Category: Nonresistance

The Jesus Way

‘People think faith is a big electric blanket, when of course it is a cross’ – Flannery O’Connor

Phil Wickham has nailed it. 

Mind you, I don’t know Mr. Wickham.  For all I know he wrote his song in a moment of exuberance and doesn’t really mean what he’s singing (although I suspect he most certainly does).  But the words to his song, The Jesus Way, are precisely what the Christian world needs to hear.  You can listen to the song here.  I particularly appreciate the first and third verses:

If you curse me, then I will bless you

If you hurt me, I will forgive

And if you hate me, then I will love you

I choose the Jesus way –

If you strike me, I will embrace you

And if you chain me, I’ll sing his praise

And I you kill me, my home is heaven

Oh, I choose the Jesus way

Wow.  What a call to radical, nonviolent love!  You just don’t find many popular church songs willing to lay it out so plainly (go ahead, try to find some).  The song has been out for over a year, but I heard it for the first time a week or so ago.  I looked it up and discovered it was only a minor hit on the Christian charts last year.  Perhaps its recent spike in airplay indicates a comeback of sorts.  That would be nice, but I suspect, sadly, that its lyrics won’t find much purchase in the minds and hearts of many contemporary Christians, particularly those who make the most noise these days. 

That’s because many professing Christians don’t understand what it means to follow Jesus.  Too many believe in what Dietrich Bonhoeffer termed, ‘cheap grace.’  Somehow, we have reduced the beautiful, fathomless mystery of the Atonement to shorthand: ‘Jesus died so we don’t have to.’  There is truth in this, but the repetition of this truncated explanation has its flaws.  For one thing, it’s obviously wrong in that we do still die (last I checked, the death rate was still hovering around 100%).  But beyond this, this shorthand has bled into Christian thinking to the extent that it is commonly believed we need never lay down our lives for Jesus.  Indeed, we never have to suffer for Jesus.  His way does not require it.  There is no cost to following Jesus, because, after all, ‘Jesus paid it all.’

But while Jesus can be said to have paid it all in terms of the wages of sin, he most certainly did not call us to lives of ease.  He calls us to lives of surrender and sacrifice.  He calls us to ‘take up our crosses and follow him’ (Matthew 16:24).  He calls us to imitate him (Luke 6:40).  He tells us that ‘in this world you will have trouble, but take heart, for I have overcome the world’ (John 16:33).  He calls us to, as Wickham sings, bless those who curse us, forgive those who hurt us, love those who hate us, embrace those who strike us, and, yes, to even die rather than become violent ourselves, knowing that the worst thing the world can ever do to us will only bring about our own resurrection (‘if you kill me, my home is heaven’).  In short, no matter what the world does to us, our call is to love as Jesus loved, even to love our enemies to the point of death. 

This is a hard teaching, and it is no wonder few can accept it.  But it is the 100% Gospel truth.  When we ignore it, we get pretty much the Christian landscape we see before us in our present moment of American history.  Once people decide, ‘Jesus died so I don’t have to,’ a shift takes place in their minds.  If the goal of the Christian life is to stay alive, rather than give your life away, than it becomes easy to hate your enemy instead of loving them.  It becomes easy to join the chorus of demagoguery, scapegoating, war, and violence.  The goal, after all, is self-preservation and life the way you want it.  And so, if someone threatens you or your way of life, even a little, you have every right to curse them, demean them, dehumanize them, propose violence against them, even perpetrate that violence yourself. You no longer have to turn the other cheek when struck. Instead, you strike back as hard as you can even before you have been struck. ‘Do it to them before they do it to us,’ as Robert Prosky’s character on Hill Street Blues used to say.  As a member of Congress put it not too long ago, ‘Jesus could have avoided crucifixion if he’d had an AR-15.’  Remember: Jesus died so you don’t have to. So, while Jesus didn’t have one, maybe you should.

It’s utter blasphemy.  Jesus didn’t die so that we don’t have to.  He died to show us how to live.

