It’s July 18, 64 AD and a fire breaks out in the Circus Maximus. Over the course of the next five days much of the city of Rome is devastated by the fire that rages (if the history, specious at best, holds out).

For many, the suspicion goes to their megalomaniacal emperor, Nero. His desire to seal his legacy is tied to his expansionist dreams for the Great City. Nero was obsessed with his popularity and the thought of being accused of such a crime was too much to bear.

Understandably, the Romans were devastated by the conflagration. Homes were consumed, lives snuffed out and livelihoods were compromised. Not only that but much of their religious life went up in flames.
Shrines, idols, temples were destroyed. There was only one group that did not suffer the loss of their religious identity–Christians. And because they were seen as being hostile to the empire and due to their close ties to the hated Jews Nero used them as a convenient scapegoat.
Persecution began as a result of Nero’s deflecting the suspicion onto this nascent sect.

In the midst of this period of Christian persecution (that saw the executions of both Peter and Paul) Peter wrote a letter of encouragement to those Gentile Christians who were living in fear of the sword. That message, 1 Peter, is a lesson in non-violent living.
Here we see the early church working out its practice of turning the other cheek, living in community and comporting themselves in such a way that even their enemies could see that they are different.

Peter’s Message: Live as Christ lived.

2:13–Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor (!) as supreme,
2:15–For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people
2:16–Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God.

And the money passage (1 Peter 2:19–25):
this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. 20 For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God. 21 For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. 22 He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. 23 When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly. 24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed. 25 For you were straying like sheep, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.

For Peter it was imperative that these early believers did not live the way of the sword but by the way of the cross. The live and example of Jesus was normative for the believer in the early church. His example was that of non-violence, turning the other cheek, loving your enemy. Even a despotic tyrant such as Nero.

1 Peter is a manifesto for non-violent living. For the first pronounced persecution of Christians in world history was met without arms or retaliation. It was met with the very person of Christ.

I am thinking about putting the nonviolence series to rest for a while. I’m not sure I want to abandon it completely. And I know that there are still issues to discuss and, yes, suss out.
But in moving toward a discussion of the nonviolence advocate and his relationship with the nation state (i.e. America) I’m not sure that a civil and productive discussion could be maintained.
On the way to church yesterday, I saw a guy riding a motorcycle, pulling a cross decorated to look like the United States flag. There are many reasons I find that offensive, but I’m not sure that these issues can be discussed in a positive manner in today’s climate.

With that said, I have a few thoughts.

1. Do we merely believe in Jesus or do we believe what Jesus believed? This question, posed by Clarence Baumer, has shaken me this past week. I’m good at professing a faith in Christ. But have I moved enough in my discipleship where I hold the same beliefs that Jesus did: that the meek will inherit the earth, that loving your enemies is the right way to treat them, that turning the other cheek is more effective than retaliation? I think if we are honest then we will find that there are truths that Jesus held dear that we don’t necessarily share. It’s a sobering thought, but Jesus didn’t operate according to logic, reason or earthly practicality. For us to adopt that belief system means more than merely imitation. It necessitates transformation.

2. “Just War” advocates and nonviolence proponents are not that far apart. Therefore we must work together to find ways to alleviate the amount of violence in this fallen world. David Augsburger, in his tremendous Anabaptist primer and Mere Discipleship companion piece, writes:

Those who teach just war ethics are not on the opposing side from those who teach nonviolence because both seek to limit the use of violence–the just war believers through a limited participation in war; the nonviolence disciples through constructive practices of peacemaking that, if followed, point toward the elimination of war. As friends we press one another to be more faithful to our goals, more consistent in our practices.

Although, I completely reject the notion of just war and militarism, that does not mean that I am unable to work with those who disagree with me toward the cessation of violence. I do not believe that the use of violence can be reconciled with the teachings of Jesus. I do not believe it is the way of Christ. However, I am in full fellowship with wonderful brothers and sisters who disagree sharply with me. Yet we are still children of God, saved by grace and grace alone. May we work together.

3. We must continually make sure that we do not conflate the missions of the Kingdom and America. The “America as Christian Nation” notion does not baptize all that we do regardless of the consequences. Clay Jenkinson, Theodore Roosevelt scholar-in-residence at Dickinson State University recently had a tremendous article in the Bismarck Tribune. Here is an excerpt:

Most Americans, then and now, do not share Jefferson’s and Paine’s distaste for the Bible or their antagonism to institutional religion. A solid majority of the Founding Fathers were Christians in some sense of the term. Some of them, like Patrick Henry, wanted an official established religion in each state. Most believed that religion was an important restraining mechanism in human affairs. Many of them, if we could lift them out of their context and into ours, would probably be distressed by the degree to which we have chosen to prohibit religious activity in the public square.

It is easy for religious conservatives to compile anthologies of pro-Christian sentiment from the founders’ writings, including – with a bit of disingenuous manipulation – from the works of Jefferson. There is room for an honest debate about what the founders intended, but any honest participant acknowledges that there is plenty of “evidence” on both sides of the argument. In other words, there is no definitive “intent of the Founding Fathers” on religious questions.

It is certain that the United States is a more religious country in 2006 than it was in 1806. For Jefferson, who declared in 1822 that “there is not a young man now living in the U.S. who will not die an Unitarian,” this would come as a surprise and something of a disappointment. Jefferson, like Paine, believed that science and reason would emancipate mankind from faith systems, and that at some future, but near, date, all people would admire, though not worship, the one universal deity.

If there were an unambiguous intent of the founders, there would be no special reason for us to follow their lead 219 years later. Their intent was to perpetuate slavery. Their intent was to count every five slaves as three for the purposes of apportionment and representation. Their intent was that senators would be elected by state legislatures. Their intent was that the Electoral College would sit in independent judgment about who was fittest to be president. Their intent was to exclude all women, almost all African-Americans, all Indians and white males without property from voting or holding public office.

We have discarded all these 18th century notions because they do not serve us well in the 21st century. Nor, in a nation with as much religious diversity as the United States, does it make any sense to force the 5.8 million Muslims, the 5.2 million Jews, the 1.5 million Buddhists, the 1 million Hindus, and the 433,267 Wiccans, pagans and Druids under one Christian tent. About this the First Amendment is very clear.

The government of the United States is overwhelmingly tolerant of the widest possible variety of religions and religious sensibilities. Nobody is legally punished for being a Mormon, a Christian Scientist, a British Israelist, a Mennonite, a Deuteronomist, a Scientologist or a member of a Native American peyote tradition. Members of each of these groups have held public office in the United States. We have no test oaths that prevent Catholics or Anabaptists from holding public office. A Catholic has been president. A Mormon (Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts) plans to run for the presidency. Joe Lieberman, who is Jewish, nearly became vice president of the United States in 2000.

In this our happy and tolerant republic, tax exemption is afforded to individuals and groups whose religious views would be unrecognizable to the Founding Fathers, and deeply abhorrent.

The “wall of separation” between church and state works. We have the freethinking Founding Fathers, among them Tom Paine, to thank for that great gift to human freedom and diversity.

Any thoughts?

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.