Chapter 9: But What If. If you're like most Christians, this whole concept of non-resistance and loving one's enemies is probably new to you, and you may be saying to yourself, "Yes, but what if..." So let me address some of the "what ifs" and other questions you may have. What if someone were to break into your house and were about to harm your wife and children? Surely you wouldn't just stand there and let them do it.
This question naturally plays on the strong protective instinct that men have toward their families. But the answer a kingdom citizen must give to that question is the same as he would give to any other question concerning breaking the commandments of Jesus. Let me ask you: What if your government told you to deny Jesus Christ and offer a sacrifice to Satan, or else they would violate your wife and kill your children? What would you do? For a kingdom citizen, the answer is quite clear.
Jesus has already told us that if we love our families more than Him, we cannot be His disciples. And He has also told us, "Whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven." Now, what if, instead of denying Christ, my government ordered me to murder my next-door neighbor or to sexually assault his wife? And if I didn't, they would harm my wife and children. Would the situation be any different from offering a sacrifice to Satan?
In one instance, I would be denying Christ with my mouth. In the other, I would be denying Him by my actions. What if a foreign government ordered me to drop a bomb on a United States city or to assassinate the American president, or else they would harm my wife and children? What should I do? I think most Americans would allow their wives and children to be harmed or even killed before betraying their country. So how is the situation any different when it concerns loyalty to Jesus?
Jesus' teachings on non-resistance are quite clear. It's a matter of either denying Him or denying my family. To be sure, that's a very difficult choice, but I already made that choice when I gave my life to Christ. Does that mean I would do nothing to protect my family? Of course not. I have already done the best thing that I could possibly do to ensure their safety. I have entrusted my home and family to the care and protection of Jesus. And that isn't some naive trust.
There are tens of thousands of other kingdom Christians who have similarly beat their swords into plowshares and entrusted the safety of their families into the hands of their king. And although Jesus has not promised that no harm can ever come to our families, I can say this: that, except in times of religious persecution, it's very rare for kingdom families to be harmed by ordinary criminals.
One example that comes to mind is the encounter of the desperate criminal fugitive, Stephen Roy Carr, with a non-resistant Mennonite family in Pennsylvania in May of 1988. Earlier, Carr had fled from Florida, where he was wanted for grand thefts. He was hiding out in the Appalachian Mountains, ready to kill anyone who threatened his freedom. Before long, he met two female campers on the Appalachian Trail, and he shot them both, killing one and seriously injuring the other.
Fleeing the scene, Carr found an abandoned cement mixing tub and used it to float down the Cottonoogare Creek to the farm of Chester and Esther Weaver. As conservative Mennonites, the Weavers had no television or radio, and so they had heard nothing about the murder. The fugitive Carr asked the Weavers for food and shelter, which they gladly provided him. Carr stayed in the Weaver home for five days, and yet he neither harmed them nor stole from them.
Carr would have stayed longer, but the police finally caught up with him. It reminds me of the account given by the Christian author and speaker, Winkie Pratney, concerning the great Blondin, an incredibly gifted tightrope aerialist of the 19th century. To demonstrate his abilities, Blondin stretched a 1,100-foot rope above Niagara Falls. To the thrill of huge crowds, he walked across the falls on his tightrope, performing various spectacular stunts. He even did a back somersault in the middle of the rope.
Yet, Blondin had no net underneath to save him if he fell. A newspaper reporter who had come to witness the spectacle was awestruck. "I bet there isn't anything you can't do out there on the tightrope," he told Blondin. "Do you think I could cross the rope pushing a wheelbarrow?" Blondin asked the reporter. "Oh, I'm sure you could." "Do you think I could cross the rope while pushing a wheelbarrow with a man in it?" Blondin asked the reporter.
"Undoubtedly." Looking the reporter straight in the eye, Blondin then asked, "Do you think I could cross the rope pushing a wheelbarrow with you in it?" "Well, uh..." But that's what genuine faith is all about: getting into the wheelbarrow for Christ. Any other kind of faith is not really faith; it's just words. Most Christians will readily acknowledge that God is all-powerful. They will proclaim that God is in charge of the universe. They say nothing can happen outside of God's active or permissive will.
They'll plaster bumper stickers on their cars saying, "His angels are watching over me." But no, they won't get into the wheelbarrow. They won't entrust their family's safety to God. Sadly, every year Christian families suffer death and injury from their own weapons because they didn't put their trust in God. One of the most heartbreaking episodes occurred a few years ago when a man and his wife returned home from a trip. Their daughter was staying at a friend's house.
However, the daughter thought she would surprise her parents by coming home early and hiding in their bedroom closets. When her parents came home, they heard a noise in their closet, thinking it was a burglar. Her father got out his loaded pistol and slowly approached the closet. When the closet door suddenly burst open, her father instinctively pulled the trigger. He immediately realized it was his daughter, but it was too late. She murmured, "I love you, Daddy," and fell over dead.
This was not some rare occurrence. A gun kept in the home is 22 times more likely to kill a family member or a friend than to kill or wound an intruder. Evil can be confronted with less dangerous methods than guns. A number of years ago, some Christian friends of mine, Decio and Olivia, were staying at a motel in Atlanta. There had been a number of armed robberies and murders in the city.
In these robberies, the assailants had ordered their victims to lie face down on the floor and then shoot them in the backs of their heads. So Decio was on his guard. It was a mild October evening, and Decio and Olivia had momentarily left their motel door open for a friend. Suddenly, two teenage thugs appeared in the doorway with guns. They ordered everyone down on the floor. Decio hesitated and then knelt down, praying and trying to think of a way to foil the robbery.
His wife, Olivia, thinking it was a Halloween prank, remained seated on the bed. So one of the young robbers waved his gun at her and ordered her to lie on the floor. Instead, she started singing out loud, "Jesus loves me," as she got up from the bed and slowly walked over to the two young men. One of them raised his pistol, pointed it at her face, and cocked it. But when she continued singing and walking toward him, he suddenly yelled to his partner, "These are a bunch of Jesus nuts.
Let's get out of here." And with that, the two young men vanished into the dark. Over the years, I have heard and read many other accounts of how a prayer, a hymn, or a testimony effectively disarmed a would-be burglar or assailant. There's no point singing, "Our God is an awesome God," if we don't really believe that He is. "But what about Hitler?" I'm often asked. Actually, that's my question to Christians who reject non-resistance. But what about Hitler?
You see, if all Christians had practiced what Jesus taught, Hitler would never have been able to do the things he did. Why? Because most of the soldiers in Hitler's army were professing Christians. They had voluntarily joined or had been conscripted into the German army, and they were serving their country just as were the British and American Christian soldiers who fought against them. If Christians had stood by the commandments of Jesus, the evil of Hitler would never have happened.
He would have had few soldiers to carry out his plans. If all Christians stood by Jesus' teachings, perhaps there would be no wars. This is no idle dream. The Pax Romana demonstrated this. The Pax Romana is the name given by secular historians to the period of peace enjoyed by the Roman Empire from 27 BC to AD 180. The Pax Romana was the most peaceful period the Roman Empire had ever known.
In fact, it's the longest period of peace that the Mediterranean world has known from the beginning of European civilization to the present day. During the Pax Romana, the empire did not suffer even one successful invasion of its frontiers. There were a few domestic uprisings, such as those of the Jews, but there were no civil wars between Romans. What brought about the Pax Romana? The mighty armies of Rome? No. Those mighty armies of Rome were still around in the 4th and 5th centuries when there was no peace.
And it was in the 4th and 5th centuries that the barbarians finally were able to successfully invade the empire. Was the Pax Romana a result of good rulers? To be sure, there were certainly a number of very able emperors during this period, such as Caesar Augustus and Marcus Aurelius. Yet, there were also madmen and moral monsters such as Caligula, Nero, and Domitian. Still, even during the reigns of these madmen, the Romans had peace. So, what really was different about the period of the Pax Romana?
Secular historians have no clear answer. However, I believe the difference was that God had introduced peace into the Mediterranean world into which His Son, the Prince of Peace, was to be born. I believe God brought about that peace without the help of any human armies. And I believe that Christians later maintained that peace, not by using the sword to defend the empire, but by their non-resistance, peaceful lives, and by their prayers. But this is not merely my own personal belief.
The early Christians who lived near the time of the Pax Romana were also firmly convinced that the Pax Romana was the result of God's intervention.
For example, Origen told the Romans, "How was it possible for the gospel doctrine of peace, which doesn't permit men to take vengeance even on their enemies, to prevail throughout the earth, unless at the coming of Jesus a milder spirit had been introduced into the order of things?" Another early Christian writer, Arnobius, wrote, "It would not be difficult to prove that, after the name of Christ was heard in the world, wars were not increased.
In fact, they actually diminished, in great measure, by the restraining of furious passions. As a result, an ungrateful world is now enjoying and for a long period has enjoyed a benefit from Christ. For by His means, the rage of savage ferocity has been softened and has begun to withhold hostile hands from the blood of a fellow creature. In fact, if all men without exception would lend an ear for a while to His salutary and peaceful rules, the whole world would be living in the most peaceful tranquility.
The world would have turned the use of steel into more peaceful uses and would unite together in blessed harmony, maintaining inviolate the sanctity of treaties." Today, many professing Christians criticize kingdom Christians for not taking up arms and defending their country. Interestingly, the pagans made the same criticism of the early Christians who refused to defend the Roman Empire with swords. In reply to these pagan critics, Origen wrote, "Our prayers defeat all demons who stir up war.
Those demons also lead persons to violate their oaths and to disturb the peace. Accordingly, in this way we are much more helpful to the kings than those who go into the field to fight for them. And we do take our part in public affairs when we join self-denying exercises to our righteous prayers and meditations, which teach us to despise pleasures and not to be led away by them. So none fight better for the king than we do. Indeed, we do not fight under him even if he demands it.
Yet, we fight on his behalf, forming a special army, an army of godliness, by offering our prayers to God. And if he would have us lead armies in defense of our country, let him know that we do this too. And we do not do it for the purpose of being seen by men or for vain glory. For in secret and in our own hearts, our prayers ascend on behalf of our fellow citizens as from priests. So Christians are benefactors of their country more than others." Total dependence on God worked. It had powerful results.
It brought about the longest period of peace in the Mediterranean world that has existed since the beginning of civilization. If it could work there against all of the warlike peoples of the ancient Mediterranean world, it would have worked to stop Hitler. In fact, as we've discussed, Hitler would have never even come into power. But someone may object, saying, "Have you never heard that the only thing needed for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing?" Ah, that's the crux of the whole problem.
Regardless of our pious words about faith and trust, most Christians view prayer as essentially doing nothing. Whether they admit it or not, most Christians believe that if we don't take up our guns and stop evil, nothing else will. But what if all professing Christians today were to live non-resistantly and love their enemies? What if the entire church truly put its faith in God as the protector of mankind and really believed in the efficacy of prayer?
The whole church did this in the first three centuries, and the world they lived in had peace as a result. I have no doubt that we would have a new Pax Europa or Pax Americana if the church did the same today. Evil can never be defeated by evil, nor can error ever be corrected by error. Satan cannot be cast out by Satan's means. Following Christ's teachings is the only effective resistance to evil. But don't Jesus' words apply merely to private retribution, not to state-sponsored actions?
Some Christians maintain that if we pay back evil for evil as individuals, it's wrong. However, if we do it under state authority, it doesn't violate Jesus' teaching. This argument makes me think of the pamphlet that Adin Ballou wrote entitled, "How Many Men Are Necessary to Change a Crime into a Virtue?" In it, he asked, "How many does it take to annul the commandments of God and render something lawful that He has forbidden? How many does it take to metamorphose wickedness into righteousness?
One man must not kill. If he does, it is murder. Two, ten, one hundred men, acting on their own responsibility, must not kill. If they do, it is still murder. But a state or nation may kill as many as they please, and it is not murder. It is just, necessary, commendable, and right. Only get enough people to agree to it, and the butchery of myriads of human beings is perfectly innocent. But how many does it take? This is the question. Just so with theft, robbery, burglary, and all other crimes.
Kidnapping is a great crime in one man or a very few men only. But a whole nation can commit it, and the act becomes not only innocent but highly honorable. So a whole nation can rob on the largest scale and perpetuate burglary on an entire city by martial power without crime. They can do all these things with impunity and call on the ministers of religion to say prayers for them. Verily, there is magic in numbers. The sovereign multitude can out-legislate the Almighty, at least in their own conceits.
But how many does it take? If the state orders me to worship idols, would that make it right? In other words, is it wrong for me to worship idols as an individual but perfectly right to worship idols if I do it under the authority of the states? Is it wrong for me to practice divination as an individual but acceptable if I do it under state authority? Is it wrong for me to commit adultery as an individual but not a sin if the state orders me to do so?
Is divorce wrong for me as an individual but perfectly legitimate if the state authorizes me to divorce my spouse? Or suppose a Christian lives in a country where the government orders women to obtain abortions for the good of the country. Perhaps the country is overcrowded, and the government thinks the most feasible way to end the overcrowding is by reducing the birth rate. Does that make it lawful for a Christian woman to kill her baby through an abortion?
If not, why is it different when the same government orders its citizens to kill others in a war? When Jesus gave His commandments on non-resistance and loving our enemies, did He make any distinction between private actions and state-sponsored actions? Not at all. In fact, His teaching was supplanting an Old Testament law that itself pertained to state actions, not private ones.
