Teaching: It's more than what you think.

A teacher imparting information to his students.

Ideas have consequences. 

It has been said before that whatever you circulate as accepted thinking will typically result in the creation of accepted culture norms and patterns of behaviour. This is to say (in some sense): You become what you think. The way we might put this in a theological jargon is to say: Our orthodoxy informs our orthopraxis. I believe this to be true, but I have discovered that it is not exclusively true. 

There was a time where I might have thought that the best, if not the only way to 'teach' (train//disciple//convince) a person would be through extensive appeal to the cognitive approach. This approach to teaching is grounded in what some scholars label the ‘Socratic method’, that is aptly named after its originator Socrates. The Socratic Method seeks to arrive at a solid, tenable conclusions by the use of critical thinking, reasoning, and logic. I get a lot of satisfaction with working out the truthfulness of an idea. It is a strong conviction of mine that change often takes place at the root of an idea. But, as we will soon discover: Logic has its limits. We cannot for instance measure the true impact of  teaching on the ability to recite information alone. Observable behaviour should also factor into our teaching methods. This is to say that learning can be manifested by a change in behaviour.

Gandhi put it this way: “Your beliefs become your thoughts, Your thoughts become your words, Your words become your actions, Your actions become your habits, Your habits become your values, Your values become your destiny.” I am convinced that the way to discern the effectiveness of teaching is to assess a change in behaviour. Behaviours do matter. Our actions are indicative of how well we have processed the material. This is why good theology must be lived out. 

Israel Galindo in his book, The Craft of Christian Teaching, suggests that what we learn will change us in three primary ways: knowledge, attitude, behaviour. 

L = __C__

       (k, a, b) 

L: Learning, C= Change; k= knowledge a= attitude; b= behaviour.

Learning creates changes to our cognitive, affective and effective abilities. Galindo believes that, "Knowledge is the easiest to change." We can assimilate facts, data, and concepts with relative ease and subsequently allow new information to inform and correct old information. The hardest area to change, according to Galindo, is our attitude (emotional//affective). Good teaching, according to Galindo, must seek to address our knowledge, attitude and behaviours. This will result in ‘different’ hopefully better persons. All learning, according to Galindo, should result in change. Learning is change!

A recent research paper published by  Dr. Dan Kahan, a Yale Law School professor, appears to have confirmed Galindo's hunch about attitude being the most difficult area to effect change. 

In Kahan’s experiment, some people were asked to interpret a table of numbers about whether a skin cream reduced rashes, and some people were asked to interpret a different table – containing the same numbers – about whether a law banning private citizens from carrying concealed handguns reduced crime.  Kahan found that when the numbers in the table conflicted with people’s positions on gun control, they couldn’t do the math right, though they could when the subject was skin cream.  The bleakest finding was that the more advanced that people’s math skills were, the more likely it was that their political views, whether liberal or conservative, made them less able to solve the math problem.

Dr. Kahan demonstrates in the study that, "partisanship (emotional attachment) can even undermine our very basic reasoning skills." Kaplan commenting on Dr. Kahan's study asserts, "We want to believe we’re rational, but reason turns out to be the ex post facto way we rationalize what our emotions already want to believe."

It would appear that teachers (those who desire to effect change) really do have their work cut out for them! Galindo admits this when he writes, "Change is difficult, sometimes painful, and often resisted." I believe that Dr. Kahan's research has proven that teaching must address more than just the cognitive faculties. Teaching is not merely the relaying of data. Or as Galindo puts it,  "receiving  new information is not a sufficient definition for learning." Successful teaching needs to have a holistic commitment to every faculty and component of learning. As Kaplan asserts, "When there’s a conflict between partisan beliefs and plain evidence, it’s the beliefs that win. The power of emotion over reason isn’t a bug in our human operating systems, it’s a feature." This means that teacher's everywhere must ask afresh the question, "Am I teaching to effect change in all domains of learning?" 

Guidelines to help teach for change:

• Determine the change in the lives of your learners that your teaching will call for.
• Write a learning objective that focuses on that change in the domains of knowledge, attitude, or behaviour. 
• Teach one thing. One thing only per lesson
• Teach to effect change in one domain. (knowledge, attitude or behaviour)
• Use learning methods that will help the students reach that objective
• Determine how the student will demonstrate that learning has taken place. 

In order for someone to believe (holistically learn), four components must be operative to some degree:

Affective (feeling, emotional)

Cognitive (Knowledge, understanding)             

Behavioural (Action, conduct)

Volitional (will, conviction, passion)

"Knowledge plus feeling leads to a volitional conviction that is evident in behaviour." - Galindo

Did Jesus subscribe to the idea that learning equals change? Did Jesus address the cognitive, affective, and behavioural in his teaching? Yes, I think so. There is a case to be made that the Sermon on the Mount is the culmination of effective teaching. 

Attitude ("don’t even hate your brother/sister", "do not judge", "do not worry"), 

Knowledge ("you have heard it said", "those who hear these words of mine", "therefore I tell you") 

Behaviour ("turn the other cheek", "pray for those who persecute you", "put this into practice").  

Jesus does not let us off the hook. Christ’s teaching is meant to apply to the domains of knowledge, attitude and behaviour. The call for a disciple is to follow Jesus. It is important to note that Jesus ends his body of teaching on the Mount with the example of the wise and foolish builders. The wise builder is the one who "hears Jesus' words (meaning the previous body of teaching) and "puts them into practice".  Jesus expects his disciples obey and to enact the teaching of the Sermon. Jesus does not appear to regard the discipleship of the Sermon as an 'impossible ideal'. (Luther) Jesus' last words in Matthew's Gospel are a reinforcement of the Sermon. 

" When they saw him, they worshiped him (attitude//behaviour); but some doubted (attitude). Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me (attitude//knowledge). Go (behaviour) therefore and make disciples (behaviour) of all nations, baptizing them (behaviour) in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them (knowledge) to obey everything (behaviour) that I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always (attitude), to the very end of the age." - Matthew 28:17-20

The early church took the teaching of Jesus and the Apostles so seriously that potential converts to Christianity were expected to practice that teaching before joining the church or having been taught the Sermon on the Mount. Alan Kreider comments:

This may seem severe and legalistic to us today, even perverse. How could a community rebuff people as potential members for not living according to the standards of the group before they had been taught? But the early Christian catechists were attempting not so much to impart concepts as to nurture communities whose values would be different from those of conventional society. Christian leaders assumed that people did not think their way into a new life; they lived their way into a new kind of thinking. [1]

The early church recognized that inhabiting a new way of thinking (indeed, a new way of living) is essential to full reception of the teaching of Jesus and genuine conversion to the way of the cross. Potential converts to Christianity were coming for baptismal instruction having their thinking already conformed to the scheme of the age. 

What would change in the church today if we "lived our way into a new kind of thinking"? (Check this video out)

May you be challenged to love the Lord your God 

With all your heart 

With all your soul 

With all your mind 

With all your strength! 

Works Cited

1. Alan Kreider, The Change of Conversion and the Origin of Christendom (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1999), p. 23.

Encountering the Holy Spirit in John 14-16

I had the great opportunity to be invited to speak at the 'Encountering the Holy Spirit' event here in Morpeth, England. The event is an ecumenical effort hosted by all the churches here in Morpeth. We gathered to worship, pray, listen and seek God. What really impressed me was the diversity of denominations represented at the event. We had Anglicans, Catholics, Pentecostals, Anabaptists, Methodists, etc... represented at the gathering. It was very encouraging to see the greater body gather in this way! 

I thought I would share the audio of the session (click here) and share my notes I made during my study time. (read below)  

The context of John 14-16

John 14-16 is a part of the “Farewell Discourses” which are found between 13.31 to 17.26. John is drawing upon a well established Jewish literary tradition. Jewish testaments imagine the dying (or departing) person surrounded by his most intimate friends and family.There is an exhortation to obey the law, to carry on, predictions of what is to come, and typically conclude with a prayer for those left behind. In some cases, the departing person passes his “spirit” to his followers or successor. The best examples of a Farewell Discourse are Moses to Joshua and Elijah to Elisha. (Deuteronomy 31–34; 2 Kings 2:9–14) 

The focus of the Farewell Discourse is always for the concern for the comfort and encouragement of those left behind. It is no surprise then that we observe the following over the next few chapters:

• “Do not let your hearts be troubled”(14.1) 
• Jesus speaks directly of his upcoming death, resurrection and accession.  “Where I am going you cannot follow” (13:33) 
• Jesus is preparing his disciples for what is yet to come. “I’ve said these things to you,” Jesus went on, “ to stop you from being tripped up”. 16.1  
• Jesus promises the Holy Spirit  (the Comforter)“And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another helper, to be with you forever.” 14.16

"In the farewell of Jesus many of the traditional elements appear. He encourages his disciples and comforts them (John 14:1). He also urges them to be obedient (13:34; 15:12). Moreover, Jesus promises that his Spirit will indwell and empower his followers following his death (14:17, 26; 15:26; 16:3, 13). In other words, we have in John 13–17 all of the elements of a Jewish farewell."

 - John, NIV Application Commentary

“These chapters have often rightly been seen as among the most precious and intimate in the New Testament. They are full of comfort, challenge and hope, full of the deep and strange personal relationship that Jesus longs to have with each of his followers. We shouldn’t be surprised that they are also full of some of the richest theological insights, of a sense of discovering who the true God is, and what he’s doing in the world and in us.”  - John For Everybody, N.T. Wright 

So what does Jesus teach us about the Holy Spirit in John chapters 14-16? 

The Holy Spirit empowers us to do the work of Jesus. (Jn 14:12, Acts 1:8)

• “I’m telling you the solemn truth, ‘Anyone who trusts in me will also do the works that I’m doing. In fact, they will do greater works than these, because I’m going to the father!” John 14.12
• Immediately after promising the greater works, Jesus begins to talk about the Holy Spirit. 
• If it is true that the power of God is resident in Jesus and that the disciple is invited to know Jesus and gain life from him, then in some manner the disciple will share in God’s power. It is of utmost importance to note that the astonishing promise of 14:12 points to the future. Jesus must first go to the Father before the promise of remarkable works and realized prayer can come.
• “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you and will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” -Acts 1:8 

The Holy Spirit is our Paraclete ( παράκλητος)  

“And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another paraclete ”(14.16a)

• The word used here in the Greek is ( παράκλητος). 
• This word occurs 5 times in the New Testament, all in the writings of John. (14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7) 
• A fifth (and final) use occurs in 1 John 2:1, where Jesus is called a paraclete.
• It can be translated as Comforter, Encourager, the Helper, the Advocate, the Intercessor. 
• Occurs in secular Greek literature for an advocate in a court of law, who comes “alongside” a person to speak in his or her defence and provide counsel.

Jesus calls the Spirit another helper.

• Up until this point Jesus has been walking with the disciples, teaching them, sending them out to heal the sick, bind up the broken hearted.
• Jesus is thus a Paraclete, who is now sending a second Paraclete: The Holy Spirit. 
• 1 John 2:1, Jesus is called a paraclete.
• This means that the ongoing work of the Spirit will be a continuation of the work of Jesus during the disciples’ lifetime.

The Holy Spirit is with us forever.

“to be with you forever” (14.16b)

“I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.” 14.18

Jesus does not abandon his disciples to their own devices. They are not like sheep without a shepherd, but rather the Good Shepherd calls out to his sheep, and his sheep hear his voice. The promise is that God's very breath, his Spirit, will dwell in us and with us forever. God is not far from anyone. God is with us.

Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth 
“This other helper is the Spirit of Truth” 14.17

• We know that in context Jesus has already said that he is “the truth” (14:6)
• Jesus is also teaching us that the Holy Spirit is Spirit of truth BECAUSE he testifies of the truth (Jesus). (16:13)
• Holy Spirit communicates the truth about God, which is the essence of God’s work in Christ 

Holy Spirit dwells in us - John 14:17 (Rom. 8:9; 1 Cor. 3:16; 2 Tim. 1:14;) 
“The world can’t receive him, because it doesn’t see him or know him. But you know him, because he lives in you and will be in you” 14.17


Jesus is describing a pattern of divine life, of indwelling and mysticism, in which God and Jesus share an interiority that leads to this sharing of glory; he also anticipates that disciples will enjoy a similar unity with God (17:24; cf. 14:23) and each other (17:11, 22). Jesus here envisages a profound spiritual intimacy that changes human life. It is a unity encompassing the Father with the Son, the disciples with them both, and the disciples in union with one another.

Holy Spirit teaches us
(1)He brings things to our remembrance.

• “But the helper, the Holy Spirit , the one the Father will send in my name, he will teach you everything. He will bring back to your mind everything I’ve said to you.” (John 14:26)

(2) The Holy Spirit speaks directly to us.

• “I have many more things to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of Truth comes he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and will tell what is yet to come. ” - John 16:12-14

Example of the Holy Spirit teaching the church:


(See Acts 10-11)
Peter was forcefully directed by the Holy Spirit to move into new theological territory that must have seemed completely uncertain. This is what Jesus describes in John 16:12–14. The Holy Spirit will be “the Spirit of truth,” guiding his followers into all truth, which they could not then bear to hear but which Jesus no doubt wanted to tell them later.

Here is the heart of the question: Does the Spirit simply lead each generation to apply the truths of Jesus in new ways? Certainly this is true. But does the Spirit also lead into new territory, new doctrines, and new activities unknown in Jesus’ historical ministry? In the present example, one could argue that Peter’s mention of clean and unclean in Acts 10:14 may echo Matthew 15:11 (Mark 7:19; cf. Rom. 14:14), where Jesus redefines “unclean” with new parameters. The Spirit has simply pressed the apostles to apply this truth in an unexpected way.


The Holy Spirit glorifies and testifies of Christ (John 15:26; 16:14).

• “When the helper comes - the one I shall send you from the Father, the spirit of truth who comes from the Father- he will give evidence about me.”(15:26) 
• “He will glorify me, because he will take what belongs to me and announce it to you” (16:14)
• Holy Spirit does not teach us something additional to Christ, but rather testifies of Christ.
• In theological jargon, our pneumatology (doctrine of the Spirit) must have a Christo-logical basis. To experience the Spirit is to experience Jesus.

The Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin, justice, and judgment.

“When he comes, he will prove the world to be in the wrong about sin, justice (righteousness) and judgment.” (John 16.8) 

"One important issue involves the Greek verb elencho, translated “prove wrong about” in the first edition of the NIV: “[The Spirit] will prove the world wrong about sin. . . . ” Here the idea is that of convincing the world about the truth of its wrongdoing. Brown thinks this contradicts 14:17, since there the world cannot accept the Spirit-Paraclete. But this is a different matter: In 14:17 Jesus is talking about receiving the Spirit, not hearing its message." - John, NIV Application Commentary





"The Spirit will prove that the world is in the wrong, on the three counts that really matter.First, the Spirit will demonstrate that the world is wrong in relation to sin. In other words, the world is guilty of sin; and the evidence is that 'the world', as we have seen throughout this book, has not believed in Jesus . This can only be, Jesus insists, because it is bent on its own way rather than God's way. 

Second, the Spirit will demonstrate that the world is wrong in relation to justice. The world thinks it has justice on its side. But the vindication of Jesus himself- which consists of his 'going away' and being exalted to the Father- is the sign, as in Daniel 7, that the living God has already give sentence on his behalf. If it's justice you want, we already know the verdict:  God had decided in favour of Jesus as the righteous one. All those who follow Jesus share that verdict. (This is where John comes very close to what Paul means by 'justification by faith'.) 

Third, the Spirit will demonstrate that the world is wrong in relation to judgement, which here means 'condemnation'. The world supposes that is can and should pass judgement on Jesus' followers. But the events which are about to unfold, the events of Jesus' death and resurrection, indicate decisively that they are wrong. These events mean that 'the ruler of this world'- the dark power that has kept humans and the world enslaved- has been condemned. His power has been broken. Death itself, the weapon of tyrants and particularity of 'the satan', is a beaten foe. " -John For Everybody, N.T. Wright 

Jesus is convinced that it is ‘better for us’ if he goes away.

“Very truly I tell you, it is for your good I am going away. Unless I go away the Advocate will not come to you, but if I go away I will send him to you.” - John 16.7 

"'If only we'd been there when Jesus was around!' people
often say. 'It would have been much easier. He would have explained everything to us, and told us what to do. And he'd have been such an encouragement. Whatever we are doing, he'd be positive about it, and we'd want to go on and do even better.' It's a common perception but it's wrong on two counts. 

First, the evidence of the four gospels suggest that the people who were around in Jesus' day didn't see it life that themselves. Some of his closest friends betrayed and denied him. Even the beloved disciple ran away in the garden. Most people couldn't really make him out. He was compelling but puzzling. Many thought he was mad. 

Second, in this passage and several others in the next two chapters, we find that Jesus has promised to be 'around' with his people from that day to this. In fact, he's promised that it will be easier, not harder, in this new mode. His people will be able to do things they couldn't do when he was physically present. 

But how will be 'around', now? He has promised to send us his own Spirit, his own breath, his own inner life. " -John For Everybody, N.T. Wright

Questions for reflection:

1. Have you ever experienced the comfort, strengthening, empowerment of God in your life? 

2.Why is Jesus so convinced that it is 'better for us' that he goes away? 

3. Why do we have tendency to down play the role of the Holy Spirit? (e.g. The creeds have only one line for the Holy Spirit) 

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: