Those who long for justice...

"And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God." - Micah 6:8

"Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for justice, for they will be filled" -Matthew 5:6

"Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you"- Matthew 5:44

"Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."- Romans 12:21

"Peacemakers who sow in peace reap a harvest of justice."- James 3:18

Let’s play a game. I am going to ask you a few questions and you will immediately write down a few things that come to your mind in relation to word I provide you. So what words or images come to mind when you hear the following words: (think of a short reply to each)

 

‘Mercy’



  'Justice’



Do you think that  a majority of people would agree about what these terms mean? Would there ever be contradicting and competing definitions of these terms? I want to explore this...



Let’s start first with mercy. I generally think that most people know what mercy means. I would be surprised to encounter contradictions in defining the word mercy. Yet, sometimes a full understanding of mercy can be lost in translation. As Dr. Scot McKnight comments, “‘Merciful’ does not describe the ubiquitous and shallow virtue of “niceness” or “tolerance” in Western culture but concrete actions of love.”[1] Mercy has nothing to do with ‘niceness’ and ‘fairness’. We show mercy to someone who has wronged us. Mercy is compassion or forgiveness shown towards someone whom it is within one's power to punish or harm. Mercy is refraining from the cycle of retribution. Mercy ends the cycle of violence through forgiveness and cancelling the debt that is owed. 


Now let’s talk justice. What did you come up with? What do you think others came up with? I want to let you in on a secret. I am never surprised when people have differing conceptions of justice. I am resigned to the fact that ‘justice’ has the unfortunate disposition of being defined in contradictory ways. I am not talking about the legal subtleties of enacting ‘justice’ between two parties. I mean there is a rift of understanding about what constitutes the nature of ‘justice’. This may surprise you. After all, we have entire segments of society united to bring about justice through legal systems, and political lobbying. You would think that there would be some agreement on the term. Let me explain.



There are two differing ‘umbrellas of understanding’ about justice: retributive justice & restorative justice. Whatever you believe about justice can fall into one of these two categories. These ‘umbrellas of understanding’ relate to the end goal achieved by each version of justice. 




Retributive Justice



Justice in this view, is righting wrongs, paying back what is owed, and punishing wrong doers. Retributive justice sticks to the letter of the law, requiring its pound of flesh, demanding compensation, quid pro quo, tit for tat, and satisfaction of the law in order to resolve conflict and bring about conflict resolution. Peace is achieved as an end result of punitive action. 



Central to this view is the notion of limiting retaliation by ‘balancing the books’ and going no further. A definitive example of retributive model is the justice of ‘an eye for an eye’. An eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth was a law of limitation designed to prevent the overuse of aggression and conflict. If someone broke their neighbours tooth you could not slaughter his whole family. 



The Greek philosopher Polemarchus espouses this view when he defines justice as “to give each what is owed to him.”[2] When asked by Socrates to further explain his position, he replies, ““justice … gives benefits to friends and does harm to enemies.”[3]


Restorative Justice



Justice in this view, is the act of redeeming, reconciling, and restoring offended parties back to a state of peace through the processes of forgiveness, understanding, and responsibility. The goal of this justice is to repair damage and thus break the cycle of hostility, retribution, and violence. Peace is viewed not as the end result but as the means of justice and conflict resolution. 

Central to this view of justice is the acknowledgement that the cycles of violence and retaliation are counter intuitive to an ultimate goal of restoration and peace. Gandhi summed this up beautifully when he comments, “An eye for an eye, will leave the whole world blind”. Restorative justice seeks out alternative ‘third way’ options to conflict resolution. If my neighbour ‘sins’ against me I am within the law to retaliate or do nothing. But I always have a third option to name the sin, absorb the blow, and forgive in order to redeem.



Which justice is ‘just’? 



Penal actions are often constructed within artificial boundaries of our perceived justice and our judgement of what is just. Humans are fallible in our executions of justice. We can easily distort justice as American justice, Israeli justice, Palestinian justice. As my friend Rob Olson commented on my Facebook wall in reply to a thread about justice, “Justice for who?”Justice for some is not always justice for all. Justice as virtue can never be tribal and xenophobic. “If you want justice [as retribution] and nothing but justice, you will get injustice. If you want justice without injustice, you must want love. A world of perfect justice is a world of love.”[4] Pastor and author Brian Zahnd provides a brilliant example as illustration of our artificial constructions of ‘justice’:



“Imagine you are involved in a property dispute with your neighbour. The neighbour has constructed a toolshed that extends three feet onto your property. You don’t want a toolshed occupying three feet of your property. Attempts to rectify the impasse with your neighbour fail, so you take the matter to court. The judge hears the case, decides on your behalf, and orders the toolshed removed. You are satisfied. But has justice been done? Perhaps. Certainly you may think so. But whose justice? At what point in the past do we start keeping score in order to determine what is just? What if the judge issued an alternative verdict: “I have heard your case, considered your arguments, and I have decided to return both of your properties to the Native Americans from whom it was stolen a hundred and fifty years ago.” Is this perhaps justice ? One might argue it’s a different kind of justice. It might seem just in one perspective but patently unjust in another. When we talk justice, we often do so within artificial boundaries. We mean justice in contemporary context, not a historical context. We mean limited justice, not over all justice; we mean justice for me, not for everyone.” [5] 

                       Justice as Mercy

Well, let me put my cards on the table. I have a problem with retributive justice. I think my major issue is this: Mercy is viewed as the opposite of justice. When someone is not payed or the law is not satisfied it can only be called injustice in the retributive view. Retributive justice ultimately must call God’s justice: injustice. To hold the retributive view, I am forced to side against Jesus in his pardoning of the woman caught in adultery, his lack of vengeance on the enemies of Israel, and his constant forgiveness and welcoming of sinners. I can understand why nations need a retributive view of justice. Paul outlines this in Romans 13. I have hard time reconciling how the church can call retribution justice, especially in light of God's justice towards sinners. “God’s greatest act of justice is to save the sinner- and God does so by the ‘injustice’ of grace. If we are ever going to understand and get along with the God revealed in the Bible, we are going to have to come to terms with the ‘injustice’ of his grace. This is precisely what the elder brother in the parable of the prodigal son was unwilling to do.” [6]



I submit to you that true biblical justice and righteousness is full of mercy and longs for restoration and reconciliation as its goal. Mercy is not the opposite of justice. The Psalmist speaks of this type of justice when he/she writes, “Mercy and truth have met together. Justice and peace have kissed!” (Psalm 85:10) The Hebrew conception of justice is not divorced from mercy.“The Bible connects justice to righteousness and mercy. In fact, these three actions are so closely intertwined in Scripture that we might refer to them as a trinity of utility. If we want to live according to God’s will, in imitation of Jesus, we will utilize the three practices: justice, righteousness, and mercy.”[7] 



Let’s go a step further. Jesus’ teaching about justice, and therefore God’s clearest revelation, is the opposite of cold retribution. Let’s look at the Sermon on the Mount as primer for discussion. It’s a sermon directed at disciples who embody an alternative society that represents the breaking-in Kingdom of God. The Sermon on the Mount is not private instruction for individuals; it is the political platform for a new kingdom, a city on a hill. 



We can read the Beatitudes as a vision of justice. In the Beatitudes, Jesus describes a blessing upon the least likely people groups: the poor, the meek, the merciful…etc. These are types of personalities through whom God is starting to bring wise and healing order to the world. Scot McKnight suggests that we read the Beatitudes in three’s. “Three on the humility of the poor, three on those who pursue justice, and three on those who create peace.” True justice realizes it’s poverty of spirit (v3) and desperate need of God’s intervention. True justice mourns (v4) injustice on the earth and longs for comfort. Meekness (v5), as those quiet souls who trust in God for redemption, is a deep-rooted characteristic of those who long for justice//righteousness (v6). Justice is framed by mercy (v7) and purity of heart (v8). Justice is expressed through a peacemaking (v9) that absorbs persecution (v10) and insult (v11) but never retaliates. 

Jesus continues to refine his exclusion of retribution through the anti-thesis statements. "You heard that it was said, but I say to you.” Jesus is contrasting with the Old Testament through the use of six 'antithesis statements' in Matthew's Sermon on the Mount. In each antithesis, Jesus demonstrates how the Law and the Prophets are fulfilled, through Jesus' ministry and teaching. Jesus’ fulfillment is not merely an add-on to the Law, rather Jesus is the interpretative norm and prophetic fulfillment. So in shutting down the cycle of retribution Jesus excludes hatred and anger (v21) from the DNA of the disciple. Jesus is not deepening our resolve to not murder, he is establishing that we should never allow the thought of murder to exist within the fabric of our being. If I cannot even hate my enemy, how then could I ever aggress against them? If we are to express "fore-giving" love to those that offend us, as God in Christ expresses to us, how then can we say we are justified in retribution? Does not retribution eliminate the possibility of redemption through reconciliation? 



The clearest critique of ‘retribution as justice’ is Jesus’ approach to the Lex Talionis. An eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth was a law of limitation. (c.f. Exodus 21:24) It prevented the overuse of aggression and conflict. It was given to provide the nations judicial system with a ready formula of punishment. "Don't use violence to resist evil”, says Jesus. (v39 KNT) Jesus counters this notion of limited retaliation. Where Torah restricts retaliation; Jesus forbids it all together. Jesus is introducing a Kingdom conception of justice as mercy. This was hope and the fulfillment of the prophetic tradition. The way to respond to evil is not with more evil actions, but with creative and non-violent action(s) whose goal is to make enemies friends. Jesus offers a new sort of justice, a creative, healing, restorative justice. The old justice found in the Bible was designed to prevent revenge running away on itself. But Jesus does better still.



“If your concept of justice is to make sure that everyone gets ‘what they deserve,’ you are going to have a hard time getting along with Jesus. This is the very kind of justice that Jesus stands against and came to save us from. A world bent on the justice of giving people ‘what they deserve’ is a world that is endlessly cruel and marked by alienation, violence, and war. The concept of retributive justice is what fuels the endless escalation of violence in the worst places on our world- from troubled inner cites to the troubled Middle East. Retributive justice has the horrible tendency to degenerate into my justice. And my justice is inevitably someone else’s injustice. This is not the justice that saves- this is the justice that kills.” [9-emphasis original]



Summary Thoughts



‘Justice as punishment’ is very appealing when I have been wronged. There is something  deep within myself that craves payback. I want them to pay, to feel my pain. I want satisfaction. I know that the desire to return hate with hate can be so easy, so convenient, so human. BUT… What about when I am on the receiving end of ‘justice as retribution’? Do I really want ‘justice’ then? Do I want my eye gouged out as well? Am I treating my enemy as Jesus would? 


I think God’s justice is Good News for the world. It’s a justice that is full of mercy. It’s a justice that makes enemies friends (Romans 5). It’s a justice that wants to heal, redeem, and transform the sinner. God, in Christ, reveals God’s justice on the Cross. 

“How, then, does God deal with death-producing sin in its full reality, as both transgression of law and oppression of life, through the cross of Jesus Christ? Regarding sin as transgression of law: God deals justly with sin, not by satisfying the law of retribution for sin, but rather by forgiving our transgressions, cancelling our record of wrongs, and nailing the death-demanding law of retribution to the cross - thus nullifying the power of sin to produce death through the law. Regarding sin as oppression of life: God deals decisively with sin by dealing death a final defeat through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ - thereby making a way for us to participate in God's victory over death and enabling us to participate in God's immortal life through resurrection and new creation in Christ (Rom 6:5-11;1 Cor 15:20-28, 50-57; 2 Cor 5:17). It is thus God's own law-nullifying retribution transcending, life-redeeming, creation-restoring work of faithfulness through the cross that discloses and demonstrates the justice of God.”[10]


Justice looks like a bloodied and bruised Saviour stretching his arms out on the Cross of his execution saying, “Father forgive them.” When God should have been pouring out punishment on humanity for the murder of Jesus, God instead absorbs the blow of injustice and responds in forgiveness. “In answer to Jesus’ prayer, there would be no retribution, no reprisal, no vengeful reckoning. Injustice has found a place to die- it died in Christ… The resurrection of Christ was not only the Father’s vindication of his Son; it was also the dawn of a new world founded on the the justice of reconciliation and forgiveness. The first Easter Sunday saw justice and peace kiss so that the risen Son of God could say, ‘Peace be with you.’ Ultimately, God’s justice is found in God’s mercy. This is how we are reconciled with one another. This is how we are saved. ”[11]




A prayer for those who long for Justice

Almighty God,

We praise you for all you have done.

Help us will all that you want us to do.

Come, Holy Creator,

And establish Your justice on earth

So that we do not labour in vain without you. 

Come, Holy Saviour 

And heal all that is broken

In our lives and in our streets

Come, Holy Spirit

And inspire us with energies and willingness

To rebuild the ruins of our cities to Your honour and glory.

Amen. 

(so be it) 

Thanks for reading....





Works Cited



1. McKnight, Scot. The King Jesus Gospel (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011) 132, (e-version) 
2.  Plato, Republic , trans. G. M. A. Grube, revised by C. D. C. Reeve
(Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1992) 331.
3. ibid. 332
4.  Miroslav Volf, Exclusion and Embrace: A Theological Exploration of Identity, Otherness, and Reconciliation (Nashville:Abingdon, 1996), 223.
5. Zahnd, Brian. Unconditional? (Lake Mary:Charisma House, 2010) 116-117. 
6.ibid. 124
7. Baker, Sharon. Executing God: Rethinking everything you’ve been taught about salvation and the cross (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press) 239 (e-version) 
8. McKnight, Scot. The King Jesus Gospel (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011) 134, (e-version) 
  
 9. Zahnd, Brian. Unconditional? (Lake Mary:Charisma House, 2010) 126. 
10. Snyder Belousek, Darrin W. Atonement, Justice and Peace: The Message of the Cross and the Mission of the Church (Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2012) 846. (e-version) 
11. Zahnd, Brian. Unconditional? (Lake Mary:Charisma House, 2010) 129. 

Loving Your Enemy: Part 10: The End

"They shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." - Isaiah 2:4

My Story: "Beating Swords Into Ploughshares."

Me. 

I never really gave much thought to the area of peace-theology during my life before post-secondary: And why should I? My cultural upbringing is such that I would never need to question the righteousness of violence. It was just assumed that violence is always an acceptable option. What really mattered was the 'good-guys' and the 'bad guys', the 'us' verses 'them'. It is narrative that has overshadowed much of what we label as history. The story that is told and re-told, since first murder by Cain, is the cycling and re-cycling of revenge and retaliation: an eye for an eye. Is there a better way? I think so. 

What disturbs me most when I think back to my upbringing is that I grew in a church culture that never spoke of Jesus' peace teachings. The Gospel I received growing up did not contain a radical vision for a new humanity, in which the walls of hostility are broken by the work of reconciliation through Christ our Lord. There was no call to participate in the life of Christ as ministers of reconciliation on a transnational level. I had what Dr. Scot McKnight calls a 'Soterian Gospel', that is a Gospel that is reduced to 'how to get saved' rather than a call to a Kingdom life. The problem with a myopic, soterian, post-Constantinian church culture is that it has created "the decided" rather than "the discipled". We want Jesus for what he can do for us. We have created a culture, of what Dallas Willard calls, ‘vampire christians', who only want a little blood for their sins but nothing more to do with Jesus until heaven. I fear that our church culture does not want the LORD who calls us to love our enemies here in this life. I am also really concerned that we have created a culture that confesses ‘belief’ in Jesus, but not in Jesus’ ideas. 

The Shift:

Everything changed for me when I made the decision to follow God's call to Horizon College and Seminary. Formal training for ministry began in me a journey of formation, transformation and maturity. I began my time at college-by default- as an advocate of the Just-War theory. I even wrote a paper titled "Pacifism: An inconsistency". I argued in the paper that:

(1) Jesus' teaching only applies to individuals 

(2) Loving your enemy is more about 'the heart' and less about the actions 

(3) Protection of 'my property', 'my family', and 'my nation' legitimized the use of force. 

(4) Jesus was an idealist and dispensationalist 

(5) 'Love of enemy' could include violence toward them because the most 'loving thing' to do is maintain 'justice'

(6) The 'violence' in the temple is evidence that Jesus did not really mean what he was teaching 

(7) Pacifism meant: Do nothing.  

I couldn't have been more wrong. The paper I wrote during my second year awarded me an ok grade, but it left me unsettled and questioning. I was haunted by Jesus' teachings and example. I was haunted by whispers of the Holy Spirit, who was preparing my heart and mind for a shift. It all reached a firestorm for me when I discovered that one of my professors that I really respected was a pacifist. My first response was to take every opportunity I had to disagree and mock my professor. (Yes, I had a long way to go in my journey) It just seemed ridiculous to me at the time that such an intellectual person could be caught up in what I thought was such idealism. My professor's response was to lovingly nudge me on the journey of study and reflection. Questions like "Did Jesus really teach that?" seemed to pierce me like a hot knife to butter. This lead to me reading a few pacifist authors, discovering Bruxy Cavey during the series 'Inglorious Pastors', praying about the topic and reading afresh the Sermon on the Mount. Everything culminated in the cry of "I need to re-examine my positions." I discovered that every single one of my assumptions and arguments against Pacifism was dead wrong. Here's a breakdown of what I discovered: (in correspondence to the list above) 

(1) The Sermon on the Mount is not private instruction for individuals; it is the political platform for a new kingdom, a city on a hill. 

(2) Jesus does not divorce action from emotion. This is sort of gnostic thinking is antithetical to the witness of scripture. 

(3) Within the category of neighbour stands both the loved one and the attacking someone. The commandment to love the neighbour requires the unequivocal rejection of preferential love and its replacement by Christian love, which “means not to exclude a single one.” 

(4) Jesus taught an inaugurated eschatology that is not idealism, but the restoration of the new humanity.  Or in other words, the call of discipleship is to live according to the new 'aeon', even while the old is yet languishing but sure to be defeated. Jesus in his death set us “free from the present evil age”. 

(5) Justice and mercy are not in conflict; rather to do acts of mercy that lead to redemption and restoration is the establishment of true justice. 

(6)There is no evidence that Jesus was violent toward people in the temple. (see this blog post for an explanation)  

(7) Pacifism means do EVERYTHING but violence. Peace making requires a Spirit inspired creativity that persuades by love, witness, spirit, reason, rhetoric, and if need be: martyrdom.  


Recap: A Summary of the Peace Theology Series:

1) The way of enemy love (enemy kindness/serving/doing good for) is the heart of God. Matthew 5:44-45; Romans 5:8, 10

2) Jesus calls us to love the way he loves. John 15:12-14; 1 John 3:16; Philippians 2:5-8

3) The way of the cross is fundamental to Christian discipleship. Matthew 10:37-39; 16:24-26; Mark 8:34-38; Luke 9:23-24; 14:27

4)Jesus teaches enemy love in explicit and practical terms. Matthew 5 // Luke 6

5) Jesus models enemy love throughout his life and death.

6)The Apostles taught and modelled enemy love, to death.

7) The Apostles taught that, when it comes to violence, the role of Christians and the role
of government are distinct and that we should draw the line at paying our taxes. Romans 12:14-13:7

8) Early church leaders unanimously taught and modelled pacifism, enemy love, and non-involvement in institutions of violence.

9) Not until Constantine (4th Century) did the church embrace Christian participation in violence.

10) Biblical objections raised tend to be examples of non-Christocentric Bible reading, exegesis of desperation, (un)intentional misunderstandings, sound-bite theology, or
arguments from silence.

11) Experiential objections raised tend to follow the standard wisdom of our world rather than the counter-wisdom of God. They may qualify us to be decent citizens, but not obedient Christians. 1 Corinthians 1:18-31; 2:13-14; 3:18-20 The goal of a Christ-follower is not to be what the world calls a “good” person, but what is so off the charts of human moral categories that non-Christians would have no easy word to describe you (except maybe “crazy”). Jesus doesn’t want you to live a good life. He wants you to live a loving life.

An important last question from Bruxy Cavey. 

A Check List for Practically Living Out Nonviolent Enemy Love: 

Review the following checklist and formulate/ devise an action plans(s) to love an ‘enemy’ in your unique context.

WHEN SOMEONE HATES YOU.
1. Assess your own life first.
a. Remove planks before splinters.
b. Be humble in your disposition.
c. Apologize if possible.
d. Do this personally, racially, nationally, religiously, etc.

2. See them as God sees them.
a. Infinitely valuable – worth dying for.
b. Dearly loved.
c. Image of God is primary identity.
d. Broken in need of repair, sick in need of healing, enslaved in need of
rescue, sinful in need of salvation.
e. Relate to the good in them, while confronting the bad.

3. Serve their needs (not their wants).
a. Offer opportunities of enlightenment through practical deeds of loving service.
b. Let all actions arise out of your genuine Christ-like love, not your need for self-preservation or punishment (especially when you are in a position to defeat or shame or overpower that person).
c. Trust God to avenge injustice (directly or through the state).

WHEN SOMEONE HURTS YOU.
1. Don’t confuse love with sentimentality (which can lead to enabling).
2. Practice caring confrontation.
3. Remember love is an active commitment to help others become who they were made to be. (Matthew 18:15-17; Luke 17:3-4)

WHEN YOU HAVE HURT SOMEONE. 
1. Put aside everything else, including your religious commitments, in order to prioritize reconciliation.
2. Don’t delay or you may get too comfortable merely thinking about what is right and not acting on it. We must fight against the human tendency to confuse good intentions and good ideas with good actions. (Matthew 5:23-26)

WHEN SOMEONE IS HURTING. 
1. Never settle for being nice when you can be loving.
2. Initiate relationship with those on the fringe of social circles.
3. Volunteer with compassion organizations  (Matthew 25:31-46; James 1:27)

WHEN SOMEONE IS HURTING SOMEONE ELSE. 
1. Never use pacifism as an excuse to be passive.
2. Practice peaceful intervention.
3. Go to war...as an agent of reconciliation.

A prayer for peacekeepers:

Thank you so much for reading this blog series. Be sure to check out Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5,  Part 6,  Part 7, Part 8, and Part 9. 

Loving Your Enemy: Part 9: But what about? Historical, Philosophical, and Situational Objections.

It is no accident that we are almost at the end of our peace-theology series, and are only now addressing the situational, philosophical, and historical objections. We have intentionally done the hard work of wrestling with the text: the 'exegesis'. The word exegesis literally means “to lead out of.” In this method the interpreter of scripture is led to his or her conclusions by following the text. The opposite approach to exegesis is eisegesis, which literally means “to lead into,” which means the interpreter injects his or her own ideas into the text, making it mean whatever he or she wants. In my own experience as a former advocate of Just War, I believe that Just War theory is primarily an argument from eisegesis. Here is Bruxy Cavey reflecting on why we should start with the text first:

How we ask our questions.


It is important that we examine the assumptions we bring in how we ask questions about peace-theology. It is often the case that when we ask questions of peace-theology the underlying assumption(s) are:

1.Use violence (and be successful) 

2.Do nothing.

This is a false dichotomy and a tragic misunderstanding of the peace position for a couple reasons: 

(1) There are more possibilities: tragedy, martyrdom, miracle, another way out (either “natural” or “providential”), or attempted killing (either “successful” or “unsuccessful”). There are a million possibilities between 'doing nothing' and 'using violence'.  

(2) Violence is not a recipe for success. “Nonviolent action on behalf of justice is no automatic formula with promise of success: but neither is war. After all, at least half of the people who go to war for some cause deemed worthy of it, are defeated."[1] 

(3) Pacifism is not being passive by ‘doing nothing’, but living the way of peace, reconciliation, and creative non-violence. A commitment to pacify, to peace-making and peace-living.

How we ask our questions says a lot about our bias' and our worldview. Also, how we ask our questions can often reveal our motivation(s). This is exactly what Bruxy Cavey is addressing in this video:

Our questions can run into the danger of starting our worldview with the cultural norms,  ethical egoism and utilitarianism rather than the witness of scripture. Consider for example that ethical egoism is an individualistic approach to ethics that assumes the most pleasure and least pain as a desired result, is the right course of action. Likewise, Utilitarianism is the idea that the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its utility in providing happiness or pleasure as summed among all people. In both these world views we never concern ourselves with the morality of our actions (i.e. taking a life) but only with the desired result. In other words: the ends always justify the means. 

Why are ethical egoism and utilitarianism faulty approaches to the Christian worldview? Ethical egoism is held in suspect because it ignores core Christian teachings of being 'other centred', enduring suffering, and seeking first God's kingdom. Interestingly enough, both pacifists and just warriors would reject the ethical egoist's self-preservation as justification for the use of violence. Thus the primary world view utilized by the just warrior is utilitarianism. Some common objections to utilitarianism as an ethical framework are:

 (1)We can’t be certain of all the results
 (2)Utilitarianism neglects the motives 
(3)Neglects the action itself. 

Christian objections to utilitarianism include: 

(1) Happiness and pleasure are not the chief goals of the Christ follower (obedience to Jesus is the primary goal) 
(2) Christ's example teaches us that the ends must be incorporated within the means.
(3) Utilitarianism denies that the primary basis of Christian ethics is the life and example of  Jesus 
(4) Both utilitarianism and ethical egoism commit the Christian to a poor reading of scripture. Nowhere does Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount suggest that it is only for individuals. There is no footnote or proviso where Jesus says, “You are to live this way except when it comes to the defence of your neighbours, then you must use the violence at your disposal to protect them.” In fact, the Sermon on the Mount is not private instruction for individual consciences; it is the political platform for the new kingdom or city that Jesus proclaims, the city that is to be “set on a hill” and illumine the world (Matt 5:14–16). He gives this platform to the twelve disciples, who represent the restoration of Israel and the return of God to the temple, a return found in Jesus’ own body, in Jesus who is fully divine and fully human.


Prelude to answering questions:

It is my hope that we are asking questions as persons who seek to better understand the implications of peace theology. I will do my best to answer a few of the tough questions. I doubt I have space to answer every conceivable objection, but feel free to ask in the comment section. I am going to try to focus in on the most common objections asked of the pacifist position. So let's examine a few objections (with occasional help of Bruxy Cavey)...

But what about Hitler?

But what about protecting our loved ones? What would you do if someone were attacking a loved one?

This is likely the most difficult question posed to the pacifist. The desire to want to intervene is a good thing. Let's be very clear about something here: Christian practitioners of peace theology are all about intervention. Pacifism does not mean do nothing. It's also part of what advocates of the Just War tradition argue fulfills the obligation to love one’s neighbour. On this point, just-warriors and pacifists agree. Where pacifists and just warriors disagree is on the 'any means necessary approach' that is espoused by the just warrior. I would like to hope that between 'doing nothing' and 'using violence' are a million Spirit inspired possibilities, including martyrdom. 

"Any consideration of what you, the “single individual” , would do or should do if someone attacked your own beloved is first complicated by the presence of the beloved as the beloved. If you find yourself constructing a series of hypothetical situations and hypothetical responses involving him/her—testing them for plausibility or consistency, analyzing what you would or would not do for her, pulling away from the immediacy of your love—do you then truly love her? Or do you instead love the reflection of your other self in her, as you are unable to see her without the objectifying lens of objectivity?

The question is further confounded by the fact that within the category of neighbour stands both the loved one and the attacking someone. And the commandment to love the neighbour requires the unequivocal rejection of preferential love and its replacement by Christian love , which “means not to exclude a single one.”The duty to love all people based on our kinship before God asks us to transcend our cultural and personal fears of someone else. If I err by reserving my love for only the friends I deem to be safe, and withhold it from those I name as my enemy, then maybe I should “shut my eyes become all ears to the commandment to love my neighbour,” and find that “the enemy looks just like the neighbour.”

How has my love gone astray if I conclude that violence is the only possible response to the threat of violence between neighbours? If I assume that the attacking someone is uniquely undeserving of love and I cannot see him as a neighbour, will I then be blind to a nonviolent “another way out” if it appears? Is it possible that Christian discipleship may indeed call me to witness in a cruciform way to my love of both the someone and the loved one?." [2] I think so.

I understand why we need to form these 'justifications for violence'. We need them. Period. We need to feel like we are empowered to be the guardians of our own destiny. In this fallen world, it is hard to trust that there is a power greater than the power of sin, death and the grave. The idolatry of fear can so easily infect our thinking. Pacifism asks us to trust in Jesus and his teaching as the way God is bringing about redemption and justice in the world. That's tough! It requires a lot of trust... faith...and prayer. Lord help us. 

 “I do not know what I would do if some insane or criminal person were to attack my wife or child, sister or mother. But I know that what I should do would be illuminated by what God my Father did when his “only begotten Son” was being threatened. Or by what Abraham, my father in the faith, was ready to sacrifice out of obedience; he was ready to give up his son because he believed in the resurrection.” -John Howard Yoder, What Would You Do?

Shouldn't we try to use the most effective options (i.e. violence) to defeat evil? 


The assumption(s) in the question are: (1) That we can fully know the effectiveness of an action (2) That the usefulness of a practice is validation of the action. Pacifist do not make the claim that following the peace teaching of Jesus is the most effective action. In fact, I think it is impossible to deny that violence does sometimes work in 'pacifying' a situation, at least from human perspective. But are we really following the Jesus way because it is the most logical and effective? Jesus practiced peace-making, enemy-love toward his adversaries when being arrested, and he still died. (It didn't work.) The early church followed Jesus' example of enemy love and paid the price for it with their lives. (It didn't work) Peace theology is not a success strategy; it is a love strategy. (although peace theology does sometimes work in practice) Once we fully understand and embrace this, many of our questions about the way of peace will be answered. Practitioners of peace-theology believe that our ethics are formed through the imitation of Jesus. Jesus is said to be the unique and definitive expression of God’s economy, of how God redeems the world and engages it politically through the cross, resurrection, and ascension. 



But what about pacifists leaving everyone else to do the dirty work?

If pacifism is used as an excuse to avoid conflict or suffering... then we have every right to criticize it. Christ followers should never run away from suffering, but as the Apostle Peter teaches us:

"But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. “Do not fear their threats; do not be frightened.” But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behaviour in Christ may be ashamed of their slander. For it is better, if it is God’s will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil." - 1 Peter 3:14-17

 But what about pacifist legalism?What is violence? Does “violence” include restraint?

There is a lot of diversity in the pacifist camp as to what constitutes a violent action. There are some pacifists that suggest that it is possible to employ tactics that allow for the redemption of the enemy. Is it holding your attacker on the ground? Is it using pepper spray? Is it using a taser? I don't know. I am not sure. 

I might caution this approach to determining the right course of action. When we start from some sort of definition of what constitutes violence (and the parameters of language are always shifting with use), then whatever non-violence is, it ends up being defined by either what it is against or what it is not. I think the crux of understanding Christian nonviolence is to first relinquish the notion that it is some sort of theory that develops as a response to something called "violence." Defining what violence is and then saying, "Here is the antithesis to it" privileges violence in such a way that I cannot help but see how it will not remain the master of us all. Christian nonviolence is neither a political theory nor a pragmatic strategy to rid the world of violence; it is simply what many Christians have found to be a faithful response to the path of Jesus. 


So, rather than defining violence we should first look at the life and teachings of Jesus and ask the question, “How must I live in order to reflect this reality?” Perhaps our starting point should not be about how much violence we can get away with (or, even, "Is this violent?"); rather, the question is, how does the presence of a taser/pepper spray, or my desire/need to carry one, factor into the eschatological witness I am required to provide for the peaceable kingdom? 



 But what about being a police officer?


Pacifists admit the right of rulers to restrain depravity through coercion (Romans 13), but we maintain that Christians are not to participate in the activities of our rulers which require force to be used (Romans 12). Believers are commanded to avoid war, law enforcement, and the infliction of capital punishment. But we will not deny to the state the right to wage war, enforce the laws, and to execute duly convicted murderers. We recognize that violence and war of all sorts will continue until Jesus returns. Pacifists will not outlaw war or capital punishment, for we cannot, by political action, change the evil hearts of human beings. It is beyond our realm as believers. Our greater purpose as the church should be addressing the root causes of crime rather than asking the State to clean up streets for us.


Where is the 'chapter and verse' for this reasoning? To be fair the first century equivalent of a police officer would be a Roman soldier, an enforcer of the Roman State. So it is no surprise that there is no specific mention of the concept of a police officer. There is however mention of roles, expectations, and 'be-attitudes' that Christ followers are suppose to ascribe to as well as avoid. The closest thing to a "chapter & verse" would probably be Romans 12-13. Paul contrasts the roles of the Church (Rom 12) and State (Rom 13). Though the governing authority bears the sword to execute God's wrath (13.4) that is not the role of a believer. Those who are members of the one body in Christ (12.5) are never to take vengeance (12.9); they are to bless their persecutors and minister to their enemies, returning good for evil.What would happen if the officer had to shoot someone? Would Jesus have done this? Pacifists conclude that this action falls outside of the scope of what is acceptable for a Christian, and so either a Christian should not be a police officer, or he/she might need to refuse to do certain parts of the job. 


But what about situations of sexual abuse? 

Useful Resources:

If you wish to explore the issues further I would encourage you to check out the following books:

Be sure to check out Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5,  Part 6,  Part 7, and Part 8.

Here is Part 10. 

Works Cited

1. John H. Yoder, What would you do?
2. York, Tripp ed. A Faith Not Worth Fighting For: