Many Christians in the world today have not understood the reasons why Jesus was seen as a threat to the world in which he lived. Christ’s life and teachings have in many ways been lost and only an emphasis on his birth, death, and resurrection have survived. A full attack on the Gospel is evident today. Many Christians in the United States have attempted to embrace the world AND Christ (1 Jn. 2:15-17). The only way to embrace the world and Christ is to change Christ. This is done by manipulating his words or by ignoring them altogether (Jn. 12:48; Gal. 1:6-8). Thus, a new Christology is born. It is a Christianity that shapes Jesus to fit an American agenda and perverts true discipleship at its core (Matt. 5:38-48; Jn. 13:34-35).

For those who understood Christ’s teachings, there was a definite and distinct response. His life and teachings demanded a complete commitment or withdrawal from discipleship (Matt. 16:24; Lk. 5:11; 12:53). When his life and teachings are thwarted in order that they might fit into secular agendas, the Gospel of Christ is rendered powerless and ineffective in its purpose to bring all nations (ethnic groups) to confess him as Lord and King (Phil. 2:10; Rev. 3:14-21; 5:9). Christianity then ceases to be the answer to humanity’s disease of sin and attempts to do the impossible by creating a Kingdom of God on earth by "christianizing" the world’s empires. Christ’s command was to make disciples of all nations, thus calling them out of the kingdoms of the world and setting them apart into a holy nation called the church (Matt. 28:18-20; 1 Pet. 2:9).

Therefore, this nation (the church) is to have one King Jesus and obey the rules of his Kingdom (Phil. 3:20). This Kingdom of Jesus conflicts with all kingdoms of the world (Matt. 4:8). Allegiance of any kind to worldly kingdoms is unthinkable. Submission to the worldly powers is to be understood by Jesus’ example. He submitted even unto death. He did not give the kingdoms of this world the allegiance they asked for. Furthermore, he gave to the worldly kingdoms only what belonged to them already (Matt. 22:21).

There is no way on earth that Christ and his followers can co-exist with a world that is hostile to the Kingdom of God and not experience resistance. New Testament Christianity was not popular in the ancient world and should not be popular today. The world will respond in hatred toward those truly living out Kingdom principles as Kingdom citizens. We (Christians) will experience the same responses that Jesus experienced (Matt.24:9; Jn. 15:18). These responses are born either out of a misunderstanding of the teachings of Christ or out of a complete understanding of the teachings of Christ.

Here we see the depth of our depravity and man’s intent on doing his own thing: man misunderstands Jesus and kills him; man understands Jesus and kills him. The Christian is born out of the Spirit’s selection of those God foreknew and set apart to be a light to the world of God’s unconditional love and redemption (Rom. 8:29).

The Christian, then, both understands and misunderstands Jesus, but by faith trusts in his saving grace and follows Christ to death. This is evident in the acceptance of Christ by individuals who know enough of Christ’s work on the cross for salvation, but do not understand fully what it means to follow Christ. The Christian must accept that the Gospel is a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles (1 Cor. 1:23). After accepting that the Gospel is foolishness to those perishing, the Christian would do well to learn from Christ’s confrontation with the world. It is time to take serious the life of Christ. It is time to participate in the victories and the sufferings of Christ (Phil. 3:10-11). We can do this and truly live for Christ by letting Christ live his life through us all over again.

The following are seven reasons (described briefly) as to why the worldly and religious leaders hated Christ and wanted him dead. This is not an exhaustive list, but one that should lead the reader to take a second look at the most controversial man in all of human history. The follower of Christ must then ask if he or she has remained true to Christ’s teachings regarding the Kingdom of God and how that Kingdom and her citizens are to engage the world today. When the Christian violates Kingdom principles… they cease to simply be "in" the world and identify themselves as being "of" it.

Jesus engaged himself with the world by treating the disease rather than its symptoms. He did not seek to bring about world peace by violence (Rom. 12:9-21; 2 Cor. 10:4; Eph. 6:12). He did not participate in rallies and riots with the Zealots. There is nothing in his actions that lead us to believe he would fight social injustice by voting "good" men into office or by creating laws that would keep homosexuals from entering into the holy institution of marriage. On the contrary, Jesus healed physical and spiritual infirmities of people who needed to be born again. For Christ knew what was in a man (Jn. 2:25). Jesus did not live to limit unbelievers by forcing Kingdom principles upon those who would not have it. His mission was to reveal the truth of the new heaven and new earth that was coming. Those who would enter through the narrow gate and travel the narrow road would enjoy God’s eternal reign in this new heaven and new earth (Matt. 7:13-14).

Jesus proclaimed the norms of the Kingdom of God and lived out heaven on earth. He understood that his mission was to proclaim the Kingdom that was already, but not yet. This meant that he did not come to make the world a "better" place to live in, but to "save" the world from death and hell by giving eternal (different kind of) life to all who follow him. The Kingdom of God will not be fully realized until Christ comes as righteous judge and establishes the new heaven and new earth forever more. Meanwhile, Christ’s followers are to shine as a light to the work of Christ and the hope of his coming Kingdom (Matt. 5:16). Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount is the greatest proclamation of the Kingdom of God and gives us insight as to what life is to be like even as we are caught between two worlds (Matt. 5-7).

Jesus was not concerned for national life and he was not too enthused with the way his own people presented his Father to a dark and dying world. He was not concerned with building or preserving national heritage such as knowledge, art, power, and defense.2 Jesus did not promote the Pax Romana (peace of Rome) by supporting her worldly pursuits of security and power. Jesus showed no pride toward Israel or Rome. Paul later would state that boasting should only be boasting in his own weaknesses and what the Lord has done (2 Cor. 12:9; Jer. 9:23-24).

This aspect of Jesus’ life was the most offensive to Roman authority and to the Jews. Jesus did not stand with Rome or with Jewish piety. Jesus did not fit into any mold or "party." He did not side with the Pharisees (liberals) or the Sadducees (conservatives). He taught that Kingdom citizens must have a righteousness that exceeds that of the modern day religious leaders (Matt. 5:20). This infuriated those who believed they were the "great" teachers of the law.

Jesus said he was a king with a kingdom "not of this world" (Jn. 18:36). Because of Jesus’ claims, Rome saw fit to execute Jesus by way of crucifixion. Jesus was an enemy of the state. Rome’s worst criminals hung on crosses. The Christian should not be confused about Jesus’ loyalties and to whom they rested in. They didn’t rest in the religious leaders or in the Roman state. Jesus did not "support" the Roman state, he "submitted" even unto death (Rom.13:1-7).

To the Jews, Jesus was a blasphemer who deserved death. To the Romans, Jesus was a social reject that committed treasonous acts by not conforming to the Roman way. From a worldly point of view, Christ was seen as anti-Roman and paid the price for it.3 Of course Christ gave his life willingly. However, God used worldly powers to execute his plan of redemption (Jn. 19:11). They (worldly powers) had their reasons and saw to it that Jesus was done away with. So they thought.

Jesus rejected everything material. He lived as though he did not belong to human civilization. He was not in the town markets trying to keep up with the latest fads. He even left his wood shop to travel the countryside preaching he was the messiah promised by the Hebrew prophets. Jesus’ approach seems foolish in the world’s eyes and shows no concern for storing up his barns for retirement (Lk. 6:24; 12:13-21). He told a parable of a rich man who went to hell and a poor man that went to heaven (Lk. 16:19-31). He extended an invitation to the rich, but the rich loved their riches (Lk. 18:18-30). He condemned those who were concerned more about money than repentance (Mk. 1-11).

Did Jesus think that everyone should be poor and that Christians are not allowed to have wealth? No, but he did warn of the dangers of accumulating worldly wealth and the power it has to shift the mind to things that are passing away (Matt. 6:24; 13:22). Living for comfort robs the Christian of joy and even has the power to change the Gospel into one that says, "Gain is godliness" in order that man may enjoy the best of both worlds.

The dangers of worldly wealth are evident when men choose another gospel in order to keep their comforts (1 Tim. 6:10). The world seeks to protect and secure life on earth. It says "blessings" now and "blessings" later. Jesus rather lived for eternity. Jesus taught us to store up riches in heaven (Matt. 6:20). So we must heed the words of Jesus if we want to be his followers.4 "Give me neither poverty nor riches, but give me only my daily bread. Otherwise, I may disown you and say, ‘Who is the Lord’" (Prov. 30:8-9)?

Jesus challenged tradition and worldly wisdom. The Pharisees and Sadducees tried continually to trap Jesus in their wisdom, but he always confounded them with his responses (Matt. 21:23-27). His own hometown was mystified at his great wisdom, yet they hated him for it (Matt. 13:54). The world’s wisdom said that Joseph’s son from the little town of Nazareth was not the promised Messiah. Besides, weren’t Joseph and Mary the ones who had the supposed "virgin birth" and eloped to Egypt? They did not realize that God chooses the poor and weak things of the world to shame the strong and wise

(1 Cor. 1:27).

The Pharisees scoffed at the idea that Jesus was the Messiah and were convinced that Jesus of Nazareth was the joke of the century (Jn. 7:52). Besides, if he was the Messiah, why was he hanging on a cross? Messiahs don’t die! Messiahs are supposed to conquer and bring peace by defeating their enemies (Matt. 27:40). Worldly wisdom (pragmatism) says that Jesus failed as a preacher and that he was an impotent king. "He saved others," they said, "but he can't save himself!" (Matt. 27:42)

God’s wisdom is seeing to it that many of his followers walk a road of suffering and even death (Lk. 11:49; Rev. 5:10-11). The majority may rule in the world, but it is usually, if not always, the minority that is walking in truth (Matt. 7:14; 22:14). Many men of prominent positions hold the authority and lead many astray (1Tim. 4:1-2). These men are sometimes elevated to the level of "inspiration" and the Spirit is left out of the search for truth and wisdom that comes from God (Jn. 16:13). Most people would rather hear only words that comfort, than hear the truth (Col. 2:8; 2 Tim. 4:3-4). Just ask Jeremiah! "The prophets prophesy lies, the priests rule by their own authority, and my people love it this way. But what will you do in the end" (Jer. 5:31)?

Jesus was hated because he told the truth. He made foolish the wisdom of the "wise" and he paid the price for questioning their authority. The world has always hated truth. Socrates challenged the young people of his day to think on their own. He was forced to drink poison for "corrupting the youth."5 In the world’s eyes, challenging conventional wisdom is seen as deadly as the plague. If they crucified the Son of God for challenging traditional wisdom, what will they to do those who follow him?

The Kingdom of God has been referred to as an upside down Kingdom.6 This means that the Kingdom of God appears to be completely backwards or opposite to the way of the world. A closer look will reveal that it is not God’s Kingdom that is upside down, but the worldly kingdoms. Worldly kingdoms seek to get along without God. Sin has perverted all that God intended for good. From a worldly perspective, the Kingdom of God is an upside down Kingdom that proclaims freedom to the captives, true riches to the poor, strength to the weak, and rewards to those who finish last (Matt. 20:16). In this we see the reason why worldly kingdoms will never be able to accomplish God’s purpose for creation.

Jesus redefined right and wrong. He drew new lines and set new standards that no one in human effort could reach (Matt. 5:22, 28, 38-48). He called his followers to love (agape) as he loved. This love is not natural, but supernatural. This love makes no sense to human wisdom. He fulfilled the entire law in this love (Rom. 13:8-10). He said the world would know who his followers were when they expressed the same love he had shown them (Jn. 13:34-35). He encouraged them to endure the suffering and consider it joy when faced with rejection and persecution (Jn. 16:20; Heb. 12:2; James 1:2-3). He told them to expect opposition and that they should resist the world by overcoming evil with good (Lk. 21:14-15; Rom. 12:21). He called his followers to take up their own cross and go with him, walk the same road, participate in his sufferings, and accept that life comes out of death (Matt. 16:24).

The world thinks of self first and foremost. The world lives as if this world is all there is. Jesus taught that the world was passing away. He taught that his followers were to seek his Kingdom and the interests of God (Matt. 6:33). All that we have is God’s. If God chooses to give… blessed be the name of the LORD. If God chooses to take away… blessed be the name of the LORD. Christ calls his followers to deny self completely and live by the words of God (Matt. 4:4). What is honored by men… is cursed by God. What is honored by God… men mock with ridicule and scorn (Ps. 12:8; Prov. 16:25).

Jesus would have been a horrible banker and not much of a president. He taught that we are to forgive debts and keep forgiving without limits (Matt. 6:15; 18:21-35; Lk. 6:37). He told his followers to put up their swords and that they should forget defending themselves with weapons of the world (Matt. 26:52; Lk. 22:38; 2 Cor. 10:4). How will their attackers see the love (agape) of Christ if they (Christians) resist with evil? Did Christ resist with evil? No, he entrusted himself in his life and his death (1 Pet. 2:23). God chose the time of his death.

To participate with Christ in the same actions is simply weakness to the world, but strength and power to those who know their eternal outcome (Phil.1:21). Christ revealed the love of God in his actions everyday leading up to the cross. When Christians do not imitate and participate with Christ in this life, they empty Christ of his power and his life has no meaning. In this they say, "Give me forgiveness of sin, but keep this radical living business… I want my comforts!"

Jesus’ parables stand as a testimony to the upside down Kingdom (Ps. 78:1-2; Matt. 13:10-11). God presents his Kingdom in a way that only the sincere in faith will see and believe. "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God" (Matt. 5:8). The Romans viewed Christ as a dreamer. The Jews believed he was a false prophet trying to "change" the Law of Moses. They could not understand that God was fulfilling his promise by creating a New Covenant that is summed up in the person and work of Jesus

(Jer. 31:31; Lk. 22:20; Rom. 11:27; 2 Cor. 3:6; Gal. 3:17; Heb. 7:22; 8:6-10). It appeared Christ turned the Old Covenant upside down, when in all actuality… he completed it by revealing ALL that God had intended for Israel.

Christ lived a life that was counter flesh. Flesh responds to the upside down Kingdom out of what seems natural. Christ’s love and his Kingdom are not natural. If the Christian wants to begin to understand the person and work of Christ, they must see the world the way Jesus did. This means dying to self and yielding to Christ’s Spirit.

Rome prided themselves in their tolerance of others. Tolerance was a virtue. Rome was especially proud of their Pantheon and her acceptance of everyone’s religion. Rome was a land of the free. There was freedom to embrace your religion and live the Roman way in peace. Anyone who threatened that peace would suffer Roman violence.7

Much like today’s culture, intolerance was seen as ignorance. "What is truth?" Pilate exclaimed in his conversation with Jesus. The most offensive claim Jesus ever made is in John 14:6, "I (myself) am the way and the truth and the life." This statement holds great meaning to the peoples whom Jesus lived among. To the Greeks and Romans, Christ is the Logos (Word) in flesh. All knowledge and wisdom is complete in him (Col. 2:2-3). To the Jew, this means Christ is the hope of the nations, the long-awaited Savior and God’s Word dwelling with them (Jn. 1:1-14). This was a hard pill to swallow for much of the Greco-Roman world. Christ’s claims, again, were seen by the Gentile world as intolerant and anti-Roman.

Many Christians believe they are intolerant just like Jesus. Unlike Jesus, and much more like the Pharisees, the essentials have moved into traditional man-made laws. Man attempts to reinterpret Scripture to fit his agenda and justify his purpose and actions. The Pharisees prided themselves on being intolerant of "pagan" influences, but they were really pretty painted tombs filled with dead men’s bones (Matt. 23:27). They felt safe in their traditions and lost their true identity. When Jesus comes on the scene, these men had already closed themselves off to anything else but their traditional interpretations. Anything contrary to their interpretations of the law may well be associated with the opposing party of the Sadducees. In the process, a love for truth is lost, and association with one side of the "camp" is preferred. The question then would have been, "Do you belong to the Pharisees or the Sadducees?" Which side did Jesus choose? Neither.

Look where he ended up.

The world continues to hate Jesus for his intolerance toward sin and his claim that there is only one road to redemption. The Christian must be intolerant toward the things that Jesus himself was intolerant. Jesus was intolerant toward sin, but he never allowed himself to be lured into the trap of arguing Pharisee and Sadducee theological differences (Matt. 22:23-33). The devil seeks to lure Christ and his followers into meaningless debates that they might be intolerant of each other, instead of being intolerant of falsehood and deceit (2 Tim. 2:23-26). The issue is truth. The truth of Christ’s person and work will set the Christian free (Jn. 8:32).

If the absolutes are not leading us to mercy, grace, and lives of unconditional love… then chances are we have picked sides and are blinded to the truth. Man-made wisdom and rules will be evident in an increasing attitude of hostility towards those who proclaim a different truth (ex. Pharisees, Sadducees, Luther, Calvin, Baptist Conventions, etc.). This is the truth that Christ proclaimed and he was hated for it.

Jesus did not live for self. He did not live for his glory, but the glory of the Father (Jn. 17:1-5). It was the Father that in turn would exalt Jesus’ name above all other names and give him the right-hand power (Eph. 1:22; Phil. 2:9)! Only the Father has the "right" to do what he wills. We are to say with Jesus, "All I have is yours, and all you have is mine." Jesus recognized that his incarnation was for the glory of God and nothing more or less (Matt. 26:42). Jesus understood that joy comes from walking with the Father. He did not associate himself with worldly kingdoms and religious leaders that brought division by their pride. Anything that is not of the holy nation (the church) cannot be set apart for God and can only promote self-glorification and idolatry (1 Jn. 2:15-17). Therefore, the church must repent and seek unity in the truth of the Gospel of Christ.

Anything that takes the praise, glory, and honor away from God is ungodliness (Rom. 1:18-32)! Too many times Christians thank God for things that do not honor God. If we believe that it is a "blessing" to enjoy things that came to us by violence and oppression inflicted on other peoples that are in desperate need of God’s forgiveness, we are dangerously headed down a slippery slope of betrayal (Ez. 33:11; 2 Thess. 2:10). If the Christian wants to thank God for his sovereign hand over all the earth, then he should do so while keeping the glorification of worldly kingdoms out of the thanksgiving. Here it is evident that some are concerned more for a worldly agenda than Christ’s commission to make disciples that are known by his sacrificial love (Matt. 28:18-20; Jn. 13:34-36).

Since Jesus was only concerned with making the name of his Father famous, the world rejected him. The religious leaders believed they were concerned with bringing glory to God, but they could not see that they were blindly embracing a commission that was born out of self-glorification and national pride (Jer. 7:1-11). Israel misunderstood the reason for which she was chosen and believed it was about God for man, instead of man for God (Is. 62:1-12). Jesus was the light (Jn. 8:12). He was the true Israelite (Jn. 1:47). We can know what God intended for Israel and what he intends for the Christian by the example of Christ’s life. Jesus did not "go with the flow" or promote "uniformity." He was faithful to God and chose to obey the Father rather than men (Acts 5:29). His disciples applied his example to their own lives and so should we if we want to bring glory to his name (1 Pet. 4:1-2, 12-19).

This is what it means to be the hands and feet of Jesus. If you want to know what Jesus would do, look at what Jesus did. By the power of his Spirit we will live, love, and win just as he did. The world will see foolishness, but those being saved will see the glory and power of God (1 Cor. 1:18; Jn. 1:14; Acts 1:8).

"Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did."

1 John 2:6

"If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you."

John 15:18-19

"I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world."

