Category Archives: Conflict and Nonviolence
how does God’s kingdom relate to ruling powers?
How should Christians relate to ruling powers?
Depending on your interpretation of different sections of the Bible you might say the different authors push for:
- Submission (the conclusion many people come to when reading Romans 13, for example, or perhaps Ezra-Nehemiah)
- Prophetic critique and nonviolent resistance (as found in much of the prophetic literature or Revelation)
- A middle option
- A blend
But what are we meant to do in our contemporary world as Christians? Should we simply do what we understand early Christians to have done in relation to ruling powers?
That is to say, how do we anticipate God’s transformative kingdom on earth, now, in the midst of a world of ruling powers that very often act contrary to God’s purposes? Read the rest of this entry
old testament violence: is God really genocidal?
On this blog I have written a good number of posts on violence in the Bible, arguing for a robust theology and practice of nonviolence based primarily on the ethics of Jesus.
The number one question I have received in response to these posts has been, “But what about violence in the Old Testament?”
This is an important question, for it is not simply about whether the Bible advocates violence – it is about whether or not God himself is violent. Read the rest of this entry
luke 22:36 & self-defence: did jesus teach us to buy swords?
35 And he said to them, ”When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?” They said, “Nothing.” 36 He said to them, ”But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. 37 For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ’And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.” 38 And they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” And he said to them, ”It is enough.” (Luke 22:35-38)
Recently I conversed with a friend who, speaking about violence, defended their acceptance of violent self-defence by referencing Luke 22:36. Here Jesus seems to tell his disciples to buy swords for the purpose of protection.
The problem with this kind of interpretation is that it perpetuates an all-too-common method of Bible reading whereby verses are unapologetically ripped from their narrative context. The understanding of Luke 22:36 as a text that advocates any form of violence is a good example. Let’s look at the text… Read the rest of this entry
Q&R: jesus and violence in the book of revelation
A life.remixed reader writes (in the comments section of my post Who Would Jesus Whip?):
Hey Matt,
Thanks for this post. I’ve really enjoyed reading your blog and appreciate your perspective on a number of issues, particularly this one, as your view is quite different to mine.
My question (not a trick one I should point out) is how you reconcile the image of the non-violent Jesus of the Gospels with the recurrently violent image of Him portrayed in Revelation?
Here is an example of what I’m talking about…Revelation 19:11
“I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and wages war.” (NIV)My point is that if Jesus’ character is one of non-violent resistance, must that not consistently be His character throughout the ages? Are you arguing that He is specifically calling us to model His non-violent attitude demonstrated in the Gospels but ignore (or at least disregard for the moment) His violent responses in other parts of the Bible (in a Deuteronomy 32:35 sense)?
This certainly gets back to your point about what constitutes violence. I definitely read a correlation between Jesus’ violence and His perfect justice…an aspect that we certainly lack.
This may be a subject for another post, but would love to know your thoughts. Read the rest of this entry
who would jesus whip? the temple cleansing episode
A recent conversation with a good friend left us in square disagreement about the validity of violence for Christians.
My perspective, which I have frequently made known on this blog, was that violence was out of the question for Christians. Indeed, even if one were to accept that God commanded violence in the Old Testament (most do, I am not so sure…), we must take seriously Jesus’ words in Matthew 5:38-39a:
You have heard that it was said, ’An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not (violently*) resist the one who is evil.
My friend responded by stating that he thought Jesus was violent; in the story of the cleansing of the temple Jesus seems to act violently when he fashions a whip, which is unique to John’s version: Read the rest of this entry
mark, the cross & the spiral of violence
Occasionally a quote is worth posting. This is one of those times.
In reference to Mark’s Gospel and its rhetoric toward contemporaneous rebels who violently faced off against Rome in the Jewish-Roman war of 66-70CE, Ched Myers writes:
Yes, says Mark to the rebels, our movement stands with you in your resistance to Rome; after all, our leader was crucified between two of your compatriots (15:27). Our nonviolent resistance demands no less of us than does your guerilla war ask of you – to reckon with death. But we ask something more: a heroism of the cross, not the sword. We cannot beat the strong man at his own game. We must attack his very foundations: we must render his presumed lordship over our lives impotent. You consider the cross a sign of defeat. We take it up “as a witness against them,” a witness to the revolutionary power of nonviolent resistance (13:9b). Join us therefore in our struggle to put an end to the spiral of violence and oppression, that Yahweh’s reign may truly dawn (9:1). (Binding the Strong Man, 2008: 431)
Indeed, if “Satan cannot cast out Satan,” and darkness cannot cast out darkness, how can violence cast out violence? Read the rest of this entry
Q&R – bin laden and just war
A reader of life.remixed writes:
Hey Matt,
I was talking to a Christian guy yesterday about the killing of Bin Laden. He was saying that he believes governments are put into power by God, and so are given authority to protect/defend their nation in such a way as America did with Osama. His main argument came down to this – it is ok for soldiers to kill other soldiers in a war, as they are both willing participants and are therefore not innocent victims. What are your thoughts on that point? Is there ever a ‘just war’? He cited the war in Lebanon as support, saying that had the Christians not fought against the Muslim groups, Lebanon would now be under Sharia Law. From reading your blog [referring to this post - MCA] I think that I take a similar stance to you, but I am interested how you would respond to that argument.
Great question! I have dealt with this question somewhat in my post and review of Brian Walsh’s work – Remixing Romans 13.
To expand on that post I would want to challenge the idea that a government is ordained by God and therefore can kill; this conclusion somewhat defies logic: Read the rest of this entry
remixing romans 13: overcoming imperial zombification
1Let 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. 2Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3For 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, 4for 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. 5Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7 Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.
Following the assassination of Osama bin Laden, and my subsequent reflections, I was confronted with numerous comments and questions regarding the above passage from Romans 13. One friend commented that, in light of this passage, he thought armed intervention was completely within the scope of government as taught the New Testament.
What I offer here is not a criticism of my friends, but a challenge to the way we read passages like Romans 13. Read the rest of this entry
maher: if you rejoice in revenge, torture and war… you’re not a christian
Sometimes Christians need to pay attention to the prophetic voices outside the Church…
Bill Maher: If You Celebrated Bin Laden’s Death, You’re Not Really a Christian
Make sure to watch the clip at the end of the post, which should confront the Western Church’s collusion with empire.
MCA
nonviolence wins
India’s government ordered up strong anti-corruption legislation on Saturday after a 73-year-old activist went on a four-day hunger strike and inspired a nationwide protest movement against graft.
I know this is a month old, but since nonviolence has been a major theme on this blog in recent weeks, I thought I would post it since most people would not have had a chance to hear about it.
In India, 73-year-old Anna Hazare began a hunger strike aimed at seeing government anti-corruption legislation passed. more details can be found below:
Hunger Strike Focuses Anger on Indian Corruption
Activist Ends Fast as India Pledges to Fight Graft
Hazare’s campaign has garnered support from all over India and the world:
Beautiful.
Powerful.
MCA
