergency rooms to save people's lives. Is it an insult to Jesus for us to do so since he did and does not? He could certainly heal everyone who is sick, injured, or dying today, but He does not. Perhaps Christians should not either, since we are all going to heaven anyway. The people whom I and many of my fellow policemen saved are grateful that we loved them enough to risk our lives for them, while prepared to use deadly force. Rather than looking at the grave markers of tens of thousands of my fellow military members with disgust at their supposed assault on Christ for laying down their lives to keep my beloved Christians free to live and preach God's Word, I honor them by living my best as a Christian evangelist. I strongly disagree with my brother Wes, but I am grateful he and I are free to discuss these eternal issues on the format he has provided. I have read his articles for many years and find that I have benefited from doing so, and also find that I agree far more than I disagree with his insightful thoughts.
Thank you for sharing, Kevin. Thank you also for your service. I think it is very appropriate for Christians advocating or leaning towards nonviolence to recognize the great sacrifices others have made for their countries and communities. No disrespect to them should ever be communicated in these conversations, only a different understanding of what it means to live out Jesus’ teachings.