The Jesus Way was never supposed to be easy, and it is a sin that we have made it so.  Bonhoeffer wrote, ‘the path of discipleship is unutterably hard,’ and that it is.  ‘To confess and testify to the truth of Jesus,’ he wrote, ‘and at the same time to love the enemies of the truth, his enemies and ours, and to love them with the infinite love of Jesus Christ, is indeed a narrow way.  To believe the promise of Jesus that his followers will possess the earth, and at the same time to face our enemies unarmed and defenseless, preferring to incur injustice rather than do wrong ourselves, is indeed a narrow way.’  But it is the way to which we have been called.    In the early church, it was common for new disciples to be asked, as they joined the community, whether they were willing to die for Jesus.  I don’t suppose that would be considered good marketing these days.  But the hard truth is that until a person becomes willing to give up their life for Jesus and his way, they aren’t really following him.  He said it himself: you cannot be his disciple unless you are willing to take up your cross. 

I don’t mean to make myself sound like a brave saint.  In all honesty, I get nervous writing like this.  I do not seek martyrdom.  But the path of discipleship does, for some, require it.  And I, like anyone who desires to follow Jesus, must accept this.  We cannot meet curses with more curses, hurt with more hurt, hate with more hate, violence with more violence.  We face the world armed only with the weapons of prayer and unlimited love.  As Athanasius of Alexandria said in the 4th Century AD, ‘Christians, instead of arming themselves with swords, extend their hands in prayer.’ 

Mr. Wickham, you have thrown down the gauntlet, and for that I thank you.  You have challenged the Church, you have challenged me, to commit once again to the call of Jesus.  And so, begging your pardon for using your words once more, I end with this:

I choose surrender

I choose to love

Oh, God my Savior,

You’ll always be enough

I choose forgiveness

I choose grace

I choose to worship

No matter what I face

I follow Jesus

I follow Jesus

He wore my sin, I’ll gladly wear his name

He is the treasure

He is the answer

Oh, I choose the Jesus way

I hope all reading this do too. 

Under Christ’s Mercy,

Brent

A Non-Military Solution

‘I never saw no military solution that didn’t always end up as something worse’

– Sting, from the song, If I Ever Lose My Faith in You

A week or so ago, two plus weeks into the Russian invasion of Ukraine, I was listening to one of my favorite podcasts.  The hosts are Christians for whom I have the deepest respect.  But I became troubled as they began recounting with pride the violent resistance being offered by Ukrainians.  Please don’t get me wrong.  What Putin and his armies are doing is evil.  They are the aggressors, the Ukrainians the victims, and her resisters have shown remarkable courage over the past several weeks.  Outmanned and outgunned, they have stood against overwhelming odds.  I take nothing away from them in the bravery department.  Moreover, I get why they are fighting back.  No one wants to see their land, their homes, their national and cultural identity stolen from them.  I understand the Ukrainian willingness to fight, the courage being displayed as they do so, and the natural response, even among Christians, to cheer them on. 

But here’s the thing, Jesus told us not to. 

I’ve written frequently about Jesus’ position on violence (e.g., check out my previous post on Ukraine).  Suffice it to say he was against it.  He commanded his followers to love their enemies.  To turn the other cheek.  To offer up creative nonviolent protest, as opposed to violent resistance, in the face of evil.  When the powers came for him in Gethsemane, he refrained from calling on the angels of heaven (something he specifically said he could do) and commanded Simon Peter to put away his sword, adding, ‘anyone who lives by the sword will die by the sword’ (Matthew 26:52).  At the cross, he really put his money where his mouth was by praying for, as opposed to fighting, his enemies, choosing to love them to the end (and, I might add, winning a couple of them over). Later, after his Resurrection and Ascension (ahem, proof of the wisdom of his approach), he revealed to his disciple John the importance of following the peaceable way of the Lamb rather than the violent way of the dragon (See, generally Revelation).  And his disciples, Simon Peter included, threw away their swords forever, forsaking them to pursue the Gospel of peace. 

So why would Christians advocate for violent resistance against the Russians?  And why are so many seemingly chomping at the bit, increasingly with each passing day, to adopt policies that will only escalate the violence? 

Well, again, I kind of get why.  The atrocities we are witnessing are horrifying.  It is callous, even cruel, to sit by and do nothing.  That does not, however, mean that doing something requires violence.  There are other options that do not require the sword.    

