RECORDER

Recommendations

Info

A Case for Christocentric Nonviolence The topic of violence and nonviolence in an age of terrorism is incredibly complex. Pulling together and synthesizing the diverse Scriptural witness concerning violence, and then applying it to our modern age, is not an easy feat. Now, having spent several years reflecting on the strongest arguments on all sides of this multifaceted debate, I have cautiously concluded that absolute nonviolence is the most faithful expression of a Christocentric worldview. But I hold onto this conclusion with an open hand, always eager to be corrected where I am wrong. Before I argue for my position, I want to first acknowledge that there are dozens of different brands of “pacifism,” most of which I disagree with. In fact, I don’t like the term “pacifism” and I rarely use it to describe my position, largely because the term is so often misunderstood. When most people hear the term “pacifism,” they think of “passiveness;” they imagine people standing around with their fingers interlocked behind their backs as they self-righteously watch evil run rampant. This may depict a brand of pacifism, but it is not the brand that I endorse. I also find non-Christocentric versions of pacifism, or nonviolence, to be ethically and theologically anemic. If Jesus does not walk out of a grave and sit at the right hand of the Father, then we have no business loving our enemies. Unless Christ defeats evil by submitting to violence—by dying rather then killing—and rises from the dead to tell the tale, I will most certainly destroy my enemy before he destroys me. Without the death and resurrection of Jesus, all forms of nonviolence, I believe, are uncompelling. To be clear, I believe in Christian—or more explicitly, Christocentric—nonviolence. Christocentric nonviolence says that we should fight against evil, we should wage war against injustice, and we should defend the orphan, the widow, the marginalized, and oppressed. And we should do so aggressively. But we should do so nonviolently. In other words, Christocentric nonviolence does not dispute whether Christians should fight against evil. It only disputes the means by which we do fight. Now, rather than asking the questions: Are some wars just or should a nation wage war as a last resort, I want to ask and answer the question: should Christ-followers use violence as a means of confronting evil or defending the innocent. My answer—as expected—is no. Or more specifically: there is little to no biblical evidence that Christians should use violence to confront evil. To articulate my view, I want to give 4 brief theses and then address 4 common challenges to my position. Jesus never acted violently to fight injustice or defend the innocent. Jesus endured unjust accusations and physical attacks, and yet he never responded in kind. He was spit upon, punched, slapped (Matthew 26:67), and had his head pounded with a stick (Matthew 27:30), yet he never used violence to defend himself or attack his perpetrator. Jesus therefore models his own command to not “resist evil…but turn the other cheek.” When the Pharisees were about to use violence on the woman caught in adultery, instead of violently protecting her, Jesus jumps in front of the firing squad. He ends up being tortured and crucified unjustly for treason, yet he offers only forgiveness and love toward his enemy, again practicing what he preached. Jesus’s life is peppered with violent attacks, yet He never responds with violence. He embraces suffering, not because he is weak, but because suffering contains more power in defeating evil than using violence, and suffering is the pathway to resurrection glory (Romans 8). In doing so, Jesus shattered all Jewish expectations of how a Messiah should act. It’s not that Jesus just happened to act nonviolently. Rather, he directly and intentionally demilitarized the meaning of messiah and kingdom. Jesus taught his followers to follow the same rhythm of nonviolence and enemy-love “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, and pray for those who abuse you. To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also” (Luke 6:27-29). Whenever violence is mentioned, it’s always shunned. There’s no evidence that only some of our enemies are to be loved, or that we should love our nonviolent enemies, but kill the ones who are trying to harm us or our nation. Jesus’s countercultural commands are unqualified and absolute. And whenever the apostles try to confront evil with violence, they are rebuked (Luke 9:22). Now, some will say that Jesus’s nonviolent journey to the cross was necessary for Jesus to atone for our sins. He had to suffer; he had to die. His nonviolence was theological necessary not practically mandatory for all. But the Bible says that it was both. 4 The Recorder, November / December 2015, Volume 52, Number 6 www.gomission.ca
Jesus’s nonviolent journey to the cross was both theological and ethical Yes, Jesus had to die, so he chose not to resist his death. But New Testament writers view his nonviolent journey to the cross as a pattern for believers to follow. 1 Peter 2, Romans 12, Philippians 2, and other passages draw upon Jesus’s nonviolent journey to the cross as a model for believers to follow. When New Testament writers themselves ask the question WWJD (what would Jesus do), their most consistent and pervasive response is: don’t fight evil with evil, endure suffering, don’t retaliate, love your enemies—because that’s what Jesus did. Jesus fought against evil through suffering. The book of Revelation expounds this theology of suffering through its use of the key word and theme nikao (“conquer”). The word nikao conjures up warfare imagery from its typical usage in the Greco-Roman period. John also uses the verb nikao to describe how Jesus has “conquered” the beast and his empire. But unlike the Roman rulers, Jesus conquers not with swords and spears but with a cross. The Lamb conquers by being conquered, by suffering and dying (Revelation 5). And the followers of the Lamb conquer evil by the same means: “they have conquered him (Satan) by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, for/because they loved not their lives even unto death” (Revelation 12:11). In Jesus’s upside down kingdom, there is more divine power infused in the suffering and death of Christians than in 10,000 pounds of C4. (One of the problems with fighting evil with violence and killing is not that it’s too powerful but that it’s too weak. America could nuke ISIS and Al Qaeda to hell, and Satan would walk away untouched. You can’t fight a non-flesh and blood enemy with flesh and blood weapons. It’s like squirting a raging fire with a squirt gun. But I digress.) Even though injustice and evil were rampant in the first century, there’s no verse in the New Testament that commands or allows believers to use violence to confront evil or defend the innocent. The New Testament was written in the face of violence and persecution. There were innocent people suffering. Evil was widespread. Most of their Jewish brothers and sisters had no problem using violence against evil. All the ingredients are there for Christians to use violence to confront evil or defend the innocent. But they don’t. There’s nothing in the New Testament that suggests that violence is an option—even a last option—for believers to use to fight against evil. And given the previous 3 theses, there are many reasons to believe that the opposite is true; that nonviolence is actually a more powerful means of defeating evil. Conclusion In a first-century world swimming in violence, in a land where “messiah” meant militancy, Jesus never acted violently. Whenever violence is addressed, Jesus condemns it. Whenever his followers try to act violently, they were confronted. Whenever Jesus encountered people who deserved a violent punishment, Jesus loved them. And in doing so, he left his followers with a non-violent example to follow. When people around the globe think that North American Christians are pro-war, enamored with violence, and fascinated with military might, something is terribly wrong. No one in the first century would have made the same conclusion regarding Jesus and his followers. Dr. Preston Sprinkle serves as the Vice President for Eternity Bible College's Boise extension and has authored several books, including the New York Times bestselling Erasing Hell (with Francis Chan; 2011), Fight; A Christian Case for Nonviolence (David C. Cook, 2013), Paul and Judaism Revisited (IVP, 2013), Charis: God’s Scandalous Grace for Us (David C. Cook, 2014), and the recently released People to Be Loved: Why Homosexuality is Not Just an Issue (Zondervan, 2015). Dr. Sprinkle also hosts a daily radio program titled: "What Does the Bible Really Say?" and frequently speaks at various venues including college chapels, churches, music festivals, youth camps, family camps, and anywhere else where people desire to hear relevant Bible teaching. Preston has been married to Christine for almost 15 years and together they have 4 children. www.gomission.ca November / December 2015, Volume 52, Number 6 The Recorder 5
Page 1 and 2: The RECORDER November / December 20
Page 3: Table of Contents Features 4 A Case
Page 7 and 8: Christmas in East Africa We like to
Page 9 and 10: Region 3- Manitoba South Bergfeld M
Page 11 and 12: Region 3- Manitoba South Morden EMM
Page 13 and 14: Mennonite Gospel Church, Vauxhall A
Page 15 and 16: Putting learning into action SBC st
Page 17 and 18: Ministries and workers Thanks to ou
Page 19 and 20: Ministries and workers Diedrich and
Page 21 and 22: Ministries and workers Wes and Caro
Page 23 and 24: General Board / Council Meetings No
Page 25 and 26: Council members Michael Krahn and J
Page 27 and 28: News from other places Foodgrains B
Page 29 and 30: ... if you don’t understand the p
Page 31 and 32: News from other places Tri-Conferen
Page 33 and 34: and go for walks. It is important t
Page 35 and 36: In Search of ... BAGOT COMMUNITY CH

RECORDER

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?