John 16:33

Living By The Sword/Dying
By The Sword

Posted April 29,2007

by Gary G. Kohls, MD

I'm certain that Jesus intended his church to be a
peace church. That statement is obvious if one
reads the gospels with an open mind and hasn't
been brain-washed by the leaders of the organized
Christian churches of the last 1700 years, that
claimthat one can, under certain circumstances,
participate in the killing of other children of God
and still be following Jesus.

Without a doubt, what was unique about Jesus
was his teachings about love - love of God, love
of neighbor, love for oneself, love for the "least of
these¨, even love for one's enemies. Without a
doubt, Jesus rejected homicidal violence in
everything he said and did - and he modeled that
ethical stance clearly in the way he lived. And
without a doubt, the early church understood Jesus'
mission to be about practicing nonviolent love of
friend and enemy, living in peace with one
another, living lives of mercy rather than murder,
compassion rather than cruelty, reconciliation
rather than retaliation.

I have experienced very few churches that I would
call real peace churches in my life as a person of
faith. Most are scattered around the nation in my
occasional travels as a member of Every Church
A Peace Church. Most have been associated with
the historic peace churches, including the Society
of Friends, the Mennonites and the Church of the
Brethren.

Those churches somehow have found the courage
to be radically prophetic, outspokenly anti-war
peacemaker churches despite living in a society
that discourages disturbing the patriotic status quo.
Those churches seem to be willing to struggle to
implement Jesus' ethical teachings in the Sermon
onthe Mount rather than modifying them to suit
their nation's politics, economics or desire for
earthly security. Those churches appear to be
doing what the original followers of Jesus in the
original form of Christianity did - imitating him by
consistently performing, no matter the
circumstances, nonviolent Christ-like deeds of love
and vigorously refusing to
participate in or remain silent about, the legalized
killing of war. Those churches appear to be living
lives that promote, rather than retard, the coming of
the peaceable kingdom here on earth. What the
world desperately needs are more true peace
churches.

I suspect that many middle of the road, Just War
Theory Christian churches have clergy and lay
leaders that would like to transform their churches
into true peace churches, but who may have come
to the conclusion that the people in the pews aren't
quite ready for something as radical as that; so the
process is felt to be too difficult for now and
therefore abandoned. Perhaps the leaders of the
churches fear losing their pro-war members (and
their financial contributions) if the reality of Jesus'
nonviolence was taught comprehensively. Maybe
such churches fear being viewed with suspicion by
the "my country right-or-wrong¨ patriots that may
constitute a majority in their communities.

With regard to this dilemma, it might be helpful to
recall the Last Judgment Passage - Matthew 25:31
-46. In that passage, the writer of Matthew's gospel
says that we judge ourselves by what we did or did
not do to the "least of these" because what we did
or did not do to them was what we did or did not do
to Jesus, with certain rewards or consequences
according to our choices. According to that
passage, Jesus is to be regarded as incarnated in
the bodies of those who are hungry, thirsty, in need
of hospitality, naked, sickened, captive, homeless,
discriminated against, powerless, victimized and in
need of love and mercy. These least ones are
obviously to be cared for by the disciples of Jesus
whether they are friends, neighbors or enemies --
deserving of mercy (by human standards) or not.

There is a parallel story in Luke, called the parable
of the rich man and Lazarus. The rich man had
wealth, power, privilege and was probably a
religious, law-abiding, "Bible-believing" Jew. As far
as we can tell, he only lacked one thing - 
compassion for the "least of these".

The rich man treated Lazarus as less than fully
human, as an object of scorn, for which, in a moral
universe, Jesus obviously says there are serious
consequences. Because of his indifference in the
face of relievable human suffering, the rich man
condemns himself to an eternity of separation from
God, which theologians have for centuries called
hell.

A number of years ago, I was at a weekend
workshop on Christian nonviolence, facilitated by
a Catholic priest, Father Emmanuel Charles
McCarthy. Father McCarthy recited a simple but
profound poem at that conference. It went like this:

When you treat a thing like it's a thing, that's
 reality.

When you treat a thing like it's a person, that's
 illusion.

When you treat a person like a thing, that's
 violence.

But when you treat a person like a person, that's
 love.

That poem is a corollary to the Golden Rule,
which should help us when we make our
everyday ethical decisions and even help us
decide what politicians to vote for and which
ones to oppose. When we treat someone as less
than fully human, when we disrespect someone
because of skin color, gender, religion, social
status, looks or sexuality, we are doing violence.
If we treat people like they are sexual objects,
scapegoats, cannon fodder or someone to
dominate, demean or destroy, we are doing
violence - with destructive ripples that go out we
know not where.

In 1995, during the 50^th anniversary week of the
bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I was at
Holden Village, a politically and theologically
progressive Christian retreat center in the
Cascade Mountains of Washington state. During
that retreat, a one-man play was presented about
the life of Harry Truman, the president who was in
office when the United States annihilated
Hiroshima and Nagasaki with atomic weapons.
The actor portraying Mr. Truman mentioned
pointedly that as a young man Truman had kept in
his billfold a copy of the Golden Rule ("do unto
others as you would have them do unto you"),
from Jesus' Sermon on the Mount. Apparently
Truman had claimed at various times during his
life that he consulted the Golden Rule whenever
he had ethical decisions to make.

Later in the monologue, the actor talked about
Truman¡¦s decision to order the bombings of
Hiroshima and Nagasaki, two defenseless civilian
targets, both of which had been protected, for
scientific reasons, from the conventional incendiary
bombings that had destroyed nearly every major
city in Japan during the first half of 1945. At the
end of the play, the actor talked about Truman's
conviction that ordering the bombings had been the
right thing to do, that he had never lost any sleep
over the decision and that he would do it all over
again without pangs of conscience.

The grotesque contradiction of that statement
coupled with Truman's professed commitment to
the Golden Rule was too much for me, and so,
during the question and answer period, I asked for
clarification. How, I wanted to know, did Truman
rationalize what Jesus clearly commanded his
followers to do in the Sermon on the Mount, with
his decision to order the incineration of hundreds
of thousands of innocent Japanese civilians,
especially with his awareness that Japan had been
searching for a way to surrender with honor for
weeks before the bombing. All I got was a
sputtering defense of Truman's political decision,
and, of course, no coherent comment about the
Golden Rule.

Harry Truman, just like the rich man in the parable,
was a "Bible-believing" person of faith and privilege
who felt no remorse for his part in causing the
suffering of others. But I suspect that if he had
been on the ground at Nagasaki following the
bombings instead of half-way around the world in
the safety of the White House, his cavalier attitude
would have been different. If he had been at ground
zero, Truman would have been forced to directly
experience the agony of the living dead pleading for
water and relief from their pain. He would have
smelled the unforgettable fecal stench of decaying
bodies that always follows military strikes.

If Truman had been at Nagasaki on August 10,
1945, he would have seen the carbonized remains
of innocent children, and he might not have been
so proud of American technological superiority.
He may have even expressed shame at having
been part of such atrocities, as have so many
other American observers of the aftermath. He
might even have recanted of the deed, asked the
Japanese for forgiveness and looked for ways to
atone. If Mr. Truman and the tens of thousands
of Manhattan Project workers who developed
the bombs, and perhaps even the bomber crews
that dropped them from the safe distance of
31,000 feet up, had witnessed the end result of
their efforts up close and personal, they may
have stopped cheering their success and instead
started searching their souls.

If these Americans had actually been at ground
zero and seen and smelled and heard the death
and dying, those with any conscience at all would
have experienced symptoms of posttraumatic
stress disorder (PTSD), with overwhelming guilt,
panic attacks, insomnia, nightmares, flashbacks,
depression, shame and even suicidality. Their
symptoms might have persisted for the rest of
their lives, as has been the experience of so
many victims, perpetrators and bystanders of
history's battlefields. If Truman had really
experienced the carnage of the bombings, he
may even have worked for the abolition of war
and refused to put so much money and effort
into the post-war development of America's
powerful military machine, its nuclear weapons
industry and its national security apparatus, each
of which has been such a tremendous curse to
the world and to the soul of America.

But the problem isn't just Harry Truman. And it
isn't just WWII. The problem is the willingness of
most Bible-believing Christians, especially the
politicians, war profiteers, super-patriots and
professional soldiers, to cause others to suffer
and die when their security is threatened. The
problem lies in our nation's desire for power,
prestige and property. The problem lies in
America's unquenchable thirst for vengeance
when its honor is besmirched. The problem is the
church's silence about and complicity in its 
nation's wars. The problem is that most of
Christianity has been nurtured in the type of
religion that seems to never oppose its nation's
military actions until it's too late, in direct
opposition to the teachings of the founder.

The story of the bombing of Nagasaki is a
particularly sordid chapter in the history of
Christianity, for on August 9, 1945, an
all-Christian bomb crew dropped the second
atomic bomb on the center of Japanese
Christianity - the Nagasaki Urakami Cathedral.
The Cathedral was one of the aiming points for
the bombardier on the plane called Bock's Car
and the bomb exploded only 500 meters above it.
That important story is a profound one and one
that can be told at a later time, but what the
Japanese Imperial government had tried and failed
to do for over 200 years - destroy Japanese
Christianity - was done by fellow American
Christians in 9 seconds.

Since the Cathedral was near ground zero, very
few Nagasaki Christians survived. 6000 Christians
died instantly including those who were celebrating
mass that morning. Three orders of nuns and a
Christian girl's school were incinerated. Tens of
thousands of innocent people died and hundreds of
thousands were mortally wounded, some of whose
progeny are still in the process of dying as a
consequence of the plutonium bomb.

Is this the way of Christ? It is not. In the gospels,
Jesus clearly forbids violence for those who wish
to follow him. And, of course, he obviously would
have had no part in any violence that creates
victims.

Following the atomic bombings, many survivors
went mad from the chaos, the disappearance,
death or suffering of loved ones, the loss of homes
and possessions, the hopelessness and the absence
of relief efforts. All victims became depressed,
and many committed suicide in the weeks and
years that followed. After the violence of war,
everybody on the ground gets PTSD.

But lets get biblical again. The Nagasaki victims
are "the least ones" of Matthew 25. They were
starving, thirsty, naked and homeless; most were
sickened by the radiation poisoning and absence of
medical care; and all were captives in their
devastated city. They were also spiritually dead
and dying, but so were the American
soldier-perpetrators who were also victims of the
mass slaughter that is modern war.

The variety of PTSD called combat-induced PTSD
turns out to be, in my professional experience, its
most incurable form, for engaging in the legalized
killing of war eventually comes back to haunt the
soul and psyche -- psychological trauma that keeps
on repeating itself in the intrusive, indelible and
recurrent memories, with transient respite only
possible when using brain-altering drugs, alcohol or
mind-numbing, addicting activities.

To appreciate the mental anguish caused by the
violence of the war-zone, one only has to ponder
the estimated 200,000 suicides that have occurred
among Vietnam War veterans after they came
home from the war. Combat-induced PTSD
meets my definition of dying by the sword. As
one Vietnam veteran said "having PTSD is like
having been annihilated in the killing fields of
Vietnam, and then having to wait 25 years to finally
lie down and die." After such psychological and
spiritual pain it feels good to finally lie down, even
if it is to die.

Violence sickens people whether they are victims,
bystanders or perpetrators. War and violence are
equal opportunity destroyers of the soul.

The spiritual costs of war are too high. The pacifist
Martin Luther King was "right on the war question"
(the statement that he wanted emphasized at his
funeral) when he led his nonviolent campaign
against racism, militarism and economic oppression.
The pacifist Gandhi was "right on the war question"
when he led his nonviolent campaign against British
military-enforced economic oppression. The pacifist
Christian church of the first 3 centuries was "right
on the war question" when it refused to allow its
men in Rome's army - and it flourished in spite of
that unpopular stance. Violence and killing are
deadly to the perpetrators, deadly to the souls and
bodies of the victims, deadly to the souls of the
mothers of the soldiers who participate in war,
whether engaged in willingly or unwillingly.

The pacifist Jesus was also "right on the war"
question."Love your enemies" was not a
throwaway line. And Jesus meant it when he said
to the sword-wielding Peter in the garden of
Gethsemane: "Put up the sword for he who lives by
the sword, dies by the sword."

So recall the simple poem. If we treat other people
as if they were fully human, we will treat them with
mercy and love; if we treat them as fully human,
we will be incapable of killing them, threatening
them or dominating them, even if they are fingered
as enemies of the state by our political or military
leaders.

If we understand and accept the ethical teachings of
Jesus, we will then begin to question the wisdom
and morality of having half of our federal income
taxes expropriated for past and present military
spending in a world where war can be abolished.
And in reordering our ethical, political and economic
lives in such a way, we will somehow receive the
blessings Jesus promised to the peacemakers.

_______________________

               Ben Gorman
    A Young Man's Testimony

Last week, at the request of Colin Saxton, we began participating in a Yearly Meeting-wide Peace Sabbath.  We took some time to begin praying to hear God’s call to be peacemakers.  We committed to spending some time this last week praying individually to hear that call in our own lives. 

On Wednesday a group of us gathered to share a Piece of Peace pizza party.  There, we spent some time in open worship listening to Christ’s call to be peacemakers in our world.  What was most striking was the way people were being called to peacemaking not just at different levels, but at all levels; from our interaction with spouses and family, to friends, to work and social settings, to our responsibilities to deter nations from going to war, we were called to re-evaluate the way that we approach peacemaking.  Here are just a few of the ideas people shared during open worship:

• We shared our excitement about all these prayers for peace going out from our church and our yearly meeting.  We trust in the power of those prayers.  At the same time we experienced mourning with God, sharing his sadness about all our bad choices.

• We thought about the verse that tells us God has "committed to us the message of reconciliation": that we've been entrusted with this message to peace and need to share it.

• We noted that peace-making isn't always people pleasing, that we have a call to be passionate and speak up without causing violence or animosity, that sometimes this is hardest in a family, or with the people closest to us, and that we have to be intentional about making peace in our homes even when the temptation is to smile and nod and walk away.

• We reflected on how we make people into objects and wondered how that relates to treating people with violence, noting that it’s easier to treat people with violence if they are objects, but if we see all people as people it changes that propensity.

• We also admitted that, when we're being treated as objects, it’s hard to not do the same in return.

• We were reminded that God loves the guy on the street corner, or the person in another nation, just as much as He loves us, and we need to act accordingly.

• We reconsidered the command to sow the seeds of peace, noting that when we garden we have a tendency to make neat rows and plant in those rows, but in Jesus' parable seeds are scattered wildly.  We admitted that our call to peacemaking may be more Johnny Appleseed and less Martha Stewart.  Maybe we shouldn't think so much about what comes after.  Maybe that makes us too sparing in our sowing.  We should be sowing the seeds of peace more freely.

Lastly, we committed to continue to pray for one another, and to make this process of seeking peace an ongoing one, regularly revisiting this
subject to share the ways God is leading us to be peacemakers, so that we can be more effective in this call as individuals and as a corporate body.

During this time Ron Mock left some space for individuals to ask for help in their search for a call to peacemaking.  I asked for the group’s help, and Gregg has encouraged me to extend that request for assistance to all of you.

My own journey toward being a peacemaker does not begin in the Quaker church.  I was raised by Presbyterian ministers, one of whom served in the Air Force during the Vietnam War.  My father was also the person who took me to my first Peace March to protest the first Gulf War. 

Despite my upbringing and my parents’ commitment to peace as a Christian virtue, by high school I was neither a pacifist nor a Christian.  I did well on the Armed Services test, the ASVAB, and told the recruiters I was a conscientious objector not because I had strongly held convictions, but to get them off my back.  Later, in college, when I converted to Christianity, I came to Christ with my politics and my theology unformed, and with a lot of questions. 

Luckily, I was blessed with some wonderful guides, foremost among them the woman who would become my wife, Paige, then Hillary Larson, a member of Newberg Friends.  She helped me to see that God, through scripture, prayer, and long debates with other committed Christians over coffee, could make His ways known to me, at least as much as I am capable of understanding.  Among other things, I came to believe that God is deeply committed to peace, so much so that He calls us to difficult, even painful sacrifice to achieve peace.  The longstanding Quaker tradition of pacifism was only one aspect of Quakerism that correlated to my evolving interpretation of God’s call, but it was an important one, because to me it spoke to our theological consistency and our willingness to listen to Christ’s call in every area of our lives.

I recognize and respect every Christian’s right, ability, and responsibility to interpret scripture for him or herself.  I believe God is active with us in that process and I also recognize that, even when we are doing our best to be faithful we may come to different conclusions about what He is telling us.  In my own reading of scripture I have become convinced that God rejects violence and orders us to actively seek out peace: not just an absence of violence, but a passionate and intentional commitment to reconciliation and healing in a violent world.  Through Micah and Isaiah he commands us to beat our swords into plows.  This is not just an admonition against war, but a commandment to work hard to bring about God’s peace.

Jesus tells us that He commands eleven legions of Angels, that all power and might are His, but He rejects the use of force and expects us to do the same.  He calls us to forgive and forgive and forgive, no matter how much we are hurt.  To show us this commitment, when he was arrested, tortured, and crucified, he refused to take up arms against those who chose violence. In fact, in a country that was an occupied territory under a ruthless military dictatorship, the only time Jesus became violent was when he picked up cords, made a whip, and herded the money changers out of His Father’s House.  I take this to mean that we would be more justified in whipping fraudulent televangelists and the con artists hocking What Would Jesus Do jewelry than we would be in bombing those we label enemies of freedom. 

The early church, in the time of St. Augustine, established what it called Just War Theory, and yet, as I read history, I note that there has never been a single war that met all its tests. As I shared at our meeting Wednesday, as a high school teacher I’m confronted every day by students who’ve been taught by their parents, sometimes with words and sometimes with fists, that violence is the way to solve problems.  But as a public school teacher I cannot tell them that this is untrue, because it would be a political statement, since we live in a country that not only uses violence to solve problems, but even elects violence as a first choice. 

My son has never lived a day of his life when his country wasn’t at war.   Worse, he’s never lived a day when his parents aren’t complicit in those wars, paying our tax dollars to buy the bullets that kill civilians, the tanks that destroy homes, the bombs that obliterate families.  And as I listen I hear Christians, even Christian leaders, good people I’m sure, who are also trying to be faithful in their own interpretations of scripture,
sounding out as some of the loudest voices advocating all kinds of violence, from corporal punishment of children to war between nations, from capital punishment to the torture of innocent people in the name of liberty.

I confess that this makes me deeply angry.  And I know, at least on the conscious, logical level, that my own anger is counterproductive.  It’s a kind of violence that contributes to a hostile and pointless style of debate.  I have been trying to find more constructive ways to advocate for peace, to sow the seeds of peace as wildly as the Sower in Jesus’ parable without committing the very kinds of violence I oppose. That’s why I’ve joined our church’s Peace Ministry Team where I’ve met people doing amazing work. 

That’s why I was so glad when Peggy Hanson relayed Colin Saxton’s call to this Peace Sabbath. That’s where I am in my journey as a peacemaker now: I don’t know how, exactly, I can be most effective in promoting peace, so I come to you, to ask you to pray for me and to give me your insights.  I trust in Christ’s ability to work within this church, to speak to people far wiser than myself, who can guide me.  I also ask you to pray for our church, and for yourselves.  Let’s join in prayer to ask God how we can bring peace into our homes, our workplaces, our world, and our very selves. Please listen with me for God’s voice speaking peace to you.

Will you pray with me?

We have been given divine weapons. How often do we use them? In times of trouble do we put them aside and rush to use the weapons of this world?