Scott Freeman

It is undeniable that the early church was unswervingly nonviolent. Their initial interpretation of the words and life of Jesus was such that they bore the brunt of the sword without retaliation.

They were less concerned with the practicality of nonviolence and much more concerned with their faithfulness to The Way. To live and respond as the early church did to the oppression and terrorism that they experienced was not rational.

It was faith. It’s what prompted the reformed Christian killer to write in Ephesians 2:14

For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility

Christ was peace among them. He had reshaped, re-created and transformed them into people of peace: people who lived the way of the cross and not the sword. They knew that Jesus had not saved them from physical death, but had rescued them from eternal death redeeming them from the spectre of fear.

And this message of hope and reconciliation was intended for all people. No longer were the children of God to be defined by nationality, ethnicity or belief. ALL were invited to come. The gentile was no longer the enemy, he was the co-heir of God’s eternal promise.

As Paul wrote in Colossians 1:19–20: For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.

The early Christians were renowned for being peaceful. The second century letter to Diognetus had this to say about those early disciples (emphasis mine):

They pass their days on earth, but they are citizens of heaven. They obey the prescribed laws, and at the same time surpass the laws by their lives. They love all men, and are persecuted by all. They are unknown and condemned; they are put to death, and restored to life. They are poor, yet make many rich; they are in lack of all things, and yet abound in all; they are dishonoured, and yet in their very dishonour are glorified. They are evil spoken of, and yet are justified; they are reviled, and bless; they are insulted, and repay the insult with honour; they do good, yet are punished as evil-doers. When punished, they rejoice as if quickened into life; they are assailed by the Jews as foreigners, and are persecuted by the Greeks; yet those who hate them are unable to assign any reason for their hatred.

That’s who they were. They were marked not by the nations of this world but by a Kingdom that was not from this world. They were less concerned with “reality” and “practicality” and more concerned with faithful witness. They endured persecution and martyrdom for the sake of the cross.

Will Durant wrote:

There is no greater drama in human record than the sight of a few Christians, scorned and oppressed by a succession of emperors, bearing all trials with a fierce tenacity, multiplying quietly, building order while their enemies generated chaos, fighting the sword with the word, brutality with hope, and at last defeating the strongest state that history has known. Caesar and Christ had met in the arena, and Christ had won.

Do you see that? The message of Christ was propagated not by the sword, but by the cross. They were not trying to Christianize the world. They were offering a different world altogether. They were not seeking for a Christian nation-state. They were living the Kingdom come.

The agenda for the church today is to do just that: not to Christianize the world but to offer a different world, where there is no Jew or Greek, slave or free, American or Iranian.
But if we make the Kingdom a political objective then the Kingdom is lost. It is not of this world and was never meant to be.

If we truly long to be a restoration movement then we have to take into account the life of the early church. Origen, who lived in the late second and early third centuries, wrote “for we no longer take up sword against nation, nor do we learn war any more, having become children of peace, for the sake of Jesus.”

For almost 285 years the early church resisted war and violence. Ignatius called for warfare to be abolished. The only way that could be done, he stated, was to embrace the teachings of Christ. There were exceptions as some Christians “behaved like Gentiles.” But the way of the early church was that of peace.

Read this stirring passage by Lawrence Apsey:

The Roman Empire during the first three centuries of Christianity equaled modern dictatorships in ruthlessness, paganism and violence. Nevertheless, during this period, Christianity, by its witness of love and sacrifice, grew from a tiny Jewish sect to become a religion professed by the majority in the most populous areas of mankind. In the words of K.S. Latourette, a leading historian of the period, ‘Never in so short a time has any other religious faith or, for that matter, any other set of ideas, religious, political or economic, without the aid of physical force or of social or cultural prestige, achieved so commanding a position in such an important culture.’
During this period, Christians refused service in the army; and there is no direct evidence that they ever used force against the bloodthirsty persecutions to which they were subjected. While paying lip servie to the mythology of the ancients, most people in the Empire at the time of Jesus recognized no responsibility to a divine power beyond themselves, and their rulers spared no cruelty in the ten major persecutions which were launched against the Christians. Under Nero, Christians were torn by dogs or nailed to crosses and set on fire to serve at night as living torches. Under Valerian, the death penalty was enforced for meeting in church and entering cemetaries. Christian leaders were exiled for not doing homage to the pagan gods. Clerics were put to death, others deprived of property, enslaved or burned at the stake. Christians were happy, without resistance by force, to share the martyrdom of Jesus; and this had a tremendous effect in converting those who witnessed their suffering.

If we have any claims or interest in being a part of a restoration movement, then the legacy of nonviolence that the early church left behind cannot be dismissed out of hand. No matter how distasteful or untenable we might find nonviolence to be, the example is there.
Those who were just a few short years removed from the life, words, teachings and example of Jesus interpreted that life as a prescription for a nonviolent life.

It wasn’t until Christianity was co-opted that that changed.

Today’s podcast is a two-fer. I’ve included last week’s sermon which I forgot to post. On the embeddable player below those two sermons should show up eventually. If not, click on the blue text that says “Scott Freeman’s Sermons” and it will take you to my podomatic page. These sermons are from 1 and 2 Corinthians. The first is on marriage and divorce, the second is on reconciliation and conflict resolution. Enjoy.

Click here to get your own player.

OK, there wasn’t much interest in last week’s offering. Here is a different one before I move on to superlatives.

Which video incorporates the worst use of non-family members?

The first contestant is Rod Stewart’s “Forever Young” video? Is there some legitimate reason that he couldn’t have used one of his own children (he had 3 under the age of 10 at this time) rather than renting a kid from a member of Duran Duran?

The second contestant is Amy Grant’s “Baby Baby.” The first problem is that the song was written for her daughter. The second problem is that this dude was not her husband. Was Gary Chapman that non-photogenic that he couldn’t have been the love interest?

Which one wins? Which is the worst offender?

This is not officially an entry in the series but is more of a question open for discussion. I’m still wrestling with the correct way to proceed with this series. Right now I’m mired in a study of the historical examples of the efficacy of nonviolence. My goal is to create a readable entry on how it has been tried and proven effective throughout time.

However, one of the things that has been borne out for me, both in our discussions here and on the landscape of American society is what our obligation is to preserve Christianity, or at least our understanding of what it should be.

My question is this: how concerned must we be with our rights as Christians in our society? Is one of our fundamental responsibilities as God-followers to preserve liberty, freedom to worship and societal morality?

If so, if we are to be tireless campaigners for moral legislation, then why didn’t Jesus and the early disciples do just that? Why didn’t they migrate to Rome and rail against the moral bankruptcy of THAT great world power? Why are the writings of Paul addressed to churches and individuals and not to influential leaders that could have shaped a more conciliatory relationship between the state and the church?

The early church grew from a smattering of somewhat confused disciples to the greatest movement the world has ever seen. And they did it without political involvement, without violence, without campaigning and an unwavering belief that there movement would somehow collapse if Rome wasn’t transformed. They disregarded restrictive laws against their message and continued on despite the consequences. They were more concerned with perpetuation than preservation?

Now, don’t misunderstand me. I’m not saying that the moral climate of America is not important. Of course it is. My question is how important is it? If American outlawed Christianity tomorrow (an outlandish proposition, for we have yet to experience any true persecution in this country) would Christianity be thwarted? Or would we find out, as history attests, that Christianity flourishes as a minority? That it has its greatest successes under extreme persecution? And wouldn’t we be better served by understanding that it is in the way we live that truly matters more than the referendums and initiatives we support?

Where do our concerns and interest need to lie primarily? In defending “our way of life” or in living as a body of believers undeterred by the fallen powers of this world? Are we called to stand for righteousness or stoop and serve in a broken world?
Do we need to be more concerned about our rights or the rights of the lost? What is our objective?

Again, don’t misunderstand me: I’m not saying its wrong to be interested in our moral climate. I’m just wondering how crucial that is to the propagation of Christianity. I don’t have a defined answer here and am legitimately asking for a (civil) discussion.

What is our mission: the preservation and protection of our rights or the tireless pursuit of holiness even to the sacrifice of our rights?

Several years ago I developed a policy when it came to reading books: if it didn’t grab my attention in the first 30 pages, I quit. If it was a book that was recommended by someone or highly regarded, I would give it 50 pages. Life is too short to waste on a bad book. I know that often means I give up too early on some titles but I can always go back to them at a later date. It has worked well for me and keeps me from getting bogged down.

Here’s what I’ve read this week:

Ulysses by James Joyce: I made it to page 29. What a colossal waste of time. I haven’t heard anybody tell me that it had much to offer other than book critics who are too scared to say the emperor has no clothes.

Brave New World by Alduous Huxley: This book was one that lived up to the billing. I regret that I have not read it prior to now as it is a sizzling satire of our penchant for happiness at all costs. It was obvious throughout the book that Huxley was taken aback by the implications of Americanization in general and the racial hatred of Henry Ford in particular.
As a result, this book transcends satire and becomes a chilling, and somewhat prescient, indictment of our need to “amuse ourselves to death.” A life without consequences and the use of pharmaceuticals to dump our senses and negate our pain is not a reality kept contained within the pages of fiction. The pursuit of happiness at all costs up to and including the desertion of truth is a temptation that continually plagues us as a collective.
Postman, in his book Amusing Ourselves to Death, gives a great compare and contrast between Huxley’s work and Orwell’s competing dystopian take, 1984:

What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny “failed to take into account man’s almost infinite appetite for distractions.” In 1984, Huxley added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us.

Who has read this? What do you think about the book?
Or what have you read this week that grabbed your attention?

One other thing: our library’s annual book sale starts tomorrow. Any recommendations for titles I should look for?

I was going to do my top 10 reasons for leaving the GOP but thought that might get out of hand. Instead, here is my list of the 10 dumbest things (and it was hard narrowing it to just 10. I wrestled with doing a Top 20 Tuesday.) things said during this campaign year. (HT: About)
It’s interesting how idiotic people can be when they hold a microphone. And people who speak for a living, no less.

11. “You know, education — if you make the most of it — you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.” –Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) (Note: I put this here for equal time. I still think it’s much ado about nothing.

10. “Now I’ve seen what happened in Abu Ghraib, and Abu Ghraib was not torture. It was outrageous, outrageous involvement of National Guard troops from (Maryland) who were involved in a sex ring and they took pictures of soldiers who were naked. And they did other things that were just outrageous. But it wasn’t torture.” –Rep. Christopher Shays (R-CT)

9. “We’re not going to tell you what our plan is, Jon, because you’re just going to go out and blow it.” –Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT), on the secret plan he and President Bush have to win the Iraq war, in a debate with his Democratic challenger, John Tester

8. “Having said that, I don’t want to hug the tar baby of trying to comment on the program.” –Tony Snow, on the NSA phone database

7. “These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefparrazies. I have never seen people enjoying their husband’s death so much.” –Ann Coulter, on 9/11 widows who have been critical of the Bush administration

6. “You cannot go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent…. I’m not joking.” –Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.)

5 . “Nothing will motivate conservative evangelical Christians to vote Republican in the 2008 presidential election more than a Democratic nominee named Hillary Rodham Clinton – not even a run by the devil himself … I certainly hope that Hillary is the candidate. She has $300 million so far. But I hope she’s the candidate. Because nothing will energize my [constituency] like Hillary Clinton. If Lucifer ran, he wouldn’t.” –Rev. Jerry Falwell

4 . “Why do they hate each other? Why do Sunnis kill Shiites? How do they tell the difference? They all look the same to me.” –Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS)

3. “This fellow here, over here with the yellow shirt, macaca, or whatever his name is. He’s with my opponent. He’s following us around everywhere. And it’s just great. … Let’s give a welcome to macaca, here. Welcome to America and the real world of Virginia.” –Sen. George Allen (R-VA)

2. “As it turns out, Mr. Foley has had illicit sex with no one that we know of, and the whole thing turned out to be what some people are now saying was a — sort of a joke by the boy and some of the other pages. ” –James Dobson

1. “He is exaggerating the effects of the disease. He’s moving all around and shaking and it’s purely an act. … This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didn’t take his medication or he’s acting.” –Rush Limbaugh

What do you think?

*****Updated********
In the pursuit of true bipartisanship, I’ll give you a smattering of Dem quotes:

“He has “a career of slavishly supporting the Republican Party.” – House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, (D-MD) on Maryland Lt.Gov. Michael Steele, an African-American Republican running for Senate

“We all know what GOP means now. It means grope our pages.” –Former Democratic Sen. Max Cleland

“That’s alright. You guys in New York can’t get a hole in the ground fixed and it’s five years later. So let’s be fair.” –New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, responding to charges that the Hurricane Katrina cleanup is taking too long

Oh, and if you doubt that political ads have gone too far, watch this:

Some notes:

–Our internet connection was down all day today. Therefore, no nonviolence post. I may take Thursday off from it as well and return with the series next Monday. Stay tuned for Top 10 Tuesday tomorrow, however.
–Tomorrow will finalize my messy and painful divorce from the Republican Party. There are just too many things I disagree with this administration on. The Dems aren’t much better but there are a tad closer to my values. And no way can I vote for Rick Perry or Kay Bailey Hutchison.
–My Razorbacks continue to roll. We have our toughest game of the season this Saturday against Tennessee. Here’s hoping we continue our way to the SEC title game.
–I defy you not to love this video. I can’t stop listening to this song.

So far, Lionel Ritchie’s “Hello” and Billy Squier’s “Rock Me, Tonight” have entered into our pantheon of bad rock music videos.

This week, let’s take a look at two videos from the 80s that employ some form of running away from home as its theme.

The first in Pat Benatar’s “Love is a Battlefield.” Any of you still doubting the efficacy of nonviolence, look at how her shoulder shimmy completely disarms the aggressor. And they just don’t wear dresses like than anymore, do they?

The next video is Rod Stewart’s “Young Turks.” Billy and Patty run away from home and end up having a baby. My favorite part is no matter how rebellious and defiant these two young lovers might be they still refuse to cross against the light. And how ’bout those dancers? Were we a little too enamored with Fame and West Side Story?

So which is it? Which one is the worst runaway video of all time?

I have three daughters. 5, 3 and 1. It’s important that you add 1/2 behind each of those ages. I’m a little bit fond of each of them and find them securely and permanently twisted around my heart.
This summer my oldest, Chloe, played basketball in our local YMCA league. Neither one of her parents are blessed with any tremendous athletic ability. But she loved it. I loved seeing her play each week, as well. Up to a point.
She just wanted to have fun. And make a basket, which she finally did the last game of the season. However, it was a mixed league and the boys on her team were decidely better than she was. As the season wore on, they became less willing to throw the ball to Chloe.
I fumed on the sideline. And when I saw one father actually encouraging his son to keep the ball from my daughter I nearly exploded. I wanted to slap the smug look off of that guy’s face.
“Oh, raising an alpha male? That’s something to be proud of.”
I tell this story in order to say this at the outset: I’m not good at this scenario.
I can be just as bad as the stone-cold killer in my heart. My anger gets away from me quickly when I see my children neglected, dismissed or maltreated.

However, that does not negate the need for nonviolence. My human response does not offset the Divine Ideal.
Scripture is clear: the way of Christ is not violent. He humbled Himself and died when He could have wiped us all out.
But, invariably, whenever sincere and well-meaning people begin to discuss the prospect of leading nonviolent lives someone will bring up the scenario:

What if someone attacks your family. What if a crazed psychopath breaks in and threatens their life? Would you just stand by and watch your family be killed?

The intent of this scenario is to discredit those who adhere to and believe that nonviolence is truly the way of Christ. But it’s nothing more than a strawman. It does not adequately deal with the dilemma of non-violence.

Most of the time it ends in a stalemate with the question never being truly addressed.

Let me answer here: if someone broke into my house and threatened my family I hope that I would do all that I could to ensure their safety. I also hope that all that I would attempt would be honoring to Christ and consistent with how He has shown me to live. But that is part of the problem. And the problems are many:

1. I don’t know what I would do because I have never been in that situation. I hope I wouldn’t be a coward and hide under the bed. But I don’t know.
2. I don’t know what the attacker will do. The scenario presupposes everything up until my reaction. But it fails to take into account any other possibility.
3. It also presupposes that the avenue to respond in violence is available to me. If a gun-wielding or knife-toting bad man appears in my home I’m probably not going to be able to produce much in the way of retaliatory devices outside of my fists and a couch cushion.
4. The scenario lacks creativity. The bad man is going to kill your family and it all hinges on your response. But:
a. If you had a gun (however, if you are non-violent you probably aren’t gonna be packing) could you shoot the weapon out of his hand rather than shoot to kill?
b. If you are nonviolent you probably aren’t that good with a gun so you might hurt someone you don’t intend to. You have to take that into consideration as well.
c. But let’s say I can get to a knife in time. I do have those in the kitchen. Will I be able to run into the kitchen unimpeded, fetch said knife and return in time to start slashing?

The bottom line is that this is an extreme hypothetical and I do not know what I would do in such a situation. And no one does until they are in such a predicament.

Some additional observations:

1. What is our ultimate role with our families? Is it to protect or instill? If it is to protect in all situations then God is not the ultimate example, for He allowed His own son to die. I’m not saying that protection is not important. Of course, it is. But I could have punched out the basketball dad because I thought my daughter was being slighted. But protecting her interests in that case was not the ultimate end. Teaching her patience and turning the other cheek was far more important. What message is taught if our first inclination is to “shoot to kill” the intruder?
2. The scenario is decidedly patriarchal. Call it the “Wild At Heart” effect.
3. I will defend my family if it is needed but I hope that my reactions will continue to be nonviolent.
4. If violence is the only acceptable response in this scenario then violence becomes the ultimate good in this scenario. That is hard to square.
5. What needs to happen is training in the way of Christ to the point that rather than immediately presupposing that violence is the one acceptable solution to this scenario that, when faced with such a predicament our immediate response is toward peaceful reconciliation. This scenario is proposed not because violence is the ultimate answer but because we have failed in creatively sussing out the possibilities of truly living the nonviolent life.

In summation, I don’t know what I would do in such situations. But here is my greatest hope: that I would automatically seek out the best responses that would protect my family and be an example of Christ. I would hope that I would value each life in the scenario including the attacker. I would hope that, as I stand between my family and potential mayhem, the Spirit of God would enable me to respond in a godly and appropriate manner.
If, however, I responded in a violent manner, I would throw myself on the unchanging and unwavering grace of God.

I’ll leave it at that for now. Thoughts?

I thought I would take my Wednesday posts and dedicate them to the books I have been reading lately. We will see how it goes, anyway.
As a reminder, the books I read are listed in my left sidebar (with the exception of what I read for sermon prep and ministry stuff. I don’t include that since most people wouldn’t be interested). If you click through any book I link to and then buy it off of Amazon, I get a commission. I’ve made 33 cents so far.

I just finished Douglas Coupland’s JPOD last night. I’ve never read any of his books before but I have heard good things. He did bring the phase Generation X into the lexicon so he has that working for him. This is apparently a semi-sequel to his book Microserfs. I can say this: it is laugh-out-loud funny. It’s not long on plot but then that is the plot. It features 6 employees of a Vancouver Video Game company who have been placed into a work pod. They all just happen to have a last name that ends in “J.” Get it?
My only quibble, and it’s a big one, is that Coupland inserts himself as a character in the book. I understand the commentary on the google-ization of the world and how technology has placed us in the midst of this meta-narrative. But how self-referential and ego-driven do you have to be?
Anyway, if you are looking for a light, humorous read then pick this up.
Has anyone read any of his other books? What do you think of Coupland?

I found this book, Mark Kurlansky’s Nonviolence: 25 Lessons From the History of a Dangerous Idea, at my local library. I was pleasantly surprised to stumble across this, as I had not noticed it in my study on the issue. Kurlansky writes from a secular approach and gives us a concise and brief history of nonviolence. I am not convinced of his conclusions and found him to be argumentative from time to time. However, when he sticks to the history it’s great. If you are interested in learning different views through the years of the viability of nonviolence, then this is a quick and informative read.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Tonight, I start James Joyce’s Ulysses. Any bets on how far I make it into the book before I give up?