The Gospel of Peace

Posted by Admin in Pamphlets on Jan 3rd, 2010 | no responses

War and Peace

Introduction:

War is to the modern citizen what child sacrifice was to the ancients. People offer the life of their children [all be they grown] on the altar of war to the god of security and perpetuity that they should profit and continue for having made the sacrifice. In the 20th century more people have fought or died in the commission of “war” than in all the other wars of the past 6 centuries combined. It is no doubt that this huge waste of life motivates some people to recoil from war to embrace so-called peace. This kind of peace on the other hand has come to mean an elusive pursuit for a growing number of people. With the last century being the exhibit of what man can do, it doesn’t seem that peace is within mankind’s repertoire. So the argument goes back and forth between those that justify war for whatever purpose and those who pursue the course of a so-called peace at any cost.

This pamphlet is an attempt to go back to scripture, particularly Christ’s teachings, and dust off a major concept that has gone unnoticed by the greatest majority of church people and bible teachers, no matter their flavor. Evidence of this point was given during “the 1974 Lausanne Conference on World Evangelization, Michael Green asked rhetorically, ‘How much have you heard here about the Kingdom of God? His answer as, ‘Not much. It is not our language. But it was Jesus’ prime concern.”1 The Kingdom of God is to be an alternative to the games and extremes of the world [the collective of non-believers]. In order to be an alternative, a prerequisite requires that believers cannot be on either side of the status quo. But on a similar note, this “not being either side of the status-quo” does not mean that we can become reclusives. Jesus as our example was totally different than either the Pharisees or the Sadducees [the cultural status-quo] but He was approachable and available to all.

The Gospel of Peace

An alternative to the familiar discussions of War and Peace

War is a subject that dominates conversation today while soldiers continue to die in Iraqi and the official conflict being described as “over.” There is no shortage of opinions on this subject, or people to offer them. Positions go all the way from adaptations of Augustine’s so-called Just Cause to the alleged high-minded thinking of non-violence and pacifism. These arguments are as old as the hills but for one reason or another people continue to argue this controversy as if there will be a final conclusion. I in no way intend to engage the usual arguments on this issue. I want to raise a more provocative thought as it relates to people whose aim it is to follow Christ.

What has interested me is the nature of the argument between war and peace. Disagreements usually occur on surface details, which are thought to be opposing. What is more, there are religious ideas and concepts behind both sides of the argument, which ironically have the same origins. The Liberal ideas of long-lasting peace on earth or non-violence and pacifism are pulled from the same religious source as the Conservative tolerance for war in the name of “peace” contrived by either means of superior firepower [deterrence] or the sound thrashing of an enemy. Odd isn’t it?

So how is it that two very different views on a subject come from the same origins?

Both seem to have support in scripture, and certain ideas have definitely been put into practice historically. Yet the pendulum continually swings back and forth between war and peace: subjects in constant controversy. We should first get a general overview of the differing political ideas and then we can get around to discussing war and peace from another point of view.

The Liberal Mindset In General Terms

The Liberal mindset is very wide, encompassing extremes as well as a main thrust to which the widest majority of liberal minded people agree. Liberals generally hail from mainline denominations (Presbyterian, Methodist, or Anglican/Episcopalian), but there are significant numbers of secularists or atheists in their ranks.

The Liberal is humanistic and values mankind itself. They value human rights with no caveats and the right of existence with almost hallowed veneration. The Liberal view seems to be focused in the here and now, which might best be characterized by the adage; “You only go around once.”

Liberals tend to believe that man is basically good and that the bad elements in society and life are absorbed from outside sources. They believe that education and environment are the two major components that play into making people who and what they become. Amongst their ideals is the concept of social justice and fairness: a tangible right for everyone no matter the circumstances surrounding them. And since there is not enough education and there are bad environments, there is still much to do. Liberal ideals range from a “don’t rock the boat” incremental progressiveness to an aggressive utopianism.

Many Liberals believe in the Bible, as far as being a good guide to morality and goodness, but they do not hold to it in an absolutist way. They believe man is able determine a good way for himself if he is broad-minded, has been educated with high ideals and a positive outlook. The Liberal values the individual’s responsibility to community. This ideal voices itself in a myriad of ways such as obsessive environmental concerns, obsessive social concern or a constant comparison between the haves and have-nots.

The Conservative Mindset In General Terms

The Conservative camp is broad as well, but much narrower in scope than Liberal thinking. The Conservative view is based more on the individualism of; self-discipline, personal responsibility, and determination. These are held with a religious reverence. The Conservative view is held mainly by religious groups like; Fundamentalist, Evangelical and Charismatic denominations (Baptist, Evangelical-Free or the Assembly of God). There are secularists and atheists within the Conservative view as well.

The Conservative values the responsibility of the individual as it has implications on society at large. The Conservative mindset is a little more negative towards mankind, because many of their ideals are based from evolutions of puritanical piety. They have a strong work ethic and are focused on what the individual achieves. It appears as though the Conservative view is based in a mindset, where everything seems to be a means to a futurist end.

The Conservative mindset is shaped by their view of reality, which might best be characterized in words sang by Johnny Cash, “This world is rough and if a man’s gonna make it he’s gotta be tough.”2 It appears as though the survival of the fittest is latent in the Conservative mindset. This is ironic seeing as how the religious among them abhor the hint of any connection to the catch phrases of evolutionists.

Turning The Corner

We obviously cannot take into consideration all that each value system entails. I merely wanted to give overview of some generalized ideas from both groups, which will be relevant to our discussion. Having observed some differences between Liberals and Conservatives there is also a confluence of ideas between the two ideals where many people blend the extremes. The incompleteness of either view is perhaps one reason why people on a common level in society vacillate between the two ideals; sometimes voting for the candidate in the other party. On the other hand, some, who are dyed in the wool party members wouldn’t cross party lines because they refuse see beyond their chosen point of view.

Concerning war and peace, there are significant problems both for Liberal and Conservative ideals as it relates to believers. One of the problems concerning the opposing ideas dealing with war and peace is the constant conflict between the two ideals. The whole discussion, being confined to a political context, integrates believers into an oppositional discussion. Another problem is that the political stage has become the very place for both disagreements to take place between brethren and where various problems are allegedly “solved” by either reductionist compromise or further alienating discord. Still another problem is that believers look for continued inclusion and answers in the political arena concerning the problems between war and peace as well as many other issues.

Below is a list outlining some specific areas that generally define each political mindset. Accompanying each aspect are scriptures that could be used to support the political values listed. These texts are possibly the origins of the religious mindset behind the political shroud of the “issues” which everybody argues over.

Liberal

Peace (at almost any price), cf. Matt. 5:9, 5:44
Social Equality, cf. Acts 10:28 and James 2:2-4
Care For The Poor, cf. James 1:27
Spread Wealth cf. Acts 2:44-45
Conservation, cf. Gen. 41, Lev. 25:3-5
Judicial Leniency, cf. Luke 18:2-5 (appeals), John 8:3-11

Conservative

War (to maintain peace or political interest) cf. Joshua and 2nd Samuel
Determination, Discipline, and Self-Will, cf. Prov. 22:29, Dan. 1:8-9
Small Government cf. Prov. 28:2
Government To Protect Religious Standards, cf. Prov. 14:34
Private Property, cf. Exod. 22:8, Lev. 25:1-31
Making Use Of Natural Resources, cf. Gen. 1:28
Judicial Firmness, cf. 1 Kings 3:16-28

Note: I have made no attempt to quote these scriptures in context or even to use the exact texts each group might use in support of their ideals. My point is to show that the Bible can be used to support various political ideals. The operative word is “used” because most texts employed to support various secular ideas have been lifted from their context to support something that is foreign to that context.

The above comparison between Conservative and Liberal is not exact point for point between the two views. Obviously there are points that Liberals are more attuned to, which Conservatives maybe less so and vice versa. Something that should concern us is the sparse or very partial scriptural support behind either political ideal. This should be a special concern because there are tremendous amounts of scripture that would inform us about the issues politicians have forged with a thin lacing of truth. Is anybody asking about these types of problems? Hold that thought, lets consider some other details first.

Lets Frame The Real Issue

War and peace was not always a discussion between religious Liberals and Conservatives. But there has hardly been a time in the last 1600 years when this discussion did not take place between political factions that were much like the Liberals and Conservatives of our day. The debate about war and peace is fundamentally a religiously discussion, but the essence of this religious thought was not always available to the state as it has been in the last 1600 years.

The inclusion of the “Christian” mindset, as far as becoming a regular part at society’s round table, came through an event many have documented in different ways but what one fellow labeled as: the Constantinian Change.3 Early in the 4th century Constantine the Great 285-337AD issued an edict of toleration for the followers of Christ, who, up until then had been aggressively hunted down and killed as enemies of the state. Once believers were included in the realm of the state it wasn’t long till they became a formidable influence in the politics of the state. In one fell swoop; the enclave of the faithful went from being the single representatives of the Kingdom of God, to becoming the citizens of the kingdoms of men. They went from the unique position of representing the only true and lasting peace the world has ever known, to representing peace, amongst other things, as a commodity in kingdoms of conquest, intrigue and factions.

The combination of including the church in the state, and then the churches’ attempt to influence the factions within the realm ended up emasculating the of Kingdom of God as being a unique and exclusive entity. Believers, before they were joined to the state, were good ambassadors of the Kingdom of God to the kingdoms of men. They were not manipulated by what could be gained or lost from the state, because the state afforded them nothing, God was their only provision. Once the state officially included Christians, and believers gave into this ploy, they failed to be the ambassadors of God because now they sought the continued favor and provisions of the state. They began being “lobbyists” within the state in order to protect their rights and expanded their privileges.

Since Constantine there have been few times in history where Christians ventured out of the cultural mold the state has provided them, to once again represent the Kingdom of God as being foreign to the kingdoms of men. It has been thought that the syncretism between the church and state under Constantine’s engineering was a good opportunity for the church. Yet G. K. Chesterton confronts this idea by stating “The coziness between church and state is good for the state and bad for the church.”

The Kingdom Of God

The truth of God represented by the followers of Christ was the Kingdom of God. It was the first fruits of God’s intent, but no less a reality. It operated in peace but was warred against by the state. The Kingdom of God took care of its own, sharing wealth and living in social/economic equality. The early church was not silent, unavailable, or inattentive to the needs of people in Roman society. The Kingdom of God showed initiative towards the downtrodden and throwaways of the Roman cultural monolith. It was the alternative to the states’ promotion and use of classism to rule, divide and keep the masses in manageable groups. For many years the Kingdom of God [made up solely of believers] governed itself in a decentralized fashion, keeping dynamics local and meaningful to meet needs in the most efficient and sensitive ways.

The Kingdom of God warred against the state on a spiritual level, for besides its only physical aspect—our bodies—a spiritual reality is what the Kingdom of God is all about. In the early years, believers were not deterred by the states’ ban on them. They did not ask the state if they could meet, teach, preach, or if their meeting needs was according to government regulations. The Kingdom of God even in its infancy was a formidable alternative on every level to the society and culture of Rome—which represented the unbelieving world. The followers of Christ were the most model citizens by any measure of Roman standards in; ethics, morality, and social conduct, with the exception of not bowing the knee before the god of the state or Caesar.

Truth Fractured Through Politics

The real damage of the Constantinian Change is that the realities of the Kingdom of God were parted out and masked in secular, political dogmas. These derivatives were then used to feed the aspirations of men, while being stripped of having anything to do with the Kingdom of God.

Through this process certain details conveniently fell through the cracks. One such detail is the fact that we live in a fallen world, because of sin. Another is that while God established governments and realms in the physical world, He also established the Kingdom of God through Christ: a spiritual world reality within the physical world. Dallas Willard concurs writing that, “The kingdom of God is not a social or political reality at all.”4 A proper view of eternity is something that also has dropped into obscurity. To one political faction, eternity has become some far off possibility that often impedes living in the here and now. Conversely, the other political faction is only focused on Christ’s return, [their idea of the beginning of eternity]. To them everything is focused on a preparation for this event. Eternity has become either marginalized or fixated on, and both miss the point.

