St. Augustine By Philippe de Champaigne – Los Angeles County Museum of Art: online database: entry 171584, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=8481227
John Dear, a writer with the national Catholic Reporter describes a conversation he had with pacifist, progressive theologian Walter Wink about non-violence.
Excerpt:
The fifth antithesis in the Sermon on the Mount is one of the key teachings of nonviolent resistance to evil in history. It’s long been interpreted as passivity, but instead it calls for creative nonviolent action. Jesus wants us to resist evil with active nonviolence, stand our ground, speak the truth, insist on our common humanity, disarm our opponent, risk suffering love, trust in God, and work for the conversion of our opponent, so that the one who does evil or supports systemic injustice, changes. The goal is to lead the opponent to a change of heart, to melt his heart, win him over to the truth, stop the violence, and help others discover God’s reign of love and peace. Like every good teacher, Jesus does not leave us just with the theory. He gives five concrete examples about how to do this.
In his essay “Why I Am Not a Pacifist,” C. S. Lewis asks “Does anyone suppose,” he asks, “that our Lord’s hearers understood him to mean that if a homicidal maniac, attempting to murder a third party, tried to knock me out of the way, I must stand aside and let him get his victim?”1
From the Crossway series What did Jesus Teach come this analysis of non-violence.
Does Jesus’s teaching in the sermon on the Mount to “turn the other cheek” and not resist evil require pacifism on the part of Christians?
Since most religious pacifists ground their convictions in a purported nonviolent “love ethic” of Jesus that is understood to be the teaching of Matthew 5:38–42, it is imperative that the meaning of Jesus’ teaching in the Sermon on the Mount be assessed.
Matthew 5:38–42 is one of six case illustrations of Jesus’s teaching on the law (Matthew 5:17). With the other five, it is Jesus’s affirmation of the ethical requirements of Old Testament law—requirements that are enduring. And in similar fashion, it begins with the formula that Jesus has already used four times in this body of teaching—“You have heard that it was said, . . . But I tell you . . .”
While some students of the biblical text interpret these particular words as referring to Mosaic law, such a reading does not fit the context. To introduce his teaching, Jesus has just reiterated that the law as revealed in the old covenant, continually reaffirmed by the prophets, is not to be set aside (Matthew 5:17); it is binding.
Jesus cannot be contradicting himself. What the context does require, however, is that contemporary notions— indeed, contemporary distortions of the law—need adjustment. One such illustration of contemporary error concerns retaliation.
Full article: https://www.crossway.org/articles/what-did-jesus-teach-about-violence-and-turning-the-other-cheek/
Simon J. Joseph, author of The Nonviolent Messiah, drawing on the “Q Source” to triangulate Matthew, Mark, and Luke, says:
One of the most distinctive features of Q is a carefully composed collection of wisdom-sayings framed as a short discourse or “Sermon” that served as the prototype for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke’s longer “Sermons” on the Mount and Plain. The central ethic of Q is “characterized by nonviolence”
More from Joseph:
If eschatological (end-time) violence was part and parcel of the “good news,” then it is difficult to see how such “good news” could be anything more than a veiled threat: Repent, or else! God loves you – but he’ll also send you to hell! Love your enemies – but get ready to judge and kill them! There is no escaping the fact that this dissonance between punishment and reward (or good and bad news) is found in the Jesus tradition. The question is: what are we supposed to make of it? Was Jesus – like our biblical God – both violent and nonviolent, as circumstances required? Was Jesus nonviolent at the beginning of his ministry only to embrace violence later? Or vice versa? Or was Jesus radically nonviolent throughout his ministry and then misrepresented in the Gospels? Did Jesus say “love your enemies” and then assign them to eternal hell? Did Jesus change his mind? Or is it the tradition itself that is confused and irreconcilable?
Was Jesus nonviolent at the beginning of his ministry only to embrace violence later? Or vice versa? Or was Jesus radically nonviolent throughout his ministry and then misrepresented in the Gospels? Did Jesus say “love your enemies” and then assign them to eternal hell? Did Jesus change his mind? Or is it the tradition itself that is confused and irreconcilable?
The Catholic Nonviolence Initiative Roundtable #2 produced the embedded paper titled: “Jesus’ nonviolence according to the Gospels”.
Excerpt from the paper:
In summary, the Gospels show us Jesus as a full spectrum nonviolent peacemaker. Jesus teaches us how to prevent violence before it gets started, by refusing to treat anyone as an outsider or enemy. He teaches how to intervene with creative, disarming nonviolent action when things are getting hot, breaking the cycle of violence. He demonstrates civil resistance peacemaking, attacking structural violence, bringing it into the open, using nonviolent power to change the equation. He demonstrates after-the-harm-has-been-done peacemaking–how to nonviolently reconcile parties who have been estranged. He shows how to neutralize personal violence and protect the innocent with the power of creative nonviolent action. He calls us to form a community of nonviolent service that will be an antithesis to regimes of domination through violence. Finally, he shows us how to live a life of nonviolence to the full and to the end.
The Center for Christian Ethics at Baylor University produced a short study guide on violent parables and nonviolent Jesus.
Excerpt:
Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount instructs us to not return violence for violence; instead, we should be like God, who offers boundless, gratuitous love to all. But in the same Gospel Jesus tells eight parables in which God deals violently with evildoers. Which of the divine ways are we to imitate?
Here is an interesting collection of thoughts and comments on resistance, tyranny, and God I found at: Washington’s Blog (seems to be offline as of 12.22.22)
A number of Christian leaders say that Christians must obey the government … no matter what. For example, Robert Deffinbaugh – pastor at Community Bible Chapel in Richardson, Texas – says:
Whether the government be totalitarian or democratic, the Christian’s obligation to submit to it is the same.
This is not an unrealistic or abstract concept. After all, most churches in Nazi-era Germany supported the Nazis. The German clergy used the same rationale to support Hitler that many American churches are using today to demand obedience to authority … Romans 13:
The German Christians were strongly nationalistic, and adopted … respect for state authority. This passage in Romans 13 was often cited as proof of a correlation between the Church and State:
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists the what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
German church leaders even criticized Christians for disobeying their “governing authorities” … by protecting Jewish refugees by hiding them in their homes.
And Hitler shows how tyrannical rulers view those who obey a demand for obedience … he ridiculedGerman Christians behind their backs for being so submissive in obeying the Nazis:
The Protestants haven’t the faintest conception of a church. You can do anything you like with them– they will submit. These pastors are used to cares and worries… they learnt them from their squires…. They are insignificant little people, submissive as dogs, and they sweat with embarrassment when you talk to them.
The Bible Urges Us to CHALLENGE – Not Obey – Bad Government
In reality, Christian (and Jewish) leaders throughout history have explained that we must disobeytyrannical governments.
The Book of Maccabees – an ancient Jewish book purporting to document the events which Chanukah celebrates – apparently says:
Gordan Runyan – pastor of Immanuel Baptist Church – points out numerous instances in the Bible of men and women who disobeyed their government rulers, and were rewarded by God and praised as holy.
Did John the Baptist violate God’s principle of submission to authority when he publicly scolded King Herod for his infidelity? Did Simon Peter and the other Apostles violate God’s principle of submission to authority when they refused to stop preaching on the streets of Jerusalem? Did Paul violate God’s principle of submission to authority when he refused to obey those authorities who demanded that he abandon his missionary work? In fact, Paul spent almost as much time in jail as he did out of jail.
Remember that every apostle of Christ (except John) was killed by hostile civil authorities opposed to their endeavors. Christians throughout church history were imprisoned, tortured, or killed by civil authorities of all stripes for refusing to submit to their various laws and prohibitions. Did all of these Christian martyrs violate God’s principle of submission to authority?
So, even the great prophets, apostles, and writers of the Bible (including the writer of Romans Chapter 13) understood that human authority – even civil authority – is limited.
Plus, Paul makes it clear that our submission to civil authority must be predicated on more than fear of governmental retaliation. Notice, he said, “Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.” Meaning, our obedience to civil authority is more than just “because they said so.” It is also a matter of conscience. This means we must think and reason for ourselves regarding the justness and rightness of our government’s laws. Obedience is not automatic or robotic. It is a result of both rational deliberation and moral approbation.
***
Therefore, there are times when civil authority may need to be resisted. Either governmental abuse of power or the violation of conscience (or both) could precipitate civil disobedience.”
As modern New Testament scholars have reconstructed the context in which Jesus lived and taught, they have realized that Jesus was not simply a religious figure. He was a severe critic of those who controlled the temple, those who controlled the empire, and those who controlled the economic systems that starved and robbed the poor and left the orphan and the widow to fend for themselves. To Jesus, these issues were all tied together.
***
He advocated overthrow of a corrupt system. He believed the days of the oppressors were numbered. But he believed the overthrow could be accomplished by love, mercy and kindness.
The entire basis of the Reformation was that of disobedience to the “governing authorities” of Rome– the Pope and the Emperor, who both demanded submission to the Roman Catholic church as the religious and political establishment of God’s Kingdom on earth. When it was demanded of Martin Luther at the Diet of Worms to recant of his opposition to papal authority, his only response was as follows:
Unless I am refuted and convicted by testimonies of the Scriptures or by clear arguments… I am conquered by the Holy Scriptures quoted by me, and my conscience is bound in the word of God: I can not and will not recant any thing, since it is unsafe and dangerous to do any thing against the conscience. Here I stand. God help me! Amen. [See Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church]
Luther’s courageous stand against tyranny literally set off the spark which would eventually ignite the Protestant Reformation. As stated by Church historian, Philip Schaff:
Luther’s testimony before the Diet is an event of world-historical importance and far-reaching effect. It opened an intellectual conflict which is still going on in the civilized world. He stood there as the fearless champion of the supremacy of the word of God over the traditions of men, and of the liberty of conscience over the tyranny of authority….
When tradition becomes a wall against freedom, when authority degenerates into tyranny, the very blessing is turned into a curse, and history is threatened with stagnation and death. At such rare junctures, Providence raises those pioneers of progress, who have the intellectual and moral courage to break through the restraints at the risk of their lives, and to open new paths for the onward march of history…. Conscience is the voice of God in man.
***
This principle of the primacy of the Scripture-bound conscience over human tradition, whether it be magisterial or ecclesiastical, resounds throughout the writings of the most prominent Protestant leaders whom God raised up to defend the faith after Luther. Not one of these great men interpreted Romans 13:1-7 in the way it is so often interpreted today, and that should be sufficient reason to at least reconsider what is so commonly taught from the modern pulpit on the subject of civil obedience and disobedience. Without succumbing to the error of traditionalism, we are nevertheless to look upon the views of godly men of times past with respect.
John Calvin, known even by many of his theological opponents as the “prince of exegetes,” advocated the same position with regards to civil disobedience previously set forth by Luther.
***
He concluded his exhortations to Christians to submit to the authorities who have been placed by God over them with the following qualifications:
But in that obedience which we hold to be due to the commands of rulers, we must always make the exception, nay, must be particularly careful that it is not incompatible with obedience to Him to whose will the wishes of all kings should be subject, to whose decrees their commands must yield, to whose majesty their sceptres must bow. And, indeed, how preposterous were it, in pleasing men, to incur the offense of Him for whose sake you obey men!
The Lord, therefore, is King of kings. When He opens His sacred mouth, He alone is to be heard, instead of all and above all. We are subject to the men who rule over us, but subject only in the Lord. If they command anything against Him let us not pay the least regard to it, nor be moved by all the dignity which they possess as magistrates– a dignity to which no injury is done when it is subordinated to the special and truly supreme power of God. [Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion.]
Calvin’s purpose for writing his commentary on Romans 13:1-7 was entirely different than that which prompted his discussion of civil government in the Institutes. Therefore, when we turn to the commentary, we find a somewhat different tenor of thought. While still maintaining that it is the duty of Christians to submit to the “governing authorities,” we more clearly see that it is the legitimate rule of the magistrate to which we are to submit ourselves:
The reason why we ought to be subject to magistrates is, because they are constituted by God’s ordination…. [T]yrannies and unjust exercise of power, as they are full of disorder, are not an ordained government; yet the right of government is ordained by God for the well being of mankind…. [T]hey are the means which he designedly appoints for the preservation of legitimate order….
…[Paul] speaks here of the true, and, as it were, of the native duty of the magistrate, from which however they who hold power often degenerate. [Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistle to the Romans.]
To ensure that Calvin’s point was not missed, Henry Beveridge, the editor of the Scottish publication of the Commentaries wrote the following:
…[I]t is remarkable, that often in Scripture things are stated broadly and without any qualifying terms, and yet they have limits, as it is clear from other portions. This peculiarity is worthy of notice. Power is from God, the abuse of power is from what is evil in men. The Apostle [i.e. Paul in writing Romans] throughout refers only to power justly exercised. He does not enter into the subject of tyranny and oppression. And this is probably the reason why he does not set limits to the obedience required: he contemplated no other than the proper and legitimate use of power. [Henry Beveridge, in John Calvin, ibid., p. 478 (footnote).] ***
Even the Westminster Confession of Faith is agreed on this point:
God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in anything, contrary to His Word…. So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience: and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also…. [Westminster Confession of Faith.] ***
When a civil magistrate becomes a tyrant and commands us to do that which the Bible forbids, either explicitly or by necessary implication, then we are not to either fear him or honor him.
Pope Francis recently criticized governments which allow financial corruption:
The scandalous concentration of global wealth is possible due to the connivance of public leaders with the powers that be. The corruption is itself a process of death … when life dies, there is corruption.There are few things more difficult than opening a breach in a corrupt heart: “So is he who lays up treasure for himself and is not rich with God” (Luke 12:21). When the personal situation of the corrupt becomes complicated, he knows all the loopholes to escape as did the dishonest steward of the Gospel (cf. Lk 16.1 to 8).
***
The corrupt does not perceive his corruption. It’s a little like what happens with bad breath … it’s hard for those who have it to know, unless someone else tells them.
For this reason, the corrupt can hardly get out of their internal state by way of remorse of conscience. Corruption is a greater evil than sin. More than forgiven, this evil must be cured.
Corruption has become “natural” to the point of getting to statehood linked to personal and social custom, a common practice in commercial and financial transactions, in public procurement, in any negotiation involving State agents. It is the victory of appearances over reality …
***
There are now many international conventions and treaties on the matter … not so much geared to protect the citizens, who ultimately are the latest victims – particularly the most vulnerable – but how to protect the interests of operators of economic markets and financial companies.
Criticizing such governments is the opposite of obeying them simply because they are the authorities.
The influential Christian writer Francis A. Schaeffer said:
If we as Christians do not speak out as authoritarian governments grow from within or come from outside, eventually we or our children will be the enemy of society and the state. No truly authoritarian government can tolerate those who have real absolute by which to judge its arbitrary absolutes and who speak out and act upon that absolute.
Mark Lewis Taylor – the Maxwell M. Upson Professor of Theology and Culture at Princeton Theological Seminary – said:
The power of Jesus is one that enables us to critique the nation and the empire. Unfortunately, that gospel is being sacrificed and squandered by Christians who have cozied up to power and wealth.
Similarly, Martin Luther King Jr. castigated the modern-day church for being “so often the arch-supporter of the status quo. Far from being disturbed by the presence of the church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the church’s silent and often vocal sanction of things as they are.”
King noted:
There was a time when the church was very powerful. It was during that period when the early Christians rejoiced when they were deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society. Wherever the early Christians entered a town the power structure got disturbed and immediately sought to convict them for being “disturbers of the peace” and “outside agitators” … They brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide and gladiatorial contest.
Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry explains:
What about the bad governments like the Nazis or the communist regimes where they killed millions? If God is the one who sets up governments, are we supposed to obey those bad governments?
The answer is no.
***
If a government were to declare that we should kill all Asians or immigrants or people with Down’s syndrome, we should disobey. Governments are run by people and often become corrupt.
Finally, Runyan notes that believing that Romans compels us to blindly obey authority is absurd … as it would mean that we have to obey the devil and to commit spiritual treason:
If we assert that God approves of all governing authority, regardless of how it came to be or what it does once it gets there, what we are really saying is that we think Might Makes Right.
***
This is not materially different from the old-world idea of the Divine Right of Kings. All lovers of liberty, and especially those who know their Bibles, should be repulsed by this idea.
As Willson decries concerning this ridiculous idea:
“No doctrine could be more agreeable than this to tyrants, and to all that panders to unholy power; for, if this be Paul’s meaning, there is no despot, no usurper, no bloody conqueror, but could plead the divine sanction and, more than this, the devil himself could lay the teachings of Paul under contribution to enforce his pre-eminently unholy authority.
***
There is nothing in this about serving tyrants, or offering them a passive non-resistance. To insert a wicked government into this Bible text not only overturns the text itself, but would end up committing spiritual treason, by giving aid and comfort to the enemies of God and His Christ. Surely no one having the Spirit of God within would receive an idea like that with anything other than revulsion.
Has Romans Been Mistranslated?
Runyan argues that Romans may have been mistranslated:
Every person is to submit to the “governing” authorities. The word translated “governing” there by the ESV is the Greek word huperecho. It means to excel, to be superior, or better than; to surpass. The King James at this place has “higher powers,” which makes room for the idea of being better than something else.
The reason this is of some interest is that huperecho appears four other times in the New Testament. Once is in 1 Peter 2:13, in that letter’s passage about civil government. The majority of uses occur, however, in Philippians, where Paul uses it three times, at 2:3;3:8; and 4:7. These are quoted below. For ease of understanding, I’ve put the English words in ALL CAPS which are the renderings of huperecho.
Philippians 2:3 — “Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others MORE SIGNIFICANT than yourselves.”
Philippians 3:8 — “Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the SURPASSING worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ.”
Philippians 4:7 — “And the peace of God, which SURPASSES all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.”
As you can see, the Greek word means that which is morally better or excellent or weighty.
In these places, modern English translations usually have some combination of “important,” “significant,” and “surpassing” to translate huperecho. The KJV has “better,” “excellency,” and “passeth” (as in going beyond or surpassing) in the Philippians texts.
All this is simply meant to show that huperecho may legitimately refer to moral excellence, and does in fact, in most of its New Testament appearances. The modern use of “surpassing” in the Philippians passages is a moral surpassing. It is being better, rising above, doing well.
***
So that, when Romans 13:1 enjoins subjection to the huperecho powers, it’s not out of the question that this could be referring to surpassing morality.
On this idea, Willson writes, “Hence, some expositors have been disposed to lay no little stress upon this epithet, as distinctly defining the character of the powers here intended, and as limiting to such the subjection here enjoined, the ‘excelling powers;’ that is, powers possessing a due measure of the qualifications requisite to the rightful exercise of the power of civil rule.” [p.11, The Establishment and Limits of Civil Government.]
Some have suggested that to put “governing” instead of “higher” or “excelling” for huperecho in this place is really more of an interpretation than a word-for-word translation.
It should be noted that most modern translations, the New King James Version included, have erroneously rendered the Greek phrase “exousias huperechousias” (literally, “authorities above”) as “governing authorities,” rather than “higher powers,” as it appears in the older King James Version.
Whether or not the actual words were mistranslated, one thing is for sure … the spirit and meaning of Romans has been forgotten.
Karl Paul Reinhold Niebuhr[a] (June 21, 1892–June 1, 1971) was an American Reformedtheologian, ethicist, commentator on politics and public affairs, and professor at Union Theological Seminary for more than 30 years. Niebuhr was one of America’s leading public intellectuals for several decades of the 20th century and received the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1964. A public theologian, he wrote and spoke frequently about the intersection of religion, politics, and public policy, with his most influential books including Moral Man and Immoral Society and The Nature and Destiny of Man. The latter is ranked number 18 of the top 100 non-fiction books of the twentieth century by Modern Library.[27]Andrew Bacevich labelled Niebuhr’s book The Irony of American History “the most important book ever written on U.S. foreign policy.”[28] The historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. described Niebuhr as “the most influential American theologian of the 20th century”[29][30] and Time posthumously called Niebuhr “the greatest Protestant theologian in America since Jonathan Edwards.”[31]
Starting as a minister with working-class sympathies in the 1920s and sharing with many other ministers a commitment to pacifism and socialism, his thinking evolved during the 1930s to neo-orthodox realist theology as he developed the philosophical perspective known as Christian realism.[32][verification needed] He attacked utopianism as ineffectual for dealing with reality, writing in The Children of Light and the Children of Darkness (1944), “Man’s capacity for justice makes democracy possible; but man’s inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary.” Niebuhr’s realism deepened after 1945 and led him to support American efforts to confront Soviet communism around the world. A powerful speaker, he was one of the most influential thinkers of the 1940s and 1950s in public affairs.[29] Niebuhr battled with religious liberals over what he called their naïve views of the contradictions of human nature and the optimism of the Social Gospel, and battled with religious conservatives over what he viewed as their naïve view of scripture and their narrow definition of “true religion”. During this time he was viewed by many as the intellectual rival of John Dewey.[33]
James Scaminaci III juxtaposes 4GW and Christianity:
Excerpt:
Fourth Generation Warfare is a term of art for the latest evolution of types of warfare. Essentially, the three prior “generations” were massed manpower, massed firepower, and non-linear maneuver. Think roughly of the changing approaches of the American Revolutionary War to World War I to World War II. William S. Lind, who originated the term “Fourth Generation Warfare” in 1989, noted that elements from earlier generations of warfare, like “collapsing the enemy internally rather than physically destroying him,” would carry over into 4GW but with a greater emphasis and employing new tactics. 4GW expands warfare beyond the physical level to include the mental and moral dimensions. At the highest level of combat—moral conflict—the central objective is to undermine the legitimacy of one’s opponent and induce a population to transfer their loyalty from their government to the insurgent.
Fourth Generation Warfare resonated with military strategists and scholars, especially after 9/11, because it examined the emergence of a new type of warfare between a non-state insurgent and a central government in which ideas are key weapons.5 Part of 4GW is “epistemological warfare”—that is, “warfare” that adapts and incorporates concepts from post-modernism, structuration theory, deconstructionism, and chaos theory. In very simple terms, this type of warfare aims to “Disrupt the moral, physical and/or informational vertical and horizontal relations (i.e. cohesion) among subsystems.”6 This serves as propaganda intended to foster uncertainty, mistrust, and a sense of menace, all aimed at breaking down the bonds of social trust.7
But the doctrine of 4GW has not been limited to use in foreign wars. It has also been used at home: as a psy-ops campaign perpetrated by domestic actors against domestic political and religious adversaries.
The insurgent force, in this case, is the Christian Right, led by its key strategists: the late Paul Weyrich who would transform electoral competition into all-out political warfare against the political system itself, and William S. Lind, the original thinker who postulated the emergence of Fourth Generation Warfare and who served as Weyrich’s right-hand man.
Paul Weyrich, an architect of the Christian Right8 and founder of the Free Congress Foundation, one of the movement’s strategic think tanks, saw 1980s-era America in terms of an epochal struggle between two camps over “our way of life.” He told the Christian Right’s founding direct mail fundraiser Richard Viguerie, “‘It may not be with bullets… and it may not be with rockets and missiles, but it is a war nevertheless. It is a war of ideology, it’s a war of ideas, it’s a war about our way of life. And it has to be fought with the same intensity, I think, and dedication as you would fight a shooting war.’”9
Weyrich and Lind commissioned and published a strategic document in 2001 that epitomized their thinking and evolution away from the indirect influence of the Christian Reconstructionists who were more focused on theology. Written by their Free Congress Foundation colleague Eric Heubeck, it was titled “The Integration of Theory and Practice: A Program For The New Traditionalist Movement.” The objectives and tactics of the movement were the delegitimization and destruction of the Left, meaning the destruction through unrelenting propaganda barrages of the liberal-secular federal government and associated political culture and Constitution that protects individual rights.
“Our strategy will be to bleed this corrupt culture dry,” the document declares. “We will pick off the most intelligent and creative individuals in our society, the individuals who help give credibility to the current regime.” A little later, Heubeck writes, “Our movement will be entirely destructive, and entirely constructive. We will not try to reform the existing institutions. We only intend to weaken them, and eventually destroy them…. We will maintain a constant barrage of criticism against the Left. We will attack the very legitimacy of the Left…. We will use guerrilla tactics to undermine the legitimacy of the dominant regime” (emphasis added).10
Weyrich saw the Christian Right’s vision of traditional values as the legitimate and moral side. The other side, cast as the camp of secular liberalism, he saw as immoral and illegitimate. While Weyrich saw these opponents as in rough alignment with the two main political parties, his aim was never merely about electing Republicans. He was about forging a revolutionary Christian nationalist movement to undermine the legitimacy of what he saw as a liberal, secular democratic order.
Full article: https://politicalresearch.org/2017/08/16/battle-without-bullets-the-christian-right-and-fourth-generation-warfare
The just war theory by Thomas Aquinas has had a lasting impact on later generations of thinkers and was part of an emerging consensus in Medieval Europe on just war.[24] In the 13th century Aquinas reflected in detail on peace and war. Aquinas was a Dominican friar and contemplated the teachings of the Bible on peace and war in combination with ideas from Aristotle, Plato, Saint Augustine and other philosophers whose writings are part of the Western canon. Aquinas’ views on war drew heavily on the Decretum Gratiani, a book the Italian monk Gratian had compiled with passages from the Bible. After its publication in the 12th century, the Decretum Gratiani had been republished with commentary from Pope Innocent IV and the Dominican friar Raymond of Penafort. Other significant influences on Aquinas just war theory were Alexander of Hales and Henry of Segusio.[25]
From Summa Theologica:
On the contrary, Augustine says in a sermon on the son of the centurion (cf. Ep. ad Marccl., cxxxviii.): If the Christian Religion forbade war altogether, those who sought salutary advice in the Gospel would rather have been counselled to cast aside their arms, and to give up soldiering altogether. On the contrary, they were told: ‘Do violence to no man; … and be content with your pay.’* If he commanded them to be content with their pay, he did not forbid soldiering.
I answer that, In order for a war to be just, three things are necessary. First, the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged. For it is not the business of a private individual to declare war, because he can seek for redress of his rights from the tribunal of his superior. Moreover it is not the business of a private individual to summon together the people, which has to be done in wartime. And as the care of the common weal is committed to those who are in authority, it is their business to watch over the common weal of the city, kingdom or province subject to them. And just as it is lawful for them to have recourse to the sword in defending that common weal against internal disturbances, when they punish evil-doers, according to the words of the Apostle (Rom. 13:4): He beareth not the sword in vain: for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil; so too, it is their business to have recourse to the sword of war in defending the common weal against external enemies. Hence it is said to those who are in authority (Ps. 81:4): Rescue the poor: and deliver the needy out of the hand of the sinner; and for this reason Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii.): The natural order conducive to peace among mortals demands that the power to declare and counsel war should be in the hands of those who hold the supreme authority.
Secondly, a just cause is required, namely that those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault. Wherefore Augustine says (Q. X., super Jos.): A just war is wont to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly.
Thirdly, it is necessary that the belligerents should have a rightful intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil. Hence Augustine says (De Verb. Dom.*): True religion looks upon as peaceful those wars that are waged not for motives of aggrandisement, or cruelty, but with the object of securing peace, of punishing evil-doers, and of uplifting the good. For it may happen that the war is declared by the legitimate authority, and for a just cause, and yet be rendered unlawful through a wicked intention. Hence Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii.): The passion for inflicting harm, the cruel thirst for vengeance, an unpacific and relentless spirit, the fever of revolt, the lust of power, and suchlike things, all these are rightly condemned in war.
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province (London: Burns Oates & Washbourne, n.d.).
J. Warner Wallace is a Dateline featured cold-case homicide detective, popular national speaker and best-selling author. He continues to consult on cold-case investigations while serving as a Senior Fellow at the Colson Center for Christian Worldview. He is also an adjunct professor of apologetics at Talbot School of Theology (Biola University) and Southern Evangelical Seminary, and a faculty member at Summit Ministries. J. Warner became a Christ-follower at the age of thirty-five after investigating the claims of the New Testament gospels using his skill set as a detective. He eventually earned a Master’s Degree in Theological Studies from Gateway Seminary.
Most Christians accept the idea that some uses of deadly force are necessary and justified from a Biblical perspective. Scripture supports this understanding in the following ways:
The Old Testament Advocated the Use of Deadly Force
God did not prohibit “killing” in the Ten Commandments. Instead, God prohibited “murder” that involved intentional “malice”. The Old Testament allowed for several forms of justifiable homicide, including homicides committed in self-defense or in the defense of one’s home (Exodus 22:2) and homicides committed when trying to protect the life of an innocent third party (Exodus 2:11-12 and Genesis 14:14-16). These two guiding justifications for homicide were employed by God himself as he occasionally directed the nation of Israel, and these two exceptions are still in place across the United States in the Penal Codes of each state.
The New Testament Also Advocates the Use of Deadly Force
Jesus clearly told his followers that His teaching was consistent with the Old Testament instruction that preceded Him (Matthew 5;17-20), even as He introduced a new covenantal agreement with mankind related to Salvation. In addition, the New Testament affirms the justified use of force in the following ways:
Jesus Believed in Justifiable Aggressive Action
Jesus was quick to act aggressively to defend what He believed was right (see John 2:13-16). Jesus violently turned over the tables in the temple and His actions were warranted by the just nature of His cause.
Jesus Called for the Use of the Sword
Jesus told his disciples to arm themselves with swords (see Luke 22:36). At the very least, Jesus called his disciples to prepare themselves for their own defense. And the sword (an instrument that can be used to kill someone) was evidently allowable in the eyes of Jesus.
Jesus and John Never Condemned the Duty of Soldiers
Both Jesus and John shared the same perspective on the appropriate use of force. Maybe that’s why Jesus never commented negatively on any soldier he ever came in contact with (see Matthew 8:5-12). In addition, John the Baptist never scolded the soldiers who came to be baptized (see Luke 3:12-14). In fact, while he admonished them not to extort money or accuse people falsely, he never told them to accept a position of pacifism.
Paul Affirmed the Occasional Need for Deadly Force
Paul recognized the fact that government has the authority to use deadly force as it “bears the sword” (see Romans 13:1, 3-4) and Paul did not deny the government’s authority to execute him if the government found that Paul had done evil (see Acts 25:9-11).
Jesus Will Use Justifiable Deadly Force
With all this in mind, it’s much easier to understand and accept the way that Jesus is then depicted in the Book of Revelation, where he is described as a warrior at End Times (see Revelation 19:11-21).
Even though these passages of Scripture advocate the rare but justified use of deadly force, many Christian pacifists have argued that Jesus’ teaching related to “turning the other cheek” (Matthew 5:38-41) prohibits Christians from using force of this kind. Notice, however, that Jesus talks about being struck on the “right” cheek in this passage in Matthew’s gospel. Many Biblical scholars have noted that such a blow would have to be delivered by an attacker using his right hand in a backhanded manner. In the Jewish culture of Jesus’ day, such a blow was an act of disrespect more than it was an act of physical aggression. In this context, Jesus was simply teaching that we are to restrain ourselves from answering insult with insult. This passage has nothing to do with the justifiable use of force in order to protect oneself or protect the life of an innocent third party.
These two justifications (self-protection and protecting an innocent third party) ought to guide us as we examine our motivations to go to war. This sort of force ought to be rare and carefully justified. While we may disagree on the valid justification for a specific act of war in the past, we can truly recognize our fallen war veterans as heroes when we understand the proper Biblical reasoning for force. Moral decisions of this nature require heroic bravery and thoughtful wisdom. We hope your Memorial Day weekend provided you with an opportunity to remember the courage of those who preceded us, even as we think clearly about the teaching of Scripture on this issue. We’ve writen much more about this in our article, “What God Says About War“.
Dominion theology (also known as dominionism) is a group of Christian political ideologies that seek to institute a nation which is governed by Christians and based on their understandings of biblical law. Extents of rule and ways of acquiring governing authority are varied. For example, dominion theology can include theonomy, but it does not necessarily involve advocacy of adherence to the Mosaic Law as the basis of government. The label is primarily applied to groups of Christians in the United States.
…Sure enough, when our rickety train reached the border of Romania, two guards got on. They couldn’t speak English, but they pointed for our passports, then pointed to our luggage. They wanted us to bring our bags down from the luggage rack and open them up, and they were very brusque and rude. Then, suddenly, their boss appeared, a burly officer who spoke some broken English. He noticed that one of the women in our group had a paper bag in her lap, and there was something peeking out of it. The officer said: “What this? What in bag?” Then he opened the bag and pulled out a Bible. I thought, “Uh-oh, now we’re in trouble.” The officer began leafing through the Bible, looking over the pages very rapidly. Then he stopped and looked at me. I was holding my American passport, and he said, “You no American.” And he looked at Vesta and said, “You no American.” He said the same thing to the others in our group. But then he smiled and said, “I am not Romanian.”
By now we were quite confused, but he pointed at the text, gave it to me, and said, “Read what it says.” I looked at it and it said, “Our citizenship is in heaven” (Phil. 3:20a). The guard was a Christian. He turned to his subordinates and said: “Let these people alone. They’re OK. They’re Christians.” As you can imagine, I said, “Thank you, Lord.” This man understood something about the kingdom of God—that our first place of citizenship is in the kingdom of God.
Q. 63. What are the special privileges of the visible church? A. The visible church hath the privilege of being under God’s special care and government; of being protected and preserved in all ages, notwithstanding the opposition of all enemies; and of enjoying the communion of saints, the ordinary means of salvation, and offers of grace by Christ to all the members of it in the ministry of the gospel, testifying, that whosoever believes in him shall be saved, and excluding none that will come unto him.
Ps. 115:1-2 Isa 31:4-5 Zech 12:2-9 – The visible church is protected and preserved by God in all ages, in spite of the opposition of enemies.
Commentary by Johannes G. Vos
What is meant by saying that the visible church is “under God’s special care and government”? By this we mean that in addition to God’s ordinary providence whereby he controls all things that come to pass, God provides for the safety and welfare of his church in a special way, making various circumstances and acts of men work together for the benefit of his church.
“Admittedly Christianity has always had a wimp problem. The kind of guy who can only jaw-jaw because he can’t war-war has always been with us, and one of the few acceptable employments he could find was in the Church. But this is an entirely different order of weak. If you actually go back and read the Bible — and I question how many of these “pastors” with “ministry” degrees actually have — the Jesus you see is a rough-and-ready character. He talks a lot about peace, love, and understanding… but He also orders His followers to arm themselves. He absolutely puts beatdowns on people. You get the full spectrum of human behavior with the Biblical Jesus.”
Nehemiah’s Wall serves as both metaphor and inspiration at Kingdom Defense.
The Book of Nehemiah tells the story of how Nehemiah rebuilt the walls of Jerusalem so that followers might once again worship God in safety. Nehemiah accomplishes this daunting task in a remarkably brief period of time using common folks who built with one hand while defending their actions from enemy attack with a weapon in their other hand.
The biblical account of “Nehemiah’s wall” is well known. Nehemiah was a Jew in Persian captivity. He was the cupbearer to the Persian King Artaxerxes. In 444 b.c, Nehemiah was granted permission to return to Judah and rebuild the dilapidated walls and gates of Jerusalem, which had been destroyed during the Babylonian invasions in the early sixth century.
When Nehemiah arrived in Jerusalem, he toured the city walls to assess the damage. He faced opposition as he made plans and directed the people in rebuilding the city walls. He was threatened as he persisted. Nehemiah had opposition from enemies and opposition from the people he was leading(1).
The Bible says that the threat was so great from outside the city Nehemiah posted armed guards along the walls to protect the city until the building was done. Men were armed and ready to fight while they worked daily to build the wall. The book of Nehemiah shows that Judah at the time was surrounded by enemies and under constant threat of attack. Nehemiah and his crew worked with great urgency and astonishing speed in order to rebuild the wall.
9 But we prayed to our God, and because of them we set up a guard against them day and night.
10 And so in Judah it was said: “The strength of the burden bearers is failing, Yet there is much rubble; And we ourselves are unable to rebuild the wall.”
11 And our enemies said, “They will not know or see until we come among them, kill them, and put a stop to the work.”
12 When the Jews who lived near them came and told us ten times, “They will come up against us from every place where you may turn,”
13 then I stationed men in the lowest parts of the space behind the wall, the exposed places, and I stationed the people in families with their swords, spears, and bows.
14 When I saw their fear, I stood and said to the nobles, the officials, and the rest of the people: “Do not be afraid of them; remember the Lord who is great and awesome, and fight for your brothers, your sons, your daughters, your wives, and your houses.”
15 Now when our enemies heard that it was known to us, and that God had frustrated their plan, then all of us returned to the wall, each one to his work.
16 And from that day on, half of my servants carried on the work while half of them kept hold of the spears, the shields, the bows, and the coats of mail; and the captains were behind all the house of Judah.
17 Those who were rebuilding the wall and those who carried burdens carried with one hand doing the work, and the other keeping hold of a weapon.
18 As for the builders, each wore his sword strapped to his waist as he built, while the trumpeter stood near me.
19 And I said to the nobles, the officials, and the rest of the people, “The work is great and extensive, and we are separated on the wall far from one another.
20 At whatever place you hear the sound of the trumpet, assemble to us there. Our God will fight for us.”
21 So we carried on the work with half of them holding spears from dawn until the stars appeared.
22 At that time I also said to the people, “Each man with his servant shall spend the night within Jerusalem, so that they may be a guard for us by night and a laborer by day.”
23 So neither I, my brothers, my servants, nor the men of the guard who followed me—none of us removed our clothes; each took his weapon even to the water.
(New American Standard Bible (La Habra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 2020), Ne 4:9–23.)
Nehemiah’s Wall as a metaphor.
Nehemiah’s Wall
As metaphor, one might say that Nehemiah’s Wall illustrates the current state of Christianity. Declining (2) participation shows no sign of abating, while attacks against Christians, both physically and spiritually, accelerate. The wall that needs rebuilding is both spiritual and physical, spiritual from the standpoint of rebuilding our relationship with Christ, and physical from the standpoint of defense against those who would harm followers of Christ.
For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer (verse 4). The power of the sword is the exercise of force by government which is given to it by God. Paul, in the next breath, says the ruler is the servant of God. Of course, force is to be used only for righteousness, but that force is a legitimate dimension of ruling authority which this servant of God is given. The church has not been given the power of the sword, but the state has been given this authority.
Problem of war
Several theories concerning the Christian involvement in war have been postulated throughout church history and the debate continues even to our day.
There are those who take a pacifist position which says that under no circumstances is a Christian ever allowed to bear arms, and it is the duty of the Christian always to remain a conscientious objector, to refuse to participate in warfare. The second position is one which we hear, sadly, from time to time: ‘My country right or wrong, my country.’ There are Christians who believe that any time a nation enters into war and conscripts its own citizens, it is the duty of the Christian to serve his civil government in whatever warfare it is engaged in. There were Christians in Germany who appealed to that principle of civil obedience to the magistrate, to justify their involvement in the Holocaust.
The third view, which I believe to be the biblical view, is what is called the ‘just war’ theory. The basic principle of this theory is that all wars are evil, but not everyone’s involvement in war is evil. It presupposes that in warfare, which is a dreadful thing, there are aggressors and there are innocent victims. There are those who take the offence, and those who are on the defence. The just war theory says that it is unjust for someone to wage war aggressively by attacking other nations’ borders and subjecting them to murder on a grand scale. And so the theory sees a war of aggression as a violation of the prohibition against murder. If an individual wilfully and with malice aforethought kills another individual, we call that murder and all of the negative sanctions of Scripture are called into play there. Well, if a nation, as a group, imposes murder on another group from another nation, that is equally murder and the sanctions of murder apply.
But the question arises, Does the civil magistrate, within the geographical boundaries of his own domain, have the right or the responsibility to use force to resist an aggressor and to protect his own people from being victims to hostile and aggressive acts? Again, if we look at an individual level we ask, Does the policeman have the right to use force to stop a murderer from committing his act of murder against a private citizen? And generally the answer to that question is yes. Again, by way of analogy, warfare in a defensive posture is then seen as self-defence or protection on a grand scale. The just war theory says that it is perfectly just for the government of a nation to wage defensive war.
But what is the Christian’s responsibility herein? He is to remember the principles we have learned already from this section of Scripture: (1) that it is his duty to be as submissive to the government as he possibly can without violating the laws of God; (2) that the government does have a God-given right to bear the sword, and not only a right to bear the sword but a responsibility to bear the sword, because one of the primary tasks of government is to preserve, maintain, defend and promote life. If these principles are sound, then it would seem clear that the Christian’s responsibility is to obey and to serve. Therefore the just war theory advocates that Christians who are called to serve in the armed forces in a righteous cause have a moral obligation to serve. They are not exempt from participation in a just action perpetrated by the state. What happens if the state is itself the aggressor, and is involved in an unjust, unjustifiable act of warfare? If the state calls me to help it commit murder on a grand scale then, as a Christian, it is my duty to refuse to serve, no matter what the consequences may be.
Notice that in verse 4, the use of the sword is not only for restraint, but also as an instrument of vengeance. The civil magistrate, who holds an office that is enforced by instruments of violence, carries out a task of vengeance. This raises another difficult question with respect to biblical teaching because the Bible says clearly, ‘Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord, I will repay.’ Christians are clearly prohibited from being private, personal agents of revenge. But God, who has the right to vengeance, also has the right to delegate instruments of vengeance. This is precisely what we learn in this verse, that God delegates to the civil magistrate a certain measure of vengeance, making the civil magistrate a minister of vengeance on God’s behalf. So it is within the province of the civil magistrate to seek retributive justice. It is within the province of the state to punish the evil doer.
R. C. Sproul, The Gospel of God: An Exposition of Romans (Great Britain: Christian Focus Publications, 1994), 216–218.
Jesus advising the disciples to buy a sword in Luke 22:36: “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.”
First, let’s look at a Gospel setting in which Christ absolutely endorses self-defense. “But know this, that if the master of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched and not allowed his house to be broken into (Luke 12:39). ” Isn’t Jesus saying here that violence – or certainly the threat of violence – is not just the reasonable, but even the responsible, option to take in protecting one’s property, never mind one’s person or one’s family?
Then, we have this next quotation from the Gospel of Mark: “But no one can enter the strong man’s house and plunder his goods unless he first binds the strong man (3:27).” Now, why would the bad guy have to bind the strong man? Obviously, because the strong man would otherwise do all he could to keep the bad guy out! And again, that’s just to protect property.
As if to confirm Mark’s Gospel, we find these additional words of Christ in the Gospel of Luke: “When the strong man, fully armed, guards his courtyard, his property is undisturbed (11:21).” In case anyone still doesn’t get the point, it is not enough simply to defend yourself when the situation arises; you should be armed and ready to defend even your property. And this, of course, is what Jesus told his disciples to do shortly before he was taken prisoner when he told them to make sure they had swords: arm yourselves and be ready.
Read the complete post by Lars Larsen here: 0riginal post https://www.ktsa.com/does-jesus-christ-support-self-defense/
Our next 4-hour live webinar for church security groups is October 14, 2022. The $149.95 attendance fee includes the $89.95 reference manual and thumb drive. During the live webinar we cover the following topics:
1. Introduction to armed church security
2. Introduction to security analysis
3. Developing the church security team
4. Training the church security team
5. Deploying the church security team
All the topics covered during the webinar are detailed in the Comprehensive Manual.
This webinar is designed for both senior church leadership and members of your security team.
Additional copies of the Comprehensive Manual can be purchased.
Click below to purchase the manual and register for the next webinar. The price of the webinar includes one manual and thumb drive. The webinar link can be shared and viewed by your whole team.
Click to register: https://distributedsecurity.com/religious-groups-faith-based-organizations/
As a Christian, scripture is at the center of our life, and all decisions that we may make in our life can be informed and guided by scripture. In many areas scripture is direct and unambiguous. But in others, there appears to be conflicting or ambiguous direction. One of the more troubling areas that many Christians grapple with, is the use of violence, specifically when it comes to the defense of life, property, or community.
Bruce Deitrick Price at American Spectator describes “Why Are Communists Determined to Destroy the US”? Key takeaway — if sexual morals could be compromised and undermined when Christians were still children, then Christianity itself could be destroyed.
Excerpt:
During World War 1, the deputy people’s commissar for culture and education was an extreme Marxist named György Lukács, then considered the most brilliant communist since Marx himself. He advocated promiscuity, denounced the family, and encouraged children to mock their parents and religion. The question Lukács posed was, “Who will save us from Western civilization?”
Marxist theory circa 1900 said that if Europe ever erupted in war, the working classes in every European country would rise in revolt and create a new communist Europe. Instead, the workers in every country lined up by the millions to fight their country’s enemies.
Why is Marxist theory incorrect? Two leading Marxist intellectuals, Antonio Gramsci in Italy and Lukács in Hungary, independently came up with the same answer. They said that Western culture and the Christian religion had so blinded the working class to its true, Marxist class interests, that a communist revolution was impossible in the West until both could be destroyed. That objective, established as cultural Marxism’s goal at the beginning, has never changed.
In 1918, Lukács continued refining what he called “cultural terrorism.” One component was to create sexual education courses in schools that would work to distort traditional sexual morality. “He came to the conclusion that if sexual morals could be compromised and undermined when Christians were still children, then Christianity itself could be destroyed.”
Those who built on the wall, and those who carried burdens, loaded themselves so that with one hand they worked at construction, and with the other held a weapon. NEH 4:17
The Wall is part blog, part journal, part bulletin board, and part archive I set up in order to further the discussion about the use of force in defense of church and community. Learn MORE ABOUT THE WALL.