As you remember, Jesus began His message on non-resistance by saying, "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you not to resist an evil person." Now, where had His listeners heard "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth"? They had heard it from the Mosaic Law where it appears three times.
The first passage where that expression occurs is in Exodus, which says, "If men fight and hurt a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman's husband imposes on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot." Please note that the judges were involved in this action. It was not private vengeance.
The second passage is found in Leviticus concerning the incident where a man with an Egyptian father and an Israelite mother had blasphemed God. When the Israelites inquired of the Lord as to what they should do, God replied, "Whoever blasphemes the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall certainly stone him. Whoever kills a man shall surely be put to death. If a man causes disfigurement of his neighbor as he has done, so shall it be done to him.
Fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, as he has caused disfigurement of a man, so shall it be done to him." Then Moses spoke to the children of Israel, and they took outside the camp him who had cursed and stoned him with stones. Is this passage talking about private actions? Hardly. The whole congregation of Israel was to be involved in meting out the punishment. The final passage is in Deuteronomy.
"If a false witness rises against any man to testify against him of wrongdoing, then both men in the controversy shall stand before the Lord, before the priests and the judges who serve in those days, and the judges shall make careful inquiry. And indeed, if the witness is a false witness who has testified falsely against his brother, then you shall do to him as he thought to have done to his brother.
So you shall put away the evil from among you, and those who remain shall hear and fear, and hereafter they shall not again commit such evil among you. Your eyes shall not pity. Life shall be for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot." Once again, this passage does not refer to a private form of justice. Both the priests and judges were involved. So the context of Jesus' teaching on non-resistance concerned national and traditional retribution, not private vengeance.
After all, that's what the eye for an eye standard was all about. And Jesus' teaching replaced that standard. But can't we wear two hats? When I'm in an army uniform and am part of the U.S. Army, it isn't me, the individual doing the killing. It's the United States government, and the United States government has been entrusted with the sword by God according to Romans 13. This argument seems plausible only because most Christians are still unable to think of the kingdom of God as a real, existing government.
To illustrate, suppose an American citizen were living in Germany in the 1930s, and further suppose that the German army drafted him. Yes, governments have the power to conscript residents who are non-citizens. Let's say that this American accepted being drafted into the German army and that he later killed his fellow Americans during one of the battles of World War II. Further suppose that he was eventually captured by American forces and was put on trial.
Suppose that at his trial, this American presented the following defense: "I know it would have been wrong for me, an individual American, to take up arms against my fellow citizens. However, I was drafted into the German army, and so it was no longer me, the American citizen, who killed other Americans. It was the German government conducting lawful warfare against the United States." Do you think the people and government of the United States would accept that plea? Of course not.
So why do we imagine that Jesus will accept such a plea? Actually, a real-life situation similar to my illustration recently happened. A few years ago, the United States conducted a war against the Taliban regime of Afghanistan. In the course of the war, the U.S. Army captured an American citizen named John Walker Lindh, who had joined the Taliban fighters. Now, let's suppose that Mr.
Lindh had made the following defense at his trial: "I, John Walker Lindh, as an individual American citizen, would never do anything to harm another American. Yes, it's true that I joined the Taliban army. But at the time I joined, they were not at war with the United States. Whatever actions I took after that were not mine. They were the Taliban government's actions. I did not fight against the United States as an individual. I only fought as a unit of the Taliban government.
Therefore, I am innocent." Do you think an American jury would have accepted that? I think not. Christians who reject non-resistance, in effect, want Jesus to subjugate himself to Caesar. They want Jesus to acknowledge that his laws can be broken if Caesar requires people to do so. But would Caesar be willing to do the reverse? Will Caesar allow us to break Caesar's law if Jesus requires it? In answer to that question, let's suppose that Mr.
Lindh had made this defense: "I, John Walker Lindh, the American citizen, would never do anything to harm another American. Of course, that would be wrong. If I fought against the United States in Afghanistan, I did so purely as John Walker Lindh, the Muslim. My allegiance to Allah requires me to kill all infidels. Therefore, as a member of Islam, I killed Americans. But I did this only as part of the Islamic international community, not as an individual nor as an American.
Therefore, I am innocent." What do you think? Would that defense have worked? Of course not. The United States government will not allow its citizens to kill one another regardless of their religious beliefs. If someone kills another American, he will be charged with murder. The fact that his religion required it will be no excuse.
If our government will not allow its citizens to slaughter one another because of their religious differences, why do we imagine that Jesus will allow his citizens to slaughter one another because of their political or national differences?