Showing posts with label Pacifism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pacifism. Show all posts

Saturday, August 30, 2014

Resisting Evil?




Christians are now experiencing escalating persecution worldwide. This raises several questions:

“Should Christians ever bring legal charges against their persecutors?

Some feel that we shouldn’t and cite:

  • Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them… Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” (Romans 12:14-19)

They reason that, since we must “bless and… not curse” and “never avenge” ourselves, bringing legal charges isn’t an option. Instead, we are to trust that God will bring “vengeance” (justice) - “the wrath of God” - on the Day of Judgment.

However, is “the wrath of God” only reserved for that Day? According to Paul, “the wrath of God” is also meant to be exercised through the court system:

  • Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. (Romans 13:1-4)

God also takes vengeance through the “governing authorities.” They are His invention to bring about justice. Therefore, to “leave it to the wrath of God” is to bring the matter before those whom God has ordained.

Paul repeats that we are required to submit to these authorities in the next verse. He then instructs Christians to pay them “taxes” (13:6) and “honor” (13:7).

How do we honor them? By respecting their office, by being witnesses against evil (Eph. 5:11) and even by pressing charges, when appropriate! If we know a gang is committing rapes and we fail to testify against them, then we become moral accomplices and bring disrepute upon our faith by allowing them to continue unchecked.

We also honor the authorities by allowing them to do their job.  It is not our job to bring justice. We cannot form vigilante groups or take revenge. However, we can help the governing authorities by bringing to them charges of criminal wrongdoing. If we fail to do this, we are guilty before God:

  • He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the Lord. (Proverbs 17:15)

If we give the wicked a free pass, our God is not pleased.


“Is it ever right to use physical force against the evildoer?”

Some would argue that personal physical force is never justified:

  • To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. (Romans 12:20-21)

They argue that, if we are to overcome “evil with good,” there is no place for physical force. However, this teaching, along with many others, pertains to the behavior of individual Christians not governments. Very few of the teaching in the New Testament were directed towards the authorities in their public roles. There was certainly no expectation that their Roman over-lords should “overcome evil with good” or to forgive their enemies. Instead, the authorities, whoever they were, ruled by fear – by the sword (Rom. 134). Anything other than this was unthinkable.

Ideally, the civil authorities are the ones to exercise justice and administer punishment, but what would happen if kidnappers broke into a home with young children? Should not the husband protect his family in the absence of the police? And what if the husband didn’t protect his family but misapplied the Jesus’ teaching about turning the other check, saying “You want my three-year-old-daughter? Take my four-year-old also.”

Such a response would be ignorant and bring disrepute upon the church. The next victim could then rightfully say, “Since you didn’t resist the kidnappers, you enabled them to come to my home on the following night!”

Of course, this scenario is absurd, but it demonstrates where this foolish thinking about non-resistance can take us. Instead, even Jesus taught that physically resisting evil was sometimes acceptable:

  • Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. (Matthew 24:42-43; Luke 12:39)

The homeowner had a perfect right to protect his family, even with the use of physical force. Even Jesus Himself resorted to physical force when He drove the money changers out of the temple.


“How then are we to overcome evil with good?”

I was asked, “What would you do if you ran into someone who had just enlisted to go fight with ISIS?”

I answered that I would invite him for a cup of coffee and an apple pie. In gentleness, I would then try to reason with him to repent. However, afterwards, I would call the authorities to have him detained.

Our calling to love our enemies is not in conflict with our calling to support the authorities. Instead, they should both go together.

Thursday, May 17, 2012

Protest vs. Non-Resistance and Passivity


Bethany Blankley, my former colleague at the New York School of the Bible, argues that the churches’ protest against their unfair and discriminatory expulsion from renting space on Sundays from the New York City schools was “unbiblical”:

  • “Protesting in any form, as a Christ-follower is misguided and unbiblical.”
To prove her case, she appeals to the example of Jesus:

  • Instead of responding in outrage over this [murder of Jews], Jesus spoke about the need for everyone to repent and follow him (Luke 13:1-3).
Although it is clear that our individual relationship with God and need for repentance must take precedence over our fruitful involvement with others and with society, I think that Blankley has overstepped the evidence. While Jesus’ silence on the broader issue of justice is worthy of note, it is a stretch to argue that we must all keep silent on all social justice issues.

  • On another occasion, when asked if the iniquitous Roman taxation was lawful, Jesus made no reference to whether or not an occupying nation should tax its subjects. Instead, he spoke about the demands of God upon His subjects. He said, "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's" (Luke 20:25).
An argument from Jesus’ silence is notoriously weak. Perhaps Jesus was silent for other reasons. Perhaps He understood that protesting against Rome’s unfair taxes would lead to a bloody and unprofitable uprising, which finally did occur in 66AD. Or perhaps He deemed that His fledgling church needed first to be established in the basics – better for now to render to “Caesar the things that are Caesar's.”

What is lacking in Blankley’s argumentation are explicit biblical teachings against protesting. However, her next example of Jesus’ passivity in this area comes closest:

  • Jesus addressed the issue of resenting authority in his Sermon on the Mount. Under occupation, a Roman soldier had the right to ask any Jew to carry his pack for one mile. Jesus' commentary on this was, "if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles." Then he added, "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" (Matt. 5:40, 44)…Jesus' mindset went beyond the present circumstance to a higher law revealing that a Christ-follower's life is directed by the commands of God. His disciples taught the same, saying, "as much as it depends on you, live peaceably with all men" (Romans 12:18, 14:19; Hebrews 12:14; 1 Pet. 3:11).
We all agree that our Lord has called us to love and pray for our enemies. However, what does it mean to “live peaceably with all men?” Does it mean to never protest how others may treat you or even their own family? Does it never mean to expose sin and hypocrisy (Eph. 5:11)? Does it mean that we can never correct our children or a teacher her students? Does it mean we can never press charges against a burglar or a rapist? Does it mean that we must allow our wives to be raped in front of us without raising a finger or a word in protest? Or does living “peaceably with all men" require that we confront the evil-doer and bring charges against the rapist for the sake of the peace of our community? If we have failed to bring charges and the rapist struck again, wouldn’t this dishonor our Lord in the eyes of our community?

In contrast to Blankley’s position, Jesus’ ministry contained many words of protest and denunciation. He was highly confrontational. Just look at His many denunciations of the religious leadership (Matthew 23)!

However, Blankley makes an insupportable distinction between protesting against religious and political leaders, claiming that protesting against the religious leaders is okay:

  • There is not one instance in all of the accounts of Jesus' life where he came into conflict with Roman authorities… Jesus did denounce the religious leaders of his day, but he did not denounce political leaders.
This might be so, but it wasn’t the Roman authorities with whom He had contact. It wasn’t the Roman authorities who were following Him and contradicting Him at every turn.

Furthermore, Blankley’s distinction that we can denounce the religious leaders but not the political leaders seems quite arbitrary, and it is upon this distinction that her entire argument rests. According to this distinction, if the NYC authorities were religious and not political, the churches could protest. But if they are religious, then the church can’t protest. But aren’t political leaders governed by values – religious sentiments?

Such an arbitrary distinction cannot be maintained biblically. For one thing, religious leaders also exercised political power. Besides, Mosaic laws required obedience towards religious leaders as well.

Exposing sin was central to Jesus’ ministry, and “exposing” is little different from “protesting.” There was no one immune to His critical light. Jesus even corrected Roman Pilate, who had been angered by His silence:

  • "Do you refuse to speak to me?" Pilate said. "Don't you realize I have power either to free you or to crucify you?" Jesus answered, "You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin." (John 19:10-11)
Although Jesus assigned the “greater sin” to the religious leadership, He wouldn’t grant Pilate a clean slate either, reminding Him that He too was bound by the laws of God.   

Almost the entire focus of the Hebrew Prophets was a matter of exposing sin – protesting against it – in hope that this might lead Israel to repentance. They never made a distinction between the political and the religious leadership. They all had to repent!

Similarly, Jesus exposed the sin of the political-religious leaders who wanted to murder Him:
   
  • Then Jesus said to the chief priests, the officers of the temple guard, and the elders, who had come for him, "Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come with swords and clubs? Every day I was with you in the temple courts, and you did not lay a hand on me. But this is your hour--when darkness reigns." (Luke 22:52-53)
We too must expose the “hour when darkness reigns," whether in the City of New York or in our churches.

Meanwhile, I would agree with Blankley that this prophetic endeavor should not be accompanied by outbursts of anger but by praises to God, who works all things together for good, and also by prayers for those with whom we disagree.

However, Blankley wrongly wants us to choose between trusting God and doing something ourselves about the injustice:

  • If a Christian believes that God is in control, then he/she will submit to the ruling authorities and proclaim his/her faith by obeying God to be at peace with all men. A Christian will not sign petitions, but petition their father in heaven through prayer.
Blankley is saying that if you trust God, you will submit to the authorities and do absolutely nothing. You will not go to the police; you will not press charges against the rapist; you will not cry out about the injustices, genocide, slavery, or even the Holocaust. However, our Lord requires us to take responsibility for our neighbor and to cry out on his behalf (Amos 5:14-15; Isaiah 1:16-17) as we place our trust completely in Him. Mysteriously, these two strategies go together (Phil. 2:12-13; 1 Cor. 15:10).

However, Blankley rightly places the emphasis on trusting God:

  • Many Christians wrongly assume that the only way a situation can be put right is by political or social means, but this is not biblical teaching. God is in control and is active in the affairs of men and nations. The Christian worldview teaches that God removes rulers and puts them in power – both good and evil – for his purposes (Daniel 2:21; 4:17). All political leaders are appointed by God and nothing is beyond his control.
While God is definitely in control – He has even established our days (Psalm 139) and our lives for us (Eph. 2:10) – this doesn’t mean that we don’t have a role in our lives and in this world. Even though Paul assures us that we are “His workmanship,” this doesn’t relieve us of the responsibility of praying, meditating on Scripture, walking in love, or even protesting. Somehow, God works through our freewill choices and obedience. To dismiss one of these truths is to try to fly a plane with one wing.

Even though God has a plan for our lives, it doesn’t allow us to “put God to the test” by failing to live prudently, as Jesus had corrected Satan (Matthew 4:3-4).

Protest has long had a place among the children of God. Knowing that Haman was putting the finishing touches on his plan for the destruction of the Jews, the Jewish Queen Esther risked her life to come before her husband and king:

  • "If I have found favor with you, O king, and if it pleases your majesty, grant me my life--this is my petition. And spare my people--this is my request. For I and my people have been sold for destruction and slaughter and annihilation. If we had merely been sold as male and female slaves, I would have kept quiet, because no such distress would justify disturbing the king." (Esther 7:3-4)
It was this protest, by the grace of God, that saved the Jewish people. Perhaps it is time for us to speak up as well!