In fact (again, see my previous post), many Ukrainians have been living out those other options.  They have prayed and sang hymns.  They have resisted nonviolently.  They have stood in the way of tanks and made them turn around.  They have blocked streets with cranes and cement blocks.  They have removed street signs to confuse Russian troops.  They have shown comfort and mercy to Russian soldiers.  They have demonstrated their dignity and humanity to the oppressor.  They have provided witness to the very sort of creative, nonviolent resistance that Jesus encouraged his disciples to engage in.  The kind that, believe it or not, has worked repeatedly in history.  In Gandhi’s movement for independence in India.  In the candlelight vigils and non-violent protests that removed the Iron Curtain in Eastern Europe.  In the actions of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and his allies during the American Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 60s.  In the 2004 Orange Revolution in…wait for it, Ukraine!

So why aren’t we talking about that?  Why are we not telling those inspiring tales? Why are we not talking about mobilizing a sustained non-violent effort against the Russian invaders? 

The hard fact is that Putin and his forces are hell bent on taking Ukraine, and a martial response will gain nothing but death (as Edwin Starr sang, ‘war ain’t nothin’ but a heartbreaker/friend only to the undertaker’).  People cheered in the days prior to the invasion as Ukraine armed grandmothers and children.  Now grandmothers and children are dying.  There is no viable military solution here.  Strike back at Putin and the Russians, and they fire more bullets and drop more bombs.  Get NATO involved, and there will be a broader war with even more bombs.  Some of which may be nukes.  I repeat: there is no viable military solution here, no way to take up the sword, that doesn’t both result in increased casualties (both military and civilian) and threaten a regional, perhaps even global, war the likes of which we have never seen.  We may be able to understand why people would take up arms against an invader, but in the final analysis Jesus was right: those who take up the sword die by the sword even as they kill their enemies.  Violence begets violence. 

And here’s the bottom line for followers of Jesus (I presume most reading this post are): even if there were a viable military solution, that solution would be off limits for us.  We can neither pursue nor champion such a solution, for we belong to the Kingdom of the Lamb.  We must, instead, pursue and champion the long hard path of creative, nonviolent resistance.

That is our only option.  Not to fight, but to love.  Not to strike, but to pray.  To wage war not as the world does, but as Christ has (See, 2 Corinthians 10:4). 

Again, I understand why Christians are enthralled by the Ukrainian stand and why they want to do something to help.  But all Christians, both those in Ukraine and elsewhere, must remember who they are.  They, that is, we, must remain true to the Gospel call to creative nonviolent resistance and lift up such means as an alternative to war.

For that, as hard as it may be, is the way of Jesus. 

Under Christ’s Mercy,

Brent

Give Peace a Chance

‘We prepare for war, and we get it’ – Stanley Hauerwas

Over a month has passed since the Kabul bombing that took place as American forces withdrew from Afghanistan.  169 Afghani’s died in the attack, as well as 13 American service members.  It was an emblematic, if horrific, exclamation point to a mostly neglected twenty-year war.  President Biden responded as national leaders often do in such circumstances, promising swift and decisive retaliation.[1]  While many cheered, my immediate thought was: ‘have we learned anything?’

Retaliation is what got us into the mess in Afghanistan in the first place. If you were alive at the time, you certainly remember 9/11.  It was a day that is impossible to forget.  I remember it well, as I do the rush to retaliation that took place in its wake.  In Congress, only one member of the House of Representatives counseled forbearance, and was viciously attacked for doing so.  Even in the Church, the desire to strike back, to get even, ran high.  ‘An eye for an eye’ was the typical response of Americans, including American Christians, in those days.  It seemed so right to so many. 

Twenty years later, some at least are reconsidering.  America has pulled out of Afghanistan.  The war is lost, the Taliban back in control, and the Afghani people once again face a bleak and oppressive future.  The futility of the ‘war on terror’ is more apparent than ever.  The world isn’t any safer now than it was on September 11, 2001.  Indeed, one could make a convincing argument that America, and the global community, is less safe.  One could even argue that the desire for retaliation and revenge has fueled movements of hate right here at home; movements that threaten the very existence of the American experiment.  Our lust for retaliation didn’t, after all, help us in the wake of 9/11; and folks, it isn’t going to help us now.  

It certainly didn’t help in the aftermath of the airport bombing.  America delivered on Biden’s promise with a drone strike aimed at what was believed to be a car bomb.  It was not.  It was the car of an aide worker, Zemarey Ahmadi, who was trying to get his family out of Afghanistan before the Taliban took control.  The strike killed 10 civilians, including Zemarey and seven children (four boys and three girls) aged 2-10 years old.  Their names, if anyone cares to know, were Faisel, Farzad, Binyamin, Armin, Haya, Sumaya, and Malika.  Retaliation, in both the case of 9/11 and in the case of the Kabul airport bombing, didn’t exactly deliver what it promised, did it? 

There simply has to be a better way. 

Two Sundays ago, I preached on Jesus words in Matthew 5:38-42.  It’s a passage about nonretaliation.  Instead of striking back at your enemies, Jesus teaches, his followers are to, ‘turn the other cheek,’ ‘hand over their cloaks,’ and ‘go the extra mile.’  I won’t spend time fully exegeting those examples here (you can listen to the sermon on the Facebook page of the First Baptist Church of Collingswood; it includes an exploration of how we might have responded nonviolently to 9/11), but essentially, Jesus was telling his disciples and would-be disciples that when wronged, even egregiously so, they should respond, not by retaliating in kind, but by employing nonviolent strategies that assert one’s dignity, surprise and disarm evil, witness to the way of the kingdom, and extend the possibility of friendship.  Rejecting the notion of an eye for an eye, Jesus called his followers to seek more creative solutions to the problem of evil.  Jesus understood what Gandhi would say many centuries later as he himself creatively employed Jesus’ strategy, that ‘an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.’

Alas, most of the world scoffs at such advice. 

I recently read an article about the National Peace Museum in Washington D.C.  Never heard of it?  Well, that’s because it doesn’t exist.  Originally chartered in 1984 as an extension of the U.S. Institute of Peace, it was to have borne witness to the possibility of creative peacemaking and peacebuilding.  It would have championed the efforts of those who had, whether they realized it or not, heeded the advice of Jesus; those who sought, and often found, creative and nonviolent solutions to seemingly intractable problems.  Sadly, to this day, the museum remains but a dream.  It has never received the needed funding or support from the United States government. 

Big surprise.    

Wendell Berry, in his essay, The Failure of War, offers words that help explain why such a museum has never come to be.  Berry writes:

‘Our century of war, militarism, and political terror has produced great – and successful – advocates of true peace, among whom Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr., are the paramount examples.  The considerable success that they achieved testifies to the presence, in the midst of violence, of an authentic and powerful desire for peace and, more important, of the proven will to make the necessary sacrifices.  But so far as our government is concerned, these men and their great and authenticating accomplishments might as well never have existed.  To achieve peace by peaceable means is not yet our goal.  We cling to the hopeless paradox of making peace by making war.’

Tragically, Berry is right.  Our government clings to such a hopeless paradox.  I suppose we can’t expect them to change overnight, but certainly among the followers of Jesus, it should be different.  Jesus’ disciples should respond to evil with creativity and generosity, and in so doing, provide witness to another way.  We should advocate for creative, nonviolent responses that encourage even the government in the direction of peace.  Perhaps we will never fully persuade those whose default response is to wield the sword, but we might get them to at take a few positive steps in the direction of peacemaking, and exchange at least some of their swords for plowshares. 

I hope America eventually builds that peace museum.  I hope that more people come to understand the power of creative nonviolence.  I hope that more people discover the creative way of Jesus. 

And I hope that the next time a terrible attack happens, at home or abroad, Christians might, whatever else the government may do, consider spreading love instead of bombs.  That instead of rushing to support a policy of retaliation in kind, as many did in the wake of 9/11, we might, as the old song goes, give peace a chance. 

Under Christ’s Mercy,

Brent

[1] In the aftermath of the attack, the President further invoked the words of the prophet Isaiah, ‘Here am I, send me,’ and applied them to the soldiers of the United States military.  While one can admire the bravery of those who put their lives on the line for others, the comparison is extremely dangerous, as it advances an insidious Christian Nationalist theology that equates military action with the work of the Kingdom of God.  But that’s for another post.