What is the problem here? Christians are supposed to be peacemakers, yet some of the worst atrocities of recent history have been committed by self-proclaimed Christians. The problem, I suggest, is that believers have based their identity more in their national, ethnic, or socio-political status than in their calling as members of Christ’s Kingdom.

“My kingdom is not of this world,” Jesus said to Pilate before being sentenced to crucifixion (John 18:36). If it were, Jesus continues, “my servants would fight.” The Jews were expecting and hoping for a military messiah to save them from an oppressive and tyrannical empire. But the kingdom of Jesus was not so worldly; rather, Christ’s kingdom would be one that did not employ violence, not even to protect the life of Jesus himself. When Peter stuck a guard in Gethsemane, Jesus healed the guard and told Peter to put his sword away. And we know Jesus was doing more than just protecting the necessity of his death, for he also gave Peter a principle: “All who take the sword shall perish by the sword” (Matt.26:52). Can there be a more justified reason to commit violence than to defend the life of our Savior?

Paul’s message in Romans 12 concurs with this thrust of the Kingdom. “Bless those who persecute you,” he says in verse 14. “Repay no one evil for evil,” and always seek to “live peaceably with all” (v. 18). “Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God” (v. 19).

Rather than repay evil with evil, Jesus commands us not to “resist the one who is evil” (Matt. 5:39). The word for “resist” here refers to two armies meeting in battle, so in essence Jesus is saying to refrain from fighting against the evildoer. “But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” To be slapped on the right cheek implies the aggressor is striking with the back of his hand, a sign of degradation in Jewish culture. Rather than partaking in the aggressor’s violence, Jesus prescribes us not to flee but to lovingly and firmly offer the other cheek to be struck by the aggressor’s palm—if he strikes again, he will strike us as our equal. In this way, Jesus teaches both suffering love for enemies and defense of human dignity against injustice.

“Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good,” Paul says in Romans 12:21, contrasting the church with the state, for which, he says in the following chapter, God has a different purpose. And Jesus tells us, “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you” (Luke 6:27-28).

What of the instance when Jesus proclaimed he came not to bring peace but a sword? Read in context, of course, “sword” in this verse (Matt. 10:34) refers not to literal use of the sword but division between those respond to the gospel in different ways. And what of the temple incident in which Jesus overturned tables? First, there is no reference to Jesus committing violence against another person in this story, and second, Jesus’s actions here must be understood as prophetic symbolism, not a prescription for violent behavior.

The various kingdoms of the world respond to problems with force, building up expansive militaries to defend themselves or promote their interests. The militaries of this world exist to defend one country or one cause through violence, and each of their members work to serve that purpose. Enemies, to kingdoms of this world, are not to be loved and blessed but dissociated and defeated. Many well-intentioned Christians in the United States have been seduced by the security and national supremacy afforded by militarism. It is even commonplace for Christians to join the military and serve in the infantry without questioning the morality of their decision. I submit that this convention is the result of our national identity overriding our calling as followers of Christ.

Christ’s kingdom, unlike any nation or government, is not of this world. Through the renewal of our minds, Jesus calls us to leave behind our old ways and join an otherworldly kingdom of love and peace, no matter what the personal cost might be.

We are first, foremost, and forever Christians, not Americans. If Christians held to this principle, their political views would be consistent with their faith. But the case nowadays, at least in terms of war and foreign policy, seems to be that there is a double standard in the Christian mindset—one for their religious views and another for their political views. It is most American Christians’ personal conviction that Jesus’s teachings about turning the other cheek, loving one’s enemies, doing good to those who harm us, and peacemaking apply to their personal lives but not to their government or to society as a whole. (Interestingly, this is not the case with most other moral beliefs, such as those on abortion, the definition of marriage, or legalization of drugs—many Christians want these moral issues to apply not only to them but also to government and society as a whole.)

The first issue to settle is whether this double standard—one for personal life and another for public or societal life—is appropriate to have in our mindsets. Jesus did not seem to make any distinction. For example, when summing up the Golden Rule, he says, “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you” (Matt. 7:12). This is all that is said about the matter—no exceptions. Also, when speaking of love for enemies, Jesus speaks in broad terms: “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven” (Matt. 5:43-45).

Finally, when discussing money and treasure in heaven, Jesus says that “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other” (Matt. 6:24). I believe this principle applies also to the double standard between personal and political views. Right and wrong are not so relative that a single action in the same circumstances can be both right or wrong depending on a person’s profession or social status. That extends even to government employees and their policies. There is only one standard of right and wrong, and it applies to everyone equally.

Aggression

It is immoral for any person to aggress against another, even if the aggressor has good evidence that the other wishes to do him harm. As Murray Rothbard put it, ‎”No one may threaten or commit violence (‘aggress’) against another man’s person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor.” This is what is called the non-aggression principle, and if everyone stuck to it, there would be no aggression or violence.

I firmly believe in the non-aggression principle, but Jesus went further: “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles” (Matt. 5:38). The Greek word for “resist” here does not have the broad connotations that the English word has; we know that because he immediately proscribes a few ways to resist one’s enemies, only non-aggressive ones. It refers to the resistance one army gives another on the battlefield, when both ranks meet. It implies returning violence for violence, harm for harm—”fighting fire with fire.”

The alternative Jesus offers is not complete passiveness or allowing the enemy to harm and depreciate you. Rather, it is what has often been called “creative disarmament.” Do not stand for your enemy’s attempt to depreciate and devalue you; rather, creatively disarm your enemy by standing up for yourself in a way that exhibits his or her cruelty and injustice. To be slapped on the right cheek by a left hand is an act of shaming, so to offer the other is to communicate that you will not flee your enemy—you love him/her too much for that. Rather, you stand up to your enemy and communicate that if he/she wishes to hit you again, he/she will hit you as your equal. This is meant to put on palpable display the aggressor’s maliciousness take him/her so aback as to stun and disarm them.

While the non-aggression principle allows for violent retaliation to an act of aggression, Jesus proscribes a different formula: when aggressed against, creatively disarm your enemy through nonviolent means so as to preserve your enemy’s as well as your own dignity.

War

How could a soldier on the battlefield “creatively disarm” his enemy through nonviolent means? Isn’t this where Jesus’s teachings obviously break down and a different principle must be lived? If we reject the double standard, which I believe we must, then we as Christians must seek an alternative to war.

Jesus tells us to love our enemies so “that you may be children of your Father in heaven” (Matt. 5:45). It is simple cause and effect—cause: love your enemies; effect: become children of Father God. Notice now what else does Jesus say makes you a child of God? In the Beatitudes, Jesus says: “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God” (Matt. 5:9). Perhaps the connection is this: to love your enemies is to make peace with them, and to make peace with your enemies is to love them. Love your enemies by making peace with them, and you will be called sons and daughters of your Father in heaven.

Work in Progress

This is where most Americans, Christian or not, give up. There is simply no way our soldiers could make peace with their enemies on the battlefield. And what are we to do about terrorists? When al-Qaeda flies planes into the twin towers, should we turn the other cheek and offer them the Empire State Building as well?

Well, cannot transform the world all at once. We cannot transform even our country or our militarism or our foreign policy all at once. What is more important is to acknowledge that the global Church body is to embody Christ on Earth, following his teachings and example. What is more important than transforming the world is renewing our own hearts and minds (Rom. 12:2). Acknowledging that the kingdom of God is a work in progress and we cannot make it come all at once, we as the Church body still ought to work and pursue peace in every way we can.

That may mean renewing our loyalty to the kingdom of God and letting our nationalism and American exceptionalism fade. It may mean supporting global efforts to work toward peace, such as the Christian Peacemaker Teams. But it most definitely means reevaluating our values and priorities when it comes to willingness to go to war. We cannot let our American identity best our Christian convictions, including those about Jesus’s teachings on loving our enemies. We have no excuse to hate America’s national enemies any more than we do our personal enemies. They are all human beings made in the image of God, persons for whom Christ died (1 Jn. 2:2). We ought to remember that our God does not delight in the death of anyone, especially the wicked (Ezek. 33:11). Perhaps that is why loving one’s enemies and making peace makes a person a child of God.

In the political sphere, this will mean seeking politicians who are reluctant to go to war, at the least. (It will be impossible, in today’s political climate, to find any political candidate with a decent chance of winning who opposes all war.) But it will not do for the politician to simply be against war. He or she must also have intelligent ideas about how to creatively disarm our national enemies through nonviolent means. This is what Christian “values voters” ought to look for, at least in terms of foreign policy stances, because as the body of Christ on Earth we are to be a light to the world in the same way Jesus was—through example, persuasion, and sacrifice, not violence or domination.

Some Objections

Some will still say that there are at least a few circumstances in which violent solutions to problems is justified. We will call the first one the “utilitarian argument.”

Utilitarian ethics asserts that those actions that are useful or beneficial to the majority, even if detrimental to the minority, are right. It is a type of consequentialism, which is the moral philosophy that the morality of an action is to be judged solely by its consequences. It is the philosophy that says the end justifies the means. Some Americans basically use a utilitarian argument to support war—that the US must go to war in order to prevent greater disaster or ruin. (The rhetoric is usually couched in preventive war theory terms, even though many wars the US has engaged in the past fifty years have been closer to bare aggression.) It seems to be a very self-centered and nationalistic utilitarianism, too—thinking: What action will produce the greatest benefit for our country?

It should be simple enough to point out that Scriptures nowhere teach or endorse a utilitarian ethical theory, but utilitarianism is so ensconced in the American mindset that it typically exists alongside biblical teachings in the American Christian worldview. Rather than trying to assess what the greatest benefit to the most people would be, Christians are simply to obey the teachings of Christ and Scripture, and to trust God that the results will be positive. Often times, we do not see the positives of obeying Christ’s teachings in this life, as when Christians went willingly to the Coliseum’s lions in the second century. But the positives will come, either after our sacrifice is spent or in heaven or both.

We as Christians are to think, How can I obey Jesus’s teachings and promote the kingdom He came to establish? We are never given a justification in Scripture to ask, How can I act to benefit the majority while minimizing the detriment to the minority (myself obviously being in the majority)?

A second objection to working toward peace is that a nation needs to protect its financial interests. Doesn’t a free country need to defend its trade routes? Doesn’t a wealthy country need to fight to preserve its current level of luxury?

The simple answer, if you have accepted everything else so far, is no.

It is immoral for any nation-state to use its military to defend its financial interests. That is a polite way of saying it is wrong for a nation to bomb or invade or impose sanctions on another nation for the end goal of acquiring or maintaining cheap resources. Some will argue that the military ought to be defending not only the people’s lives and liberties but also their way of life; if the people have built up a dependency on a certain resource—say, oil—the military ought to protect that dependence by winning more of it through aggression. The principle behind this notion is this: one may use violence against another in order to protect one’s business or personal interests. Who would subscribe to such an idea? No reputable or decent person would. Yet many reputable and decent people fall for this line of reasoning when it is applied to their nation. This is what it means for a nation to be “protecting its interests.”

A final objection is to cite Romans 13:1-7, in which Paul commands all to be subject to their governing authorities, who “do not bear the sword for no reason.” I explain my (and several biblical scholars’) interpretation of Romans 13 here.

In closing, it seems important to remember the general advice Paul gave to the Thessalonians: “You should mind your own business and work with your hands, just as we told you, so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders and so that you will not be dependent on anybody” (1 Thess. 4:11-12).

The Social Conservative view: Life begins at conception. The fetus inside a woman’s uterus may or may not be able to live on its own (with technological and medical assistance), but that does not matter. What matters is whether the fetus is by nature a human person or not. It is, of course, alive. So is an unfertilized egg, and so is any cell of the body. But a human fetus is by nature a human person, just as much as an Oak acorn is by nature an Oak tree—it contains the genetic code it will always have. From conception, a human fetus has the genetic code it will have its whole life, making it by nature a human person. From conception, the human fetus is biologically “under construction” and will remain growing and maturing for the rest of its life. The law ought to acknowledge this through a Constitutional amendment banning abortion.

The Kingdom view: A distinctly kingdom view of abortion seeks to promote the livelihood and well-being of every living creature, large and small, even at personal expense. Ultimately, there will be no violence against another living creature in God’s kingdom, and since the human fetus is a living creature, the people of God’s kingdom ought to work toward lessening all violence toward the unborn. That does not necessarily mean, however, that a monolithic law should enforce this prohibition of violence against the unborn. The mark of true religion is loving care for widows and orphans. Pro-lifers tend to emphasize the orphans of this scenario—the unborn whose mothers and fathers have already abandoned them. But the widows cannot be forgotten: many women who have unwanted pregnancies are left alone by their boyfriends, parents, and friends. The people of God’s kingdom must be willing to personally sacrifice to care for both orphans (the unborn) and widows (the mothers of unplanned children).

As Greg Boyd puts it, the kingdom view “focuses on manifesting the self-sacrificial love of God towards women with unwanted pregnancies and towards their unborn children.”

1. Non-aggression principle

Austrian economist and patron of libertarian thought Murray Rothbard defines the principle as this: ”No one may threaten or commit violence (‘aggress’) against another man’s person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory.”

The non-aggression principle fits well with the historic Christian justification for any war or use of violence. Just War Theory, in short, is a theory about what justifies war that originated with Augustine and has been the dominant view of war in the Church since then. It holds to seven core criteria for going to war (all quotations from Just War theorist Arthur Holmes):

JW-1: “Just cause. All aggression is condemned; only defensive war is legitimate.”

JW-2: “Just intention. The only legitimate intention is to secure a just peace for all involved. Neither revenge nor conquest nor economic gain nor ideological supremacy are justified.”

JW-3: “Last resort. War may only be entered upon when all negotiations and compromise have been tried and failed.”

JW-4: “Formal declaration. Since the use of military force is prerogative of governments, not of private individuals, a state of war must be officially declared by the highest authorities.”

JW-5: “Limited objectives. If the purpose is peace, then unconditional surrender or the destruction of a nation’s economic or political institutions is an unwarranted objective.”

JW6: “Proportionate means. The weaponry and force used should be limited to what is needed to repel the aggression and deter future attacks, that is to say secure a just peace. Total or unlimited war is ruled out.”

JW-7: “Noncombatant immunity. Since war is an official act of government, only those who are officially agents of government may fight, and individuals not actively contributing to the conflict (including POW’s and casualties as well as civilian nonparticipants) should be immune from attack.”

The purpose of just war theory is to work toward just peace, and to do so in a just manner. If no one nation aggresses against another, no wars will be conducted and peace will be the prevailing policy. In my opinion, Just War theory suffers for just this reason, as we simply do not live in a world where human aggression is liable to reduce down to complete peace.

Because of the ever present reality of human sin, there will always be aggression. That means that we as Christians (who are to embody Christ on Earth) have to deal with aggression, one way or another. Are we to respond to it in a nonviolent manner that may result in personal sacrifice or even death? Or are we to respond to it with calculated violence/war in order to prevent greater violence and destruction? I believe the proper response of the Church is to reject all violence and to love our enemies, regardless of whether that means the violence will be turned on us. Christians ought to be a light to a dark world, to move past the old and sinful ways of man to a new humanity, and to use example and persuasion as a means of influencing our enemies (or anyone) rather than force.

Ultimately, Christians are called to a nonviolent struggle against evil, one in which we would rather take on suffering ourselves than inflict suffering in others. But a fair first step toward reaching this goal in our present reality is to behave within Just War guidelines.

The non-aggression principle speaks not only about war, but about every public policy. It ought to be a value of each individual in a free society. No individual or group of individuals has the right to aggress against another in a society that adheres to the non-aggression principle. Even if a person is acting in a way of which another disapproves, neither have the right to intrude upon the other and force the other to adhere to a certain moral code. As long as no one’s rights or liberties are being violated, people ought to be free to behave in whatever way they so choose.

This would mean that, in the case of drugs, people would be free to use whatever substances, medicines, or herbs they wanted, as long as their drug use does not encroach upon another’s freedom or rights. Many well-intentioned people decry this idea, saying that the freedom to live and consume in such self-depreciating and harmful ways should not exist; there ought to be laws, these well-intentioned moralists say, that prohibit people from harming themselves with dangerous and addictive drugs.

By this mindset, we also ought to outlaw alcohol, tobacco products, fattening foods, and sugary caffeine drinks, to name only a few examples that are now legal. Studies show that these things can be addictive and harmful as well, but they remain legal. Why? Because in a free society, people ought to have the freedom to choose the things they consume, and each individual ought to be the primary governor of his own well-being.

The same argument applies to other addictive products and substances. Even cocaine and heroin, you ask? If we are to be consistent with ourselves, then yes. Or we can be consistent in going the other direction, wherein the government not only outlaws coffee and fattening fast food and anything else that can be addictive or harmful but also places each of us on strict diets. If we wish to remain consistent in our philosophies in this matter, we need to choose between self-governance and total government control.

The consistence argument is one way to approach this. There is also the utilitarian argument—that is, which one would produce a better result? There is a significant utilitarian argument for freedom in this matter, and it is twofold. First, if cocaine, heroin, meth, and other harmful drugs were legal, there would be more openness and education about their use. With a broader education of the public about these drugs, the overall usage would decline in the long run. Second, ending the war on drugs would immediately seize power from drug cartels and dealers, who are often involved in violence and gang-related activity. When drugs are illegal, the profit from selling them is driven up. Thus, drug cartels/dealers have a huge incentive to stay in their shady business. If there’s anything to be learned from capitalism, it is that people respond to incentives. What would happen to drug cartels/dealers if that incentive were to be removed?

Applied to the issue of gay (or any other kind of) marriage, the non-aggression principle states it is improper for one group to force upon another group their definition of marriage. Originally, the requirement of a state license to marry was anti-Christian. It was first implemented after the French Revolution, when the state wanted to claim authority over as many sectors of society as possible. The Church’s reaction to this was violently negative, as the Church was being stripped of its historic power to legitimize marriage: now that power was being usurped by the state.

Now, the Church in America behaves as if the God-given role of the state is to define and enforce a certain definition of marriage, not realizing the Church is left more impotent because of this policy.

The argument against a federal law or Constitutional amendment defining marriage is twofold: first, the non-aggression principle (not to mention Jesus’s Golden Rule as well as the Second Great Commandment) prohibits one group forcing their definition and rules of marriage upon any other group; second, a federal law about marriage takes all but ceremonial power away from the church and gives it to the central government to be bureaucratized.

2. Individualism

There are several types of individualism which may come to mind when thinking about this word. The individualism I am referring to here is not a self-centered attitude but rather a worldview which states that one’s rights and dignity originate from one’s humanity. An individual’s membership in the human race is the keystone of his prerogatives and liberties and worth.

These things do not arrive at the individual through membership in a sub-group within humanity such as race or gender. They do not arrive in the individual through work or some process. They do not arrive in the individual through wealth, power, or status. They simply emanate from a person’s humanity. (This is why even a fetus in a woman’s uterus, which is by nature human, deserves the same acknowledgement of rights as the rest of us.)

Notice how similar this idea that rights, liberties, and worth come from the individual is with the biblical notion of the image of God. Each human being is made in the image of God, and it is the human’s status as image-bearer that gives him worth, dignity, and liberties. Moreover, sin taints our status as image-bearers (though cannot eliminate it), but Christ has come to set us free once again. Those whom Christ sets free are free indeed.

3. Skepticism about power

Power corrupts, as the ancient truism goes. Within human nature is a propensity, even an inclination, toward giving in to the temptation to abuse one’s power and to use it for self-gain to the detriment of those underneath. Since this is a fact of human nature, it will appear in any social system, especially ones in which a certain sector of society wields de facto power over the rest of society.

This is what government is. Government is that sector of a given society or region which possesses a monopoly on violence and theft, usually purporting to be serving the common good. Recall from individualism that a person’s rights originate not from his citizenship in a country but from his very humanity. If those rights originate in the individual, they are inalienable to the individual. That means no person or group has the legitimate standing to deprive or infringe on another’s rights, including government.

Long ago, the worry amongst the citizens of a given nation that their government did not have any legitimate authority to infringe upon their rights was quelled by the monarchial government’s assertion that their authority had been granted them by divine sanction. Beyond that, governments would simply incite fear into their citizens through violence or threat of violence to inspire obedience.

As the industrial revolution got underway in Europe and America, and as developing countries began being split into artificially defined borders by their colonial occupiers, governments began uniting their people through nationalism. In today’s world, most countries still run on this principle: governments unite the overall support of their people through nationalism and the perception that government officials have taken on the role of leading this nationalistic body.

Since government is the sector of any given society or region which holds a monopoly on violence and theft, politicians and government officials are likely to be those individuals in society who desire most strongly to assert their will onto others and personally hold the most power possible. People ought to have a healthy skepticism about politicians and government officials who appeal to our nationalistic urges and appear to be serving the common good. That is not to say that there are no honest, benevolent politicians, but simply that there is reason to suppose government attracts the most power hungry and ambitious individuals in society.

4. Civil Society (voluntary relationships/organizations)

Civil society simply means that each individual within a free society is committed to participate only in voluntary relationships, exchanges, and organizations. No one’s freedom of choice ought to be restricted unless they wish to infringe upon someone else’s rights. (Notice how the non-aggression principle pervades all aspects of this political philosophy.)

Moreover, the only legitimate interactions in a free society are those that are mutually voluntary. In my view, if a society legalizes involuntary interactions like governmental redistribution of wealth, that society is not only legitimizing the illegitimate but is also letting the moral character of the people as a whole decline. When a certain class or group of society forcefully takes from another class or group, the moral character of the people as a whole has obviously decline. When any individual or group is in need of assistance in a free society, the people ought to be generous and help them.

The role of churches and charities is magnified in a free society. Where the church was once a bastion of hope for the destitute and the sick, now it is a weekly club for the upper middle class. At least in most American and European churches, we are insulated from the troubles and needs of the world, giving a small fraction of our tithe funds to charities but the larger portion to finance bigger buildings and nicer facilities.

In our society, the church does not really need to participate in these things, as the demand for assistance has been outsourced by well-intentioned people to the government. But in a free society, a far heavier responsibility falls on the church to provide for the needs of their community in being a light to the world and acting as the earthly embodiment of Christ.

5. Decentralization is humanization

Many well-intentioned people would like their government to take care of them in various ways, or else to take care of the poverty-stricken and sick. I think this is mindset diminishes the proper role of the church in society, as I indicated above.

Besides, when care for the sick and the unfortunate is left up to the government, it ends up being federalized and bureaucratized. When this happens, those who need assistance, welfare, or healthcare end up being subservient to huge, centralized bureaucracies in a far off city. Individuals who need assistance may never even see the people who have helped them. Indeed, the system is set up such that people who need assistance are the liability of all taxpayers so that the needy have virtually no one to thank for the assistance they receive.

To the huge bureaucracies that manage them, those who need assistance are just a number, a file, or a form. The system is computerized for the sake of expedience, and each person in need of assistance is ultimately handled in documentary fragments by hundreds of government employees. It is an extremely dehumanizing process, and, in the end, people who need assistance may have their basic needs met, but their dignity has been stripped of them. There is virtually no one to thank for the assistance they receive, so eventually it becomes an entitlement in their minds. Since the looting of other individuals or groups has been blanketed over the whole of society rather than over a single individual or group, the assistance seems to come from the never-receding vaults of the government.

Once again, the decentralizing and privatizing of welfare and healthcare would drive the church to embody Christ on Earth, as we are always to do. In a free society, the demand for the church and charities to do something about people’s legitimate needs would necessitate more action and generosity from the average individual.

And if Jesus’s teachings and the vision of God’s Kingdom exclude violence as a means of dealing with issues and solving problems (either individually or collectively), then believers (people living in God’s Kingdom domain) must reject violence altogether and live as a totally nonviolent body. Moreover, as the “city on a hill,” the citizens of God’s Kingdom ought to be a voice in the world against violence and should promote peace to the best of their ability. There is a good case to be made that this is an overarching vision in the Bible, culminating in the teachings of Jesus and continuing in the New Testament.

So, if the State is by its nature the sector of a given society/region that exercises a monopoly of violence over its inhabitants, then the peaceful and nonviolent people of God’s Kingdom ought to, in some sense, reject the State.

In short,

1. God’s people are a totally nonviolent and peace-proclaiming body in the world.

2. The State is an essentially violent organization in society.

3. Believers ought to, in some sense, reject the State and promote an anarchistic alternative, for the “State” in the sense defined above will not exist in the fulfilled Kingdom of God.

1. Everyone has enemies.

From the beginning of creation, man has always had enemies. Adam had an enemy, which Genesis records as a very physical enemy in Satan (even though Satan influenced through temptation rather than violence). Abel had an enemy in his brother Cain who plotted against his life. Abraham had enemies. Moses had enemies. King David had enemies. The prophets had enemies. The early apostles had enemies. Paul of Tarsus had enemies, both Jew and Gentile. The early church had numerous enemies—very public, powerful, and hostile enemies. If having enemies weren’t a common element of human existence, Jesus would not have made it a point to include instructions on how to live with one’s enemies (Matt. 5:43-44).

2. The two natural reactions to enemies are fight or flee.

It s human nature to desire and promote one’s own survival and to do whatever one must to at least abate all threats to one’s survival. That is, our instinct is self-preservation.  Survival demands either fight or flight in the face of danger—destroy or submit, make war or surrender. But both of these responses are unhelpful. To flee is to submit oneself to degradation and abasement from one’s enemy, while to fight is to (at least attempt to) impose degradation and abasement onto one’s enemy. If we fight, we take on all the negative aspects of our enemy, and if we flee, we retain hatred or prejudice against our enemy inside our hearts. When we flee, the enemy “wins” (whatever that means, exactly) and proper relationship remains in disrepair. When we fight, we set off a downward spiral of attack and counterattack that can scarcely be controlled.

3. We want to curse our enemies.

It seems sometimes that every third psalm is a venting of rage against God’s (and the psalmist’s) enemies. He uttered curses against them, and detailed his request for God’s violent vengeance to rain upon them, desiring blood-thirsty revenge for himself. No one can condemn the psalmist(s) for these poetic cries to God, for everyone feels this way toward their enemies, if not always in such graphic detail. Praying these words, as did the psalmist, can be therapeutic; releasing our anger to God is not only permissible but also healthy. Better to be honest to God about one’s hostility than deceiving oneself until grudges and hatred have formed in one’s spirit. Giving these feelings to God, we can release all intentions to harm my neighbor by setting off or continuing in an endless chain of violence. God will protect us from our enemies (Psalms 55-59; 137:7-9).

4. God loves our enemies.

Fiction-writing teachers will tell you that every story’s antagonist is the protagonist of his own story. In other words, I may see another as my enemy, but it may be the case that he sees me as his enemy too. Perspective is subjective; in my eyes, “me and my own” are good and in the right, while my enemies are the “other,” that is, malevolent ones against “me and my own.” But God does not take sides in human squabbles—God’s on His own side, and what is important is that we are on God’s side. Jesus taught that God loves all our enemies and treats them justly: God “makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous” (Matt. 5:45), for God “is kind to the ungrateful and the evil” (Luke 6:35-36). Indeed, Christ died for our enemies (1 John 2:2).

5. Jesus makes peace possible.

During Jesus’s time on Earth, he did not only teach his disciples the way of peace, he became our peace. While we were the enemies of God, Jesus died to facilitate our reconciliation to God (Rom. 6:10). In order to bring peace between God and man, Jesus lives, teaches, and dies. While we were once “at war” with God, we are now renewed through God’s supernatural work in us (2 Cor. 6:17-20). Indeed, Christ himself is our peace (Eph. 2:14-17).

6. God’s family makes peace.

If our Father God makes peace with His enemies, then so do we His children. “Blessed are the peacemakers,” Jesus says, “for they will be called children of God” (Matt. 5:9). When looking at a family portrait of God and His people, the desire and active pursuit of peace ought to be a definitive trait. While all God’s children are unique, we all bear this in common: we at least try to make peace with our enemies. “But love your enemies,” says Jesus, “and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil.” To show self-giving love rather than animosity toward one’s enemies, seeking their well-being, is to become a son or daughter of God. “Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful” (Luke 6:35-36).

7. We can disarm our enemies through love.

Jesus’s answer to the problem of facing our enemies is to disarm them through both showing unqualified love to the enemy and standing up for one’s own dignity. “Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well” (Matt. 5:38-39). This is not radical abasement, at least not for the purpose of being taken advantage of. One turns the other cheek not so much to give the enemy another opportunity to degrade or insult, but to stand up to his injustice and hatred in a nonviolent way. It is an affirmation of one’s own dignity as a human being as well as a show of love for the enemy. To fight or flee would be less than loving responses to one’s enemy, for it shows one does not care about one’s enemy enough to be wounded or hurt for him. This nonviolent stance is the highest act of love a believer can show his enemy, and it is powerful enough to be disarming. It cleanly cuts through the downward spiral of violence—the blood feud—to communicate profound care for the well-being of the person. Jesus’s disciples pray for their enemies (Matt. 5:44).

8. Enemies can hurt us.

This is an obvious fact of life; many know this intuitively if not through painful experience. “Disarming through love” does not always guarantee that believers will win over their enemies. It is often the case that believers who practice Christ’s teachings on the nonviolent stance against enemies are persecuted and even killed. But followers of Jesus believe the beautiful hope and message of the kingdom is worth dying for; they are willing to sell their stewardship and status as siblings in God’s kingdom family for the sake of neither self-preservation nor self-aggrandizement. Believers are unwilling to compromise, for the blessings of the kingdom are greater than we can imagine (Matt. 5:3-11).

9. Believers face a “deeper” enemy than our human foes.

Christians are not fighting against flesh and blood, nor against communism, nor Hezbollah, nor Iran, nor the annoying person who chews their gum too loudly. Our fight is not a physical one at all—believers fight without shedding blood or aggressing against anyone. Believers fight against our deeper enemies—angels, rulers, things present, things to come, powers, anything in creation—but that does not involve violence or aggression against anyone or anything. Our fight involves only defense (Eph. 6:10-17).

10. Our enemies provide an invaluable means to display the principles of the kingdom Christ established.

The Jewish authors of the Old Testament held the belief that God would reign someday in the “age to come,” a time when God’s people are no longer scattered, nations no longer war, and all people may live in harmony with one another, with God, and with nature. Micah speaks of this day: “He shall judge many peoples, and shall decide for strong nations far away; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore” (Mic. 4:3). Christ announced that He is the “fulfillment” (or the beginning of the fulfillment) of this state. God’s reign—the blessed state of shalom—exists now to the degree that mankind follows Jesus and forsakes their old ways. As long as nations and peoples and individuals are bent on fighting (defeating) their enemies rather than pursuing peace and reconciliation with them, the kingdom of God is dormant in that regard, and its blessings are not experienced to their fullest extent possible.

Enemies provide believers with opportunities not only to “renew their minds” through following Jesus’s life and teachings, but they also give us an opportunity to display and pass on the blessings of God’s kingdom.

“The Prince of Peace is Jesus Christ. We who were formerly no people at all, Who knew of no peace, Are now called to be a church of peace, Their hearts overflow with peace. Their mouths speak peace, And they walk in the way of peace.” —Menno Simons, Anabaptist reformer, 1552

We, too, wonder when the kingdom of God will come. The trouble is, Jesus told the Pharisees once that the “kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed, nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you.” The phrase “in the midst of you” can also be translated “within your grasp.”

Within your grasp! Just as audacious, Luke’s gospel account records Jesus reading from the book of Isaiah, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” What Jesus is describing here from the book of Isaiah is the state of shalom. Shalom, for the writers of the Old Testament was a communal state of well-being, where everyone in the community enjoyed justice, righteousness, forgiveness, joy, abundance, healing, and, of course, God’s presence. It is a community where one’s freedom and dignity are affirmed and love is the common theme.

Jesus’s next statement is also significant: “Today, this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.” Jesus himself—everything he said and did on earth—represents the arrival of shalom. Jesus Christ marks the beginning of God’s kingdom on earth, and thus the beginning of the fulfillment of shalom. The good news is that the kingdom is here (right now!) and may be entered into (right now!)—that is, the kingdom is within our grasp. That means the kingdom exists now and is being carried out today!

The kingdom is here and available to be entered in more than an anticipatory way. The stature of the believer, then, should not be characterized primarily by waiting. When our attitude as believers is simply to wait for the kingdom to arrive, we tend to become lazy and conform to the culture around us. But the kingdom of God is not a nebulous section of society with certain religious beliefs as a common compartment of life. Neither is it the morals of middle America described with spiritual language.

Thus, the attitude of Biola believers should be one of wariness towards the pattern of waiting for the kingdom. The kingdom is within our grasp now, and thus we cannot afford to wait for God to feed the hungry, or to fight for the liberty of the oppressed, to eradicate grudges and hatred, racism and sexism, and all traces of their once-existence from our midst. These tasks are not supererogatory to the kingdom but integral to it. Being a member of the kingdom community means not only enjoying God in my own private way but also spreading, in tangible practice, the blessings of shalom to others.

Let’s face it: most of us here at Biola are relatively affluent, spiritually if not also financially. A special challenge exists for Biolans, then, who live in an environment that is insulated from the needy (physically, financially, emotionally, and spiritually) people of the world. Jesus’s command to “go into all the world” becomes all the more necessary to practice, because nothing less than the kingdom is at stake.

First, we may understand God’s relationship to humans in a familial way. That is, we may understand sin to be a lack of complete faithfulness to the expectations of one’s familial relationship with God. Here we may put humans in the place of children (albeit morally responsible) and God in the position of the Father.

In the familial paradigm, we may easily imagine a scenario in which a son wrongs a father by failing to meet the expectations of their relationship. Let’s say the son is genuinely repentant and the father recognizes this. It would seem appropriate at this time for the father to forgive the son without the need or requirement for punishment or reparations. Indeed, in this scenario, if the father was to withhold forgiveness until corresponding punishment or reparations are given, we might even see this as a fault on the part of the father. The implication for God’s relationship to humans seems clear: in the familial paradigm, God does not need to exact punishment or receive reparations from sinners in order to forgive them.

Second, we may understand God’s relationship to humans in a law-court paradigm. That is, we may understand sin as a failure to meet the expectations of God’s law. God is here the Great Moral Judge and humans are the defendants.

In the law-court paradigm, the defendant stands before the judge, whose goal is to uphold the law by determining if and how the defendant has failed to meet the expectations of the law and administering retribution or demanding reparations accordingly. It would be completely inappropriate for the judge to “simply forgive” a defendant deemed guilty. The implication for God’s relationship to humans is this: in the law-court paradigm, God cannot forgive sinners without punishment or reparations, for God is required by the moral law to uphold the law in this way.

What may be said, philosophically, about which paradigm to adopt? From Scripture, we know that God is loving; indeed, John says God is love (1 Jn. 4:8). Yet more often than His love, Scripture makes reference to God’s anger and wrath against sinners. The idea that His anger and wrath are manifested on account His love—that God wants to reconcile sinners to Himself through the threat or act of disciplinary action—may count towards the familial paradigm. Although it could be the case that the moral law, to which even God is subject, is intent on reconciliation between God and man.

So the question at hand is this: Which of the two paradigms above best describe God’s relationship to sinners? The crucial question to be answered in order to determine a solution to this problem, I think, is this: Does the fact that God justifiably holds humans MR, even deeply so, require God to administer retribution or demand reparations? Put another way, can God hold someone responsible and yet simply forgive them without punishment?

Another approach, often used by street preachers, is to simply being to teach what the Bible says and try to move the person to repentance and belief. If the person asks for a reason to accept Scripture as true, this kind of apologist will usually have an answer, but the key here is Scripture. The most sacred object in this approach is the Bible itself, whereas for the first approach it would be theism.

Yet if you were to ask either kind of apologist what he considers to be the center of his faith, he would probably answer Jesus Christ or something about Jesus. He might say he is redeemed by the blood of Christ, or that he is a follower of Christ.

Why is Jesus not the center of his apologetics and evangelism, then? I speculate Christians can get tied up in the arguments, trying to go about arguing for and proving the claims of Christianity through unprejudiced, disinterested, objective means, forgetting that the center of our faith is not a fact or an argument (or even a book, inspired though it may be) but a person. I would even dare to say that such “objective” approaches veer us away from the heart of Christianity, since what the faith is really about is becoming a follower of Jesus.

Where I would start in apologetics is with Jesus. Almost no one thinks ill of Jesus, and those that do are probably misinformed about him. Nobody wants to pick a fight with Jesus. Nearly everyone seems to think highly of him, even (sometimes especially) those outside the Christian religion. Richard Dawkins once said he liked Jesus very much, even saying he’d be willing to call himself a “Christian atheist.” But it’s not just atheists. Gandhi meditated on the Sermon on the Mount every morning and evening for forty years, finding his greatest inspiration in Jesus. His writings often look more Christian than Hindu, especially when talking about the importance of love.

Jesus’ teachings about the kingdom and loving one’s neighbor and undeniably beautiful. If everyone strived to live out the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount, the world would without a doubt be a much better place. Jesus calls for a radical rethinking of the way we live and think and behave, both in solitude and community. He did not come to trim some evil around the edges of the human heart, he came to invade the human heart and become it’s new meaning. He did come to be the Savior of one religion, or one tribe, or one culture; Jesus came to be the Savior of the world. And he calls his disciples to break down the barriers that have caused violence and hatred throughout the centuries, to eradicate our prejudices and become a people radically characterized by love.

The first step in the Christ-centered apologetic is to establish common ground about Jesus. The man was incredible: his teachings were beautiful and his life was a fulfillment of his teachings. When you know who Jesus was and what he taught, it seems easy to become a Jesus-admirer.

Once you’re a Jesus admirer (let’s say you’re still agnostic about the Christian faith), you’ll probably begin to wonder about all these things he said about God, and you’ll be very suspicious of the numerous instances he seemed to make claims to deity. It’s one thing to talk about God—God could be anything. But it is another to make claims (often specific to Jewish belief) to deity oneself, or to accept such claims made in one’s presence. Jesus did both.

But, at this point, we’re great Jesus admirers; we can’t simply abandon Jesus because of these seemingly wild claims he’s making. We’re convinced that his ethical system is the best and most beautiful ever put forward, or at least that he was a great, wise, and loving teacher who brought about radical change in people’s lives. We recall that he made a point in the Sermon on the Mount about not making oaths (“let your yes be yes and your no be no”), and we agree Jesus taught his disciples to be radical truth-tellers, so as not to ever need to swear oaths. Jesus fulfilled almost all of his other teachings in his life, why would he not also fulfill this one?

But if Jesus was committed, just as he taught his disciples to be, to radical truth-telling, we must conclude he never intentionally lied. That leaves us with two options (as C.S. Lewis pointed out): either Jesus was delusional or suffered from some other mental disability in which he actually thought he was deity, or he was indeed telling the truth. But, as Jesus-admirers, we know Jesus often reasoned with people and frequently taught the most learned men in Judah. People were often in awe of his teachings, recognizing quickly that his words were wise and authoritative.

Perhaps a third option could be mentioned here: the gospel writers might have been mythologizing or stretching the truth about the stories of Jesus. This would be a good place for arguments about the reliability of the gospels and historicity of Jesus to come in. Through these we may know that we are not just admirers of a character in a fable but that Jesus Christ was a real human being who lived on the same planet on which we now reside. Jesus is “for real.”

So we Jesus-admirers, after thinking about it, rule out the possibility that Jesus was delusional in actually thinking he was a Messiah or deity. We reason that a person suffering from such a psychosis as to falsely believe oneself to be God would not, indeed could not, draw such large crowds and make such an impact on the world (especially in the culture of his time).

That leaves but one option, the most reasonable one when it comes to coherence between Jesus’ life and teachings—that he was telling the truth in his claims to deity and acceptance of others’ claims of deity in reference to him. This, admittedly, is a big pill to swallow for the average agnostic. Or for the atheistic admirer of Jesus. Or for the Hindu admirer of Jesus. Or for any other non-Christian admirer of Jesus. Even for the Christian admirer of Jesus it is profoundly convicting.

In some people’s minds, this jump makes Jesus into a frightening figure: whereas before he was a wise teacher who shared in the suffering all good prophets must face, now he is a ubiquitous being from whom we are unable to escape. For those Jesus admirers who accept that Jesus was telling the truth and realize they now face an unimaginably huge and mysterious being who Jesus paradoxically called “Father” yet was, God now becomes a figure we must somehow appease. Perhaps this urge is a vestige of many millennia of paganism, in which the gods were angry, intolerant, demanding versions of humans.

The writers of the New Testament are quick to soothe our fears. John tells us the Word that became flesh (Jesus) was there “in the beginning” (a very Jewish phrase) with God and indeed is God. The Word is God. Paul speaks of Jesus as “the image of the invisible God.” Yes, the Old Testament teaches all humans are made in the image of God, but Jesus is the image of God, the second Adam, the return to the state in which the will of the Father was done and all creation was perfect. Jesus is the restored image of God, in which God is seen more clearly than any other human. More than that, Jesus is the “exact imprint” of God’s character and the “radiance of his glory,” the author of Hebrews tells us.

If we didn’t have any reason to fear Jesus, we certainly have no reason to fear God, for Jesus is the fullest revelation and self-expression of God. That is, God looks like Jesus.