Top

What’s Enemy-Love Got To Do With It?

Written by Brandon.D.Rhodes : July 22, 2008

My friend Rod recently said he’d enjoy having a few of us – his Mennonite friends – try to persuade him to pacifism. The other three of us there all looked at each other and grinned.

“Oh, this isn’t a one-day kind of decision, friend,” Rusty said to Rod with a laugh. We all nodded.

Soon enough, though, Rusty slipped in a 20-second pitch for what brought him around to pacifism (a Christological reading of the Bible, wherein everything goes through the lens of Jesus – “If the Bible seems to disagree, let Jesus be the referee”). Jacob and I braced for the same old tit-for-tat eye-roll-a-thon of the same old arguments from each side. Old Testament this, and Romans 12 that – we’ve all probably been there, on one side or the other. Thankfully, though, this exhausting specter was hastily deferred to another time.

“Besides,” I said, “We’ve each arrived at Christian nonviolence, Christian pacifism, enemy-love, the Way of Jesus, or whatever you want to call it, through different paths.” For Jacob, it was reading John Howard Yoder’s What Would You Do?, while for me it was studying Jesus’ enemy-love teachings through the lenses of first-century history and a robustly Jewish theology of the ‘image of God’.

But it’s got me thinking a lot about how pacifists became pacifists, and why they remain pacifists. As with our first turning to Jesus at conversion, sometimes what turned us to Him isn’t what keeps us turned toward Him.

Our arguments usually run along the lines of one of the following:

Utilitarian – “War makes corpses of us all”, “What has war ever solved?”, etc.
Jesus said so – “Jesus taught enemy-love.”
Jesus lived it – “God died for his enemies, so should we”
Heart appeals – telling stories of the futility, brutality, and horror of war.
Nonconformity – “We follow the Way of Jesus, not the Way of the World.”
Christarchy – “Jesus is Lord, and therefore Caesar isn’t” (actually a line from non-pacifist Bishop N.T. Wright)

That’s certainly not a complete list of any kind, but I’ll bet it’s a net big enough to capture most of us somewhere in it. For a similar (and larger) list, see Yoder’s Nevertheless: The Varieties and Shortcomings of Religious Pacifism.

But there are a few angles of pacifism that I think we could better and more loudly argue. Two defenses of pacifism that I’d like to unpack in future Doxis posts here are “Inaugurated Eschatology” (the church as the microcosm of the Age to Come, as those called to live in the present world according to the rules of the one to come) and “Most War Still Sin, Says Romans 13” (the just-warrior’s favorite passage here winds up shooting itself in the foot). I will bring them up here in more detail in the weeks to come because I think that a robust inaugurated eschatology is becoming a tent-pole of emergent theology, and because the possibility of radically reclaiming Romans 13 as a stalwartly antiwar text can prove a particularly fruitful rhetorical coup in an election year.

In the coming weeks Rod will hear testimonies to how Rusty, Jacob, and I all became Christian pacifists. Rusty’ll talk about Christological lenses, Jacob will talk about utilitarian practicality, and I will talk about enemy love and inaugurated eschatology.

• If you are a pacifist, what would you talk to Rod about? What brought you to pacifism? And what arguments or experiences have become sunk in toward keeping you in pacifism?
• And if you’re not a pacifist, but have struggled with the issue, what would you tell Rod?

(Disclaimer: I realize many – perhaps most – of the Jesus Manifesto’s readers and writers are not strict pacifists/nonviolent/what-have-you. That so many of us here believe in a revolutionary gospel that resists Constantinianism needn’t guarantee that we also self-label as pacifists/etc.. Indeed I am entirely stoked to know and engage both sorts here.)

Brandon Rhodes lives, works, writes, and worships in Portland, Oregon. He enjoys long conversations over coffee, yerba maté, and beer. He is also one of the co-editors at Jesus Manifesto.


If you appreciate articles like this, consider making a donation to help Jesus Manifesto pay the bills.



Print This Article Print This Article

for further reading . . .

Comments

Viewing 62 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    I realize my beliefs are not necessarily coherent together, but the jury's still out for me whether non-violence precludes deceit and threats. Is having a gun and threatening to use it (because statistically this greatly improves your chances of getting out of a violent situation unharmed) still 'pacifism'? What happens when your bluff gets called?

    What happens when there is no 'benefit' to being hurt....if I get mauled by a bear, does my lack of defense somehow benefit the world, or just cost me my life?

    I remember a particularly volatile conversation at Mark's house where he and I (both new fathers) talked over non-violence and the protecting of children. I can't say that I'm at ease on any side of the debate.
    • ^
    • v
    Your bear example is interesting. I generally hold to a theory of nonviolence toward humans, and minimal violence to all else. So in the case of a bear attacking me, I guess that's why I as an otherwise stalwart pacifist would be quite comfortable with packing a bear pistol or bear spray if I were to go on an extended hike through the forest.

    Here, then, is where our language exposes its plain limits: when I say "nonviolence," I mean something different from the Buddhist or Hindu sense of nonviolence ("wouldn't hurt a fly" kind of thing). Yet it's entirely fair for anyone to mishear "nonviolence" as a refusal to participate in any level of any kind of coercion towards anything (perhaps "pure nonviolence.").

    And then there's those sticky family issues... have you read Yoder's "What Would You Do?"
    • ^
    • v
    The question I was really trying to pose is; will love or rationality or _____ have an effect in all situations? Obviously you cannot reason with a bear, or have it understand loving non-violence. And I tried to come up with a reasonable real-world example where these responses would be ineffectual to a human oppressor, but my attempts were pathetic so I gave up and just used the bear analogy.

    And no I have not read "What Would You Do?"
    • ^
    • v
    I think we have a unfortunate tendency to gravitate toward extreme all-or-nothing kinds of views as Christians (see fundamentalism for a great example). Jesus certainly blesses peacemakers and preaches against the evils of war. He tells his followers to turn the other cheek and all that. But he also preaches justice. He talks about the kingdom of God where the least are made greatest and there is real peace for all.

    Peace is not only the absence of violence. When America pretended not to see the Holocaust in order to stay out of the war, was that an appropriate Christian response? I don't think so. I think Jesus calls us to ultimately and above all else, value life - ours, others', creation, all that. Sometimes, most of the time, the way to do that is to find peaceable responses to problems. But sometimes, it is not.

    I live it Atlanta, one of the worst places in the world for human trafficking. If I see a child getting abducted and don't try to stop it because I am supposedly a follower of Jesus, I've crossed the line from someone who is trying to improve people's lives to someone who is trying to live by a pre-conceived, non-contextualized set of ideas. That is a dangerous place to be.
    • ^
    • v
    Wes,
    In your Atlanta example i would ask. What would stop you from attempting to stop this from happening using non-lethal intervention. Such as grabbing up the child and running with her, or grabbing her up -falling to the ground with the child in your arms, or drawing attention to what is happening by shouting at the top of your voice, DO NOT KIDNAP THAT CHILD, DON'T YOU KNOW THAT GOD IS WATCHING AND WILL NOT LET YOU GET AWAY WITH THIS FOREVER! or by taking down the liscence # of the abductors vehicle, or following the kidnapper to where they are taking her and reporting this location to the police. or by placing your body in the way of their progress. There is no limit to the amount of laying down our own lives (bodies, comfort zone, etc.) for the sake of others.

    We have been pretty much programed to prefer contemplating the use of lethal force as a first response. It is viewed as being a much safer approach to most threats... and yes, why risk my person for the sake of a crime committing stranger?

    "Jesus did" and "Jesus said to" is the only viable response to this question.

    I do not think that the term "Pacifism" really describes what we are called to in all of this. Better terms may be "Active Messianic Love" and/or "Living as Ambassadors of the Kingdom of Heaven".

    It has helped me in my pilgrimage from being an angry, violent man to becoming an ambassador of Christ in this area to really examine the idea of "Ambassadorship" in all of this.

    It has helped to ask myself these questions: Does an ambassador get involved in the politics (vote, lobby, campaign, etc.), policing (the majestry or governance), and military of the country that he is an ambassador to? No, No and No. Is the role of an Ambassador to become involved in the affairs of his host country? -No. An ambassador is a communicator who communicates to his host country, what his own country is like. What does the term Ambassador mean? the dictionary says "1. A diplomatic official of the highest rank appointed and accredited as representative in residence by one government to another." So, we have the opportunity to represent the Kingdom of Heaven to the kingdom of this world wherein we reside.

    Martyrdom occurs when a kingdom of this world wearies of hearing about the Kingdom of Heaven and simply sends the faithful ambassador home to his own King. We are faithful ambassadors when we declare the "norms" of our Heavenly Kingdom in contrast with the ways of the kingdoms of this world. This can hardly be considered a pacifistic endeavor. If we did this whenever we got the opportunity we would soon wear out our welcome amongst those who are choosing to perish.

    One important point that a good ambassador, from the absolutly most powerful and coming Kingdom, would be to warn every person to take the opportunity to pre-surrender and live, as the coming Kingdom will not countenance rebellion and only consist of those who approve of the coming King and His ways.

    I said all of this to say that living in the way of "Active Messianic Love" or "Living as Ambassadors of the Kingdom of Heaven" is a demonstration of confidence in the promises of our God, the blessings and curses of the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the Messiah Yahushuah. A particular and only true God with a particular view of the past, present, and future Whose Kingship and Kingdom will have no end. Is there not a cause? Is there no reason for having and showing great confidence in the LORD? Live boldly in the Messiah and give place for the vengence of the LORD, watching and warning with all dilligence.

    I must confess that it took 31 years since first following Jesus at age 16 in 1971, until 2002, with much contemplation and resistance to embracewhat was really the self evident truth of the gospel that I suspected was true at the first (if I had only been able to read and simply embrace the truth back then, but, I was too American, I suppose, and had a hard time realizing that Jesus is now a king and that His Kingdom is now and real, and my citizenship in His Kingdom is now as well). I had opportunity to fellowship with a small Mennonite fellowship in California in 1976-7, which I passed up, (a group who taught a 'Natural Family Planning" class that my betrothed (31st annivversary last January) and I attended together), where I grew up, but thought their aversion to military service and war was too strange for me. I never directly brought up the topic with them, I guess that I really did not want to look at it head on. Little did I know then, that that group was the most radical and right on bunch of believers who really studied and applied the Scripture to their lives in a simple and most profound way.

    I hope that my rambling has been beneficial.
    • ^
    • v
    Thank you. I found your reply to be very helpful in understanding my role as an ambassador of Christ.
    • ^
    • v
    It is one thing to call oneself a pacifist. It is another thing all together to actually live that out. And I have some real questions as to whether 100% pacifism is the right answer. Wes Hunter and hewhocutsdown have some very valid points and I would like to bring up a real situation as opposed to hypothetical ones.

    I remember reading about a situation in California a few months ago. A man was found late at night on a rural road. He had an appoximately 2 year old child with him and he was stomping, kicking, punching and picking up and throwing this child down on the ground. People who witnessed this called the police and when the officer arrived, the man refused to stop the attack and the officer shot the man dead. The todler was so badly mutilated from the assault that the coroner had to identify the body using dna.

    Now I am going into a hypothetical situation involving the real situation I stated above. I would like to think that I am commited to peace. However, if I had been in the situation as a witness to this particular attack, I think that I probably would have at least made an attempt at stomping that man into jelly. I think the sight of a child being attacked in a brutal attack like that would have enraged me to the point of casting my convictions aside. Perhaps I am a poor Christian for feeling that way, but what would Brandon Rhodes have done if you had been in that situation?
    • ^
    • v
    Yeah, in all honesty I would not have waiting for the cops but beat that guy fucking senseless.
    • ^
    • v
    Holy smokes... what a dreadful situation... yeah, my stomach is churning, too.

    I 'spose that nonviolence doesn't necessarily mean "non-engagement". There is also in me a very deep desire toward, as you said quite accurately, "stomping that man into jelly."

    Yet as I reflect on it and step back for a moment, what in this situation compels any of us to only consider two options (squish-into-jelly or gawk-and-wait-for-cops). Surely I can get in the way (see: www.cpt.org) of it all. I can hold him back, I can take the child and run, I can simply stand between them.

    Yet I don't know what I'd do.

    The temptation to squish-into-jelly in the midst of holding him back or running with the child would certainly throb within me. But I suppose that is where all of us can be praying that should such a situation ever arise, that the Holy Spirit can harness our heart's impulses for God's bigger purposes. I 'spose I'm left with the hope of God being faithful in guiding the minutae of the situation even as I try, however failingly, to be likewise loyal to him and his kingdom.

    Still, I'm unsure...
    • ^
    • v
    Whoa...why does nonviolence have to mean non-intervention?

    I would do anything I could to get that guy to stop. But I would do it in a way that disarmed him, restrained him, or rendered him unconscious. There is no way that God would be pleased if I beat the shit out of him for the sake of vengeance.

    Would I want to kick him in the face repeatedly? Yes. But is that what our longsuffering God wants us to do? No.

    In the end, my view of nonviolence allows for physical restraint. Even rendering someone unconscious...even, perhaps, doing some physical harm. But never destruction.
    • ^
    • v
    In theory, mine would be too, but in practice I'm not sure that my anger would not get the better of me.
    • ^
    • v
    Well, I know that in the imaginary world inside my mind I would like to think that I would somehow disarm the individual and then hold him until the authorities arrive. However, in practice I'm afraid that I would be inclined to hurt the man out of a sense of vengance. I don't think that I would try to kill him, its not really in my nature to be murderous. But I'm afraid that my anger would override my sense of control.

    I used to train in Aikido. It is considered a "non-violent" martial art because it uses no punches or kicks. But I consider that to be a bit of a misnomer since it replaces them with breaking bones, ripping tendons and tearing muscles. It has as its core goal to disable the attacker so that they can attack no more. The end result is not usually death, but intense pain.

    I like your idea of rendering him unconscious, however you may want to think that through a little more carefully. A blow to the head could just as easily kill as it could knock uncounscious.
    • ^
    • v
    The problem with hypotheticals is that they tend toward reductio ad absurdum. Yes, the horrific scenario culled from the headlines was a real one -- into which we are hypothetically inserting ourselves. Generally, the hypotheticals trotted out against pacifism tend to presume that violence is the only effective response in the particular situation. The question ends up effectively a trap: "In a situation where violence is the only way to do the right thing, would you use violence?" (Have I stopped beating my wife?)

    What would I do? I'm not sure. Since I could conceivably be put into mortal danger by the average sixth grader, my options might be more limited than others. I like Mark's approach, even though the difference between restraint and retribution might be a tricky row to hoe. But it seems to me that wrestling with such questions is preferable to chucking the ideal because some of the questions get difficult. There's no guarantee of this, but I'd like to think that our response to difficult situations will be different (even if not neat and ideal) if we approach them from an a priori commitment to pacifism rather than a rejection of pacifism on the basis that we might run into just such a situation. My suspicion is that once we concede to the necessity of violence in certain circumstances, we leave an opening for that circle to widen.

    Some consider monogamy both extreme and unrealistic. Most of us, if we are honest, would falter in the right (or wrong, as it were) circumstances. We could, I suppose, spin hypothetical yarns in which the circumstances were tweaked for maximum temptation, and wonder what we might do, though that would quickly get lurid. My point is that an argument against monogamy on the basis that some of us might not hold to that ideal in all circumstances is not one I think any of us would make, nor one that most of us would find convincing. For me, that sort of argument against pacifism is just as unconvincing.

    What would be more interesting is an argument that Jesus (and Paul, et al) did not teach, model, or presume a commitment to nonviolence, or that they did, but left some clear guidelines as to possible exceptions.
    • ^
    • v
    "My suspicion is that once we concede to the necessity of violence in certain circumstances, we leave an opening for that circle to widen." In the history of man, it seems that we have been able to come closer to an ideal by slowly or incrementally limiting that it's counter behavior. An example of this might be slavery, a legitimate practice among God fearing people in the past. Over the course of time, slavery was limited by rules which defined who could be enslaved, rules that gave slaves certain rights, rules that allowed opportunities for slaves to become free,... When people tried to outlaw slavery all at once, like in America, there was the opposition led to war.

    If we concede the necessity of violence, but then try to limit its practice to only those situations where it truly was a necessity, we might find that we achieved peace sooner, than a more austere unequivocal stand. I believe it is possible to concede the possible necessity of violence from an a priori commitment to peace.
    • ^
    • v
    But whose practice are we limiting? Ours? Everyone's? Who is 'we'? Christians? Americans? Humans?

    To me, those are important questions. I don't think it's possible to outline an ethics that works for everyone, so I reject that as a goal or a measuring stick.
    • ^
    • v
    I'm surprised to hear you say that it's impossible to outline an ethics that works for everyone, since most everyone I know subscribes to the golden rule, at least in principle.
    • ^
    • v
    Most people would affirm its truthiness. But few live by it. And, by itself, isn't a complete ethical system or framework, otherwise we wouldn't have so many red letters in our New Testament.
    • ^
    • v