Finally, the political process of dissecting the truth of God into pieces has resulted in people taking or leaving aspects of it as if they are options, thus the physical life eclipses the reality of spiritual life even for Christians. To illustrate what politics has done to the church; let’s consider metallurgy. Metallurgy is the science of developing the uses and capacities of metal by combining various metals into alloys. This science has been able to positively affect industry, art and life. Converse to increasing the value of metal by mixing them, nothing is more valuable than pure gold. Think of the Kingdom of God as “pure gold” and politics as a “metallurgist” gone mad: mixing a precious metal [truth] with common industrial/structural metals [the order of a sinful world]. The gold [truth] would be useless and totally insignificant in this arrangement. Jacques Ellul concludes this reality as well:

The moment Christians make it a habit to understand questions, which the world has elaborated, they adopt at the same time a certain number of ideological positions, responses and doctrines which also originate in the world…In doing so, Christians achieve an exact confirmation of the analysis of Marx, according to which Christianity is [merely] a superstructure [in a larger organism]…This [kind of] Christianity is then a religion which develops in terms of the world’s economic and technological evolution, and whose aim is to provide ideological and moral satisfaction to those who are in fact incapable of changing the situation. It is a substitute.5 [additions mine for clarity]

The trinkets and structure of the political realm brag of its’ hint of gold [truth], but this gold is nothing like gold [Truth] in its pure form of God and His Kingdom. The political process divides the believer’s uniqueness and collective as the Kingdom of God. It tries to give us the pretense of inclusion while in reality it washes us down stream towards either objectives or obscurity either of which do not support who we really are as followers of Christ.

Moving Towards Restoration

As I mentioned earlier the two alleged opposing views concerning war and peace originate from the same source: the Bible. The truth that Liberals and Conservatives have morphed into opposite extremes need to be recombined into the tension under which God articulated them in the first place. Tension maintains the balance in which the aspects of truth work properly.

At the same time we need to divest of the encrustations of political and secular thinking that have surrounded these facets of truth. As believers we need to get back to whole thinking and living as the Kingdom of God. In order to be restored in Kingdom of God living we must deal with a few details and get them right in our heads. Otherwise we’ll start off in another direction and end up in a different extreme.

God instituted governments on earth for the purpose of order, without which man in his sinful condition can do nothing but fight and kill. Government is a means of restraint, administering law and order in a realm, (cf. Rom. 13:1-3, 1 Pet. 2:13-15). This all has to do with the physical world. Christ introduced a spiritual-world Kingdom of God that was to be in the midst of the realms of men, yet distinct from them. God never purposed for the Kingdom of God to belong to one or any of the kingdoms of men. There was to be the tension of coexistence between the two, (cf. Matt. 24:10, John 15:18-20). And this kind of tension comes from lack of conformity.

Secondly, the result of sin, which marks each and every man (cf. Rom. 3:23), also makes war inevitable. This earth is a fallen world made up of people who are full of sin. War, killing, pillaging, destruction, treachery, and infamy are the commodities of a fallen world. And peace, by the world’s standards, is only that pause between all the wars it can’t help but fight. Even this pause is marked with rancor, avarice, and selfishness between people and countries, which are precursors of more out-right war. The dream of real peace, in a world full of sinful people, is nothing short of ludicrous.* Absolute peace on earth, aside from the Kingdom of God, will never be known by mankind until the Prince of Peace comes to rule in the physical world (cf. Isa. 2:4, 60:18-20, Mic. 4:1-4).

Thirdly, when the Kingdom of God becomes a restored understanding to believers in this life, eternity will not be an annoyance to the hear-and-now, neither will it be a selfish motivation to try and get unbelieving people to act a certain way so that Christ will be impressed when He returns. “New Testament passages make plain that this Kingdom [eternity] is not something to be “accepted” now and enjoyed later, but something to be entered [into] now.”6 We won’t know eternity fully until the end of time, but its reality in the here and now gives us a different perspective. [additions mine for clarity]

As members of the Kingdom of God we are not restricted from nor mandated to work with or through the governments of men. Politics is not a pinnacle of achievement or calling for the church [the gathering of believers]. The Kingdom of God does not have to push into the realms of men and demand our way. The realms of men are temporary but we have the eternