Scott Freeman

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?

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’ve been asked how long I am going to continue this series and why I’m doing it. It’s obvious that the amount of discussion that fueled the initial posts has died down considerably.
But that is not why I am doing this.
Suffice it to say, I may continue a while longer.
As to why, I’m not completely sure. Part of it is the desire to have an avenue to discuss in a civil manner with people who hold different views. I think we have continued to do just that.
Also, I want to share my study on these lines. Who knows, this may be a book proposal or a dissertation some day.
However, I have not shared everything I would like. In my mind it breaks down somewhat like this:

I. What is non-violence?
II. The Scriptural basis for non-violence
a. The Words of Jesus
b. The Temple Incident
c. The Life of Jesus
d. Reconciling war in the Hebrew Scriptures
e. Nonviolence in the Epistles (I realize I have not covered this, but have skipped this for now)
f. Nonviolence and the Apocalypse
III. Nonviolence and the Christian Life
a. Self-abnegation
b. Anger
c. Fear
d. The Fruits of the Spirit (I haven’t covered this either, but they all presuppose nonviolence)
IV. Problems with Nonviolence
a. Protecting Your Family
b. The War on Terror
c. Peacekeeping Forces and Military Involvement
d. Nonviolent Victories in World War II
V. Conclusions
a. Nonviolence Victories in History
b. The Lion and the Lamb: Militarists and Pacifists Living, Loving, Worshipping and serving together.
c. Where Do We Go From Here?

Next, I am going to move into Part 4. How do we be nonviolent when there are these perceived problems with nonviolence.
The objections that honest and sincere people have with nonviolence cannot be discredited or dismissed. Let’s look at those.

Before we move into that does anyone have any thoughts? Any additions to this outline you would like to see?
What would you like to see develop in this discussion?

It’s on Monday, but it still works. This is a sermon from Romans 12.

Click here to get your own player.

In the mid-morning hours of September 11th, 2001, before the anger welled up within us and took root in the national psyche, we experienced a communal wave of fear.
Who did this to us?
How could this happen on our soil?
Why would anyone want to harm us in this way?

The uncertainty was palpable as gas lines extended for blocks and parents checked their children out of school early in order to gather and protect against any localized aftershocks.

This understandable wave of fear would soon permeate many aspects of our lives. Duct-tape became more than a handy household item. It would soon pair with plastic sheeting to provide the duo that would innoculate us from any air-borne pathogens that would serve as the follow-up to the first wave of attacks.
We were afraid even to go to the mailbox.
That fear would manifest itself in the political forum as candidates stirred those pangs of anxiety that indicated that the pressing of the wrong button in the voting booth would be a harbinger of the apocalypse.
I shared in that fear. I held my newborn daughter especially close in those days. I wept over the prospect of the Jericho-style world that she might be brought up in.
And as I clutched her in my fear, I lost perspective of what the true lesson was.

Fear can be a good thing. It is not in and of itself evil. It is one of the strongest emotions that God has given us.
It keeps up a few paces away from the side of the cliff. It prompts us to ease up on the gas pedal.
It can be good. But it can also be abused.
And in our society, fear is the ultimate motivator to take up violence as the premier method for “standing up.”
But to be consummed or controlled by fear is dangerous.
And it is sin.

It is sin because it exhibits a lack of faith in God and is expressely forbidden by Him (Matthew 6:25–34)

You see, for the Child of God there is no reason to fear. God instructs us some 365 times in Scripture to not be afraid (one for every day of the year).
He is ultimately in control. To fear is to cast His sovereignty in doubt.
Fear negatively manifests itself when we place our emphasis on the wrong day: tomorrow. All that He has given us is this day. And it has enough worries of its own.

But fear is so prevalent. Our existence is so tenuous. It is easy to succumb to worry and anxiety about tomorrow.
–This time will it be a school close to me that endures a gun-wielding madman?
–Will there be another attack on this nation, this time closer to home?
–What will happen to my children if terrorism is not eradicated?

Yet, ultimately, those are not the proper questions that we are to be asking. Those questions are rooted in an earthly focus that sequesters hope to an exclusively intangible concept. The important questions are (cribbing from Paul):
–If God is for us, who can be against us? (Nobody)
–Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? (Again, nobody)
–Who is to condemn? (Once more, nobody)
–Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? (Say it with me, “nobody.”)
–Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? (That’s a resounding no.)

You see, all of the suicide bombers, biotoxins, apocalyptic scenarios and Paris Hilton movies cannot rob us of a hope that passes all understanding.
It will not change the ending of the story for those who are in Christ.
There is no need for us to respond violently to those who set themselves against us. The outcome is assured.
“No weapon formed against us shall prosper, all that shall rise up against us shall fall. I will not fear what the devil may bring me, I am a servant of God.”

Earthly empires will rise and fall, but the Kingdom is eternal.
Don’t be afraid of tomorrow. Live today.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I could go on and on about different virtues (or, Fruits of the Spirit) that, properly nurtured will lead to a non-violent life. But, I think that the point has been made repeatedly that nonviolence is the ideal.
Next week we will move into all of the different what-ifs that people offer as a supposed refutation of nonviolence and how those scenarios, ultimately, are lacking.

The non-violence life is what we see modeled in the person of Jesus. It is consistent in His teachings, life and example.

We have seen the way of Christ exemplified in His denial of self and humility. By way of self-abnegation we are able to make broad steps into a peaceable relationship with others.

Like the proclivity that we have towards elevating the self we also live in a society that propagates anger and rage. For the sake of brevity and staying on point, I will not belabor the prevalence of anger generating avenues of entertainment in our culture. That has been addressed in more detail and depth than I have time or interest to do at this point.
However, it must be noted that, among the plethora of violent video-games and splatter flicks, rage is in.
Couple that with this misguided notion that anger is something that must simply be managed and you have the recipe for violence run amok. I have encountered many people in counselling and pastoral sessions struggling with anger issues.

Jesus knew that anger full grown is murder. He warned us of the murderous seeds that we plant in our own hearts whenever we tap into anger. We saw it in the early days when Cain presented his bruised kumquats to the Lord and grew angry that God was more pleased with Abel’s first fruits. The progressive, insidious nature of anger mushroomed into violent actions in the heart of Cain.

To be non-violent then we must get a hold of our own anger. One of the greatest harbingers of the onset of anger in our society is an escalated sense of entitlement.
Anger often results when we feel that our rights have been violated. If someone comes between us and our ideas of what we deserve then our response is often of a volatile nature.
From a middle finger to the guy that impinges on our rights to navigate the interstates to a nasty email to the co-worker who robbed your right to a peaceful work day we often respond to life’s happenings as if our rights have been encroached and trampled on.

But what we must do is recognize that all that we have and possess (including our rights) ultimately belong to God. If all we have is truly His, then that must include our morality, our virtues, and our entitlements.
Therefore, if someone robs you of what you think is rightfully yours, they are ultimately robbing God. So it’s best to leave it in His hands.

To be non-violent then we must resist anger. We must not allow the seeds of violence to take residence in our hearts. Here are a few suggestions to defeat anger in your life:

1. Seek God’s release from the oppressive hand of rage and anger.
2. Understand that God is in control. What comes your way can be for your benefit.
3. Do an inventory and seek to understand how you may have contributed to the problem. Have you been lazy, negligent, mean, stubborn, inconsiderate or anything else that might have contributed to the current situation you find yourself in.
4. If so, repent and seek to make amends.
5. Ask what Fruit of the Spirit can be honed through these trials.
6. Seek out relationships with people who can have a calming influence.
7. Seek to remove stressors from your life. If you feel yourself more agitated after playing video games or watching violent movies, it’s time to get a new interest.
8. Develop a God-honoring course of action. How can you navigate through the situation
9. Be honest. Speak the truth in all dealings.
10. Deal with the problem. Anger delayed is anger amplified.
11. Journal your struggles with anger. Note the times, situations, and people that are prevalent when you are most likely to respond in a negative way. This will give you insight into situations to avoid, relationships to redeem and whether or not you act out when over-stimulated or tired.
12. In all things give yourself grace.

Non-violence begins with each individual humbling himself and seeking not to respond in anger to the every day situations of life.
As Christians it is up to us to model what that is like. We must not give vent to our anger. Nor must we ever seek to repay evil with evil.

One of the problems that arises in the debate about the biblical foundation for non-violence is a result of flawed theology.

–If you believe that there is going to be a literal, physical war when Jesus returns at the end of some seven year rapture, then you are less likely to see the validity of beating a sword into a plowshare.
–If you believe that God chooses who He will for salvation and the rest of people are just out of luck, then life becomes an us/them proposition.
–If you believe that the world must go to hell in a handbasket before Christ returns, then the prospect of social justice becomes less attractive.

Another barrier to our understanding of non-violence and its implications is our own sinful hearts. Anger, fear, worry and the lionization of the self are stumbling blocks on our way to having peaceable spirits.
I want us to begin to look at these heart issues and how they might preclude us from being non-violent. Let’s look first at the issue of the self.

Self-aggrandizement has plagued us since the fall. The desire to be like God is ever before us. It would be part of the downfall of the Israelite nation. They were known for chasing after their own desires over above those of their God.

In more modern times, men such as Adler, Rogers and Maslow have perpetuated the idea of the self and its fulfillment as being the ultimate end of man. The impact that these men have had in our society in general, and the church in particular has, unfortunately, been monumental.

There has been a shift in our time, within the church, to a gospel, borne not out of discipleship and self-sacrifice, but, instead, of self-love and self-aggrandizement.
The unbiblical doctrine of the self and its actualization and glory is rarely, if ever, questioned. Instead it is embraced as being the foundation for a meaningful life.

Today, it seems that there is little difference between the church and the world when it comes to the view of the individual. Many Christian writers either tout self-esteem and self-actualization or assume it in their writing.

I’m not saying that feeling good about yourself is a bad thing. But the example we see from Jesus is not self-fulfillment but instead self-denial.

Jesus was never self-oriented. Instead He was others-oriented.

He was never concerned with esteeming Himself. Instead He humbled Himself to the point of the cross.

But much of the talk about non-violence today centers upon the notion of protecting ourselves, defending ourselves, standing up for our own rights.

But Jesus did not protect Himself, He surrendered to others. He did not stand up for Himself but knelt to serve them.

If Christ did not esteem Himself, how can we, of mere flesh and blood, presume to do anything more? How arrogant are we if we profess that we should esteem ourselves when Christ continually lessened Himself?

To be truly non-violent then we have to understand the example of Christ. His example was about that of self-abnegation not exalting Himself or His rights.
It was about considering others better than Himself. And He was God!

If we begin to truly view people as Jesus views them, then our propensity to lash out in violent words or deeds dissipates.

The words of A.W. Tozer will serve us well: “So keenly do we men enjoy dominion that we like to think that we hold in our own hands the power of life and death. We love to think that hell will be easier to bear from the fact of our having gone there in defiance of some power that sought to rule us.”

It seems that there are many misconceptions about non-violence. Opponents and those who dismiss it outright tend to gravitate toward scenarios where it would seem to be impossible to not retaliate in a physical manner.
Often the questions focus on how it can’t be done rather than on how to truly be non-violents.

Misconceptions are thus:

1. That non-violence is passive. Non-violence does not mean that you will be chanting and burning incense in a corner while your family is being attacked.
2. That non-violence is unrealistic. However, it has been successful hundreds of times in effecting revolution and peace.
3. That non-violence is anti-american. The success and legacy of those involved in the civil rights movement should effectively lay to rest that claim.

What is established is this:

1. It is Biblical. We see the prophets lay forth the vision of peace, of the lion and the lamb and the sword being beaten into plowshares.
2. It is the way of Christ. He could have deployed an army at Calvary exacting military retribution for the oppression of His people. Yet He did not. Instead, He humbled Himself, even to the point of the cross.
3. It is largely untried. Part of the reason this conversation is so difficult for us is that true meekness is not something that is instilled in us. We are taught the virtue of pride. We gossip. We use our tongues as weapons against other.

For the sake of this individual post, I’d like to take aim at the first misconception. Hear this, clearly. Non-violence is not doing nothing.
It requires more creativity and action than violence does.
This is one of the reasons that I shy away from use of the word pacifism. It sounds to close to passive.
However, Jesus shows us the creative ramifications of non-violence (HT: Walter Wink; I’m relying heavily on his scholarship)

There are a lot of things that Jesus does not address in His teachings: abortion, homosexuality, instrumental music, the role of women, etc.
But He does talk quit a bit about non-violence. To wit:

In Matthew 5: 39, He tells us “Do not resist the one who is evil.” This is a progression of the laws of retaliation that were prominent in the Torah that proclaimed an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. It’s important to note that laws of retaliation were prescribed through the courts, not individual vengeance.
It’s important that we understand what Jesus means by “resist.” The Greek word is anthistemi and doesn’t really mean resist. Anti–against. Histemi has a noun form that means violent rebellion. As a matter of fact, that is how it is rendered most times in the Greek OT. It refers to armed revolt.
So, what Jesus is saying is not to resist evil. Of course, we are supposed to. What He is saying is not to resist evil by lashing back with your own violent acts. It has also been translated “be hostile towards” or “rebel.”
Anthistemi was a military term. It’s used in Ephesians 6 in regards to taking up the full armor of God. It’s also used to mean insurrection and rioting in the NT.
Josephus used this term for military conflict.
So, what Jesus is truly saying is, “Don’t strike back against evil.” Violence is not the answer to violence. The scholars version says “Don’t react violently against the one who is evil.”
The Good News Bible says “Do not take revenge on someone who wrongs you.”

But what are we to do:

Jesus says to turn the other cheek. Jesus says if someone strikes you on the right cheek, offer the left. Why the right cheek?
Again, Wink gives us tremendous insight. The left hand was used in the first century for unclean tasks. The only way that you could hit someone on their right cheek with your right hand would be to backhand them.
It was the greatest insult that could be given in that culture. You could be prosecuted in both Jewish and Roman courts for such an offense. According to the Mishnah the fine for backhanding someone was 100 times greater than hitting them with your fist.
This is a personal affront mean to bring about embarrasment and humiliation. A backhand would by employed to establish domination over another.
Jesus says, “give them the other cheek as well.” In other words, rob them of their power over you. Take away the indignity by embarrasing them.
It’s an emphatic statement that “you cannot diminish my worth. I am just as valuable a person as you are.”
It’s not fighting back. It’s turning the tables completely.
Without violence.

Then Jesus says “Hey, you are being sued for your tunic, go ahead and give them your cloak as well.”

Wink says,

Only the poorest of the poor would have nothing but an outer garment to give as collateral for a loan. Jewish law strictly required its return every evening at sunset, for that was all the poor had in which to sleep.

To do what Jesus said would be to strip off all of their clothes and leave the court without a stitch of clothing. This is civil protest at its finest.
Take what you want, but you won’t rob me of dignity.

Then Jesus says that if you are compelled to go one mile, go ahead and go the second. If a Roman soldier try to require a Jew to go more than a mile, he would face severe penalties.
If you go the second mile what are the implications?
–That you are stronger than the Roman soldier?
–That you are possibly being forced, inviting investigation of the Roman official?

Again, the tables are turned.

What we see in each of these scenarios is that the non-violent approach is not a do-nothing way of living. It is an active, creative way of turning the tables back upon your attacker.

If someone backhands you, the human impulse is to strike back. But instead, expose them for the aggressor that they are, maintaining your own dignity.
If someone sues you needlessly, don’t sue them back. Instead look for creative ways to establish your independence for usurious laws.
If someone forces you to work against your will, turn it to your will.

Non-violence IS harder than violence. It involves more creativity, more action, more diligence.
It involves standing your ground by rising above your attacker.

Part One
Part Two
Part Three

There is nothing in the life of Christ that support or proclaims violence as a legitimate end. His life, teaching and example was about another way. A way that rejects violence and passivity.
A way that embraces effecting positive change through the turned cheek, the second mile and the love of enemies.

This is problematic because it runs counter to our instincts. Loving enemies, praying for those who persecute you, and foregoing the opportunity to strike back are not natural to us.
But if Jesus touts a different way, what do we make of the Hebrew Scriptures?

Again this is problematic. The surface understanding of who God appears to be in the OT is not a God that illicits a bunch of warm fuzzy feelings. He seems too wrathful for that.

I step on tenuous ground here on at least two fronts: one is, ultimately, I cannot speak for God. His ways are not my ways. I don’t understand why He has done all the things He has done. And likely never will.
Second, is the seeming dismissal of the literary use of war metaphors and manipulations in the editing process in favor of pure literalism. But that’s a road I’m not fully prepared to go down.

The best I can do is lay out a series of thoughts:
–God has often employed a sort of progressive redemption (HT: William Webb). He took people where they were and moved them in the direction that He wanted them to go. He does not take us from A-Z in one fell swoop, but instead is patient with us. The OT is replete with things that God tolerated but was not necessarily fond of: polygamy, slavery, repression of women, etc. But He acknowledged where the people were primitively and moved them on from there. Would any of us doubt today that God despises slavery, although it happened through the NT times? Would any of us doubt that God hates the second class treatment of women, although it continues to this day? God may have utilized war but it was never His ideal. He created us to be in union with each other, not dis-union.
–Ultimately, if we take the stories of the Israelites conquest of Canaan and God’s instructions against the Amalekites then the OT example for us is not warfare, but genocide. Hopefully, none of us are that barbaric to think that should be the lesson we learn from the Hebrew Scriptures.
–The Ultimate Mover of these conquests in the OT was God, not man. His blessings were given upon those He commanded to act in such a way. I have never received a direct order from God to attack anyone. Without His bellowing from the Heavens to attack then we become far too presumptuous to go on the offensive.
–Israel wanted a king because they wanted to be like the other nations. God warned them that having a king would move them toward warfare, toward the establishment of armies.
–There is a strong sense that God is operating under the constructs of fallen man, not on the ideal. When the Perfect came, we see His intents and purposes come into full view. The stipulation against David building the temple because of his status as a warrior is not something to be glossed over. If war precludes building a temple and the Temple today is not made by human hands but is the individual believer, then it seems to reason that the Temple of the individual believer must not be given to violence.
–We have much to learn from the prophets. We see a systematic laying out of the ideal for the Kingdom. The visions were of swords being beaten into plowshares, of the lion laying down with the lamb. It was a vision of peace. God was emphatic that He detested people dying without a relationship with Him. Jonah is prime example of that: he was dispatched, not to condemn, but to proclaim a saving relationship.
–Ultimately, Israel was to be the avenue for all people to know God. Any failure in that regard was the fault of the nation-state, not of their God.
–The prophets proclaim the way to the peaceable kingdom. They point the way to the Messiah who would be both Suffering Servant and Victorious Warrior. (A fact that many Jews did not get because they were anticipating two distinct Messiah’s.)
–Again, the ultimate way to understand this progression is through the person of Jesus. He tells us in Matthew 5:17 that He had come to fulfill the law and the prophets. He was the culmination of what the Hebrew people were called to be and do. What was that? What was the true message of the Hebrew Scriptures? Very simple:

“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandment depend all the Law and the Prophets.”

The more I study both the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament the more convinced I am that it all comes down to these two ideas: Love Him and love each other. All else is commentary.

Ultimately, what we have from the OT is this:
–We can trust in God and His might. Or our own. That’s idolatry.
–To view God as warrior in the OT is to look over the more plenteous aspects of His personality there: lover, Father, protector, merciful, shepherd, redeemer, kinsman, deliverer, and on and on.

There is nothing in the Hebrew Scriptures that gives us license to perpetrate violence on another. Especially when we see the Hebrew Scriptures through the one who fulfilled them: Jesus Christ. To understand the OT apart from Jesus, His life, teaching and example is to miss the God of grace and wonder.
Again, we are back to Christ.
Again, we are back to non-violence.

A little over 14 years ago now, I loaded up my small little white house that sat along interstate 30 in Benton, Arkansas and prepared to move to Tennessee.
Lebanon, that is.
In my 24 years that 6 months stretch of time in that Jim Walter house. was the longest I had been away from home.
I lived in the same house the first 24 years of my life.
I was going to go to Freed-Hardeman for college but backed out at the last minute. (Good move.)
Forced out of a whole lot of options due to the last minute change of heart, I stayed at the old home town university–the University of Arkansas at Little Rock.
There I secured my degree, broke into youth ministry and finally secured my first “real” job post-matriculation.
That morning crossing the Arkansas river bridge that divided Arkansas and Tennessee I couldn’t help but being overwhelmed with excitement for what lay ahead. I was going to dedicate my life ministering to teens.
My parents brought the U-Haul, we unloaded and set up house.
The next day my parents left.
And I was alone.
I was overwhelmed with the thought of “What now? What do I do?”
All I really knew was that somehow the next day I was to go into my office and start doing what I had trained and prepared for.
But, honestly, I was lost. All I could do was pray for wisdom and jump in.
Those initial days were marked by fits and starts.
I was arrogant thinking that I knew everything. I was the one who knew about teenagers, not out of touch parents.
I was immature with little to distinguish between my antics and that of the teens who had been entrusted in my care.
It wasn’t long before there was a small group of parents who wanted me out.
And they were right.
But my elders were patient with me. They knew that part of their job was to help me grow up and into the ministry that God had called me to.
I couldn’t help but go back to those days as I was reading the book of Acts this week. Jesus incarnate was no longer among them.
This ragtag bunch of followers were left to somewhat figure out where to go from there. Those 10 days between the ascension and outpouring had to be fraught with questioning and speculating about what they future held for them.
When the Spirit finally did arrive (2:4) they began a ministry that would change the world.
But it was not always easy.
They were still given to immaturity and failures.
They struggled with the thought of the message going to Gentiles.
They wrestled with the implications of proper Christian service.
They fought and divided (See Paul and John Mark)
Surely there were dark and lonely days.

But this is sure: Christ is made manifest in the book of Acts by the faithful witness of His followers.
Were they perfect? Not even close.
But they were faithful and sincere.
Christ is modeled in Acts through the discipleship of common, every-day believers. They wrestled, they struggled and they failed.
But through the transforming power of the Spirit they changed the world.
That is the call of discipleship–to be missional and transformative.
To be in community and fellowship with one another.
To break bread.
To give out of our abundance for the general good of all.

Acts opens with the risen and victorious Lord ascending into Heaven, leaving His followers behind.
Acts continues with the risen and victorious Lord appearing time and time again through the faithful witness of fallen people.
Like me.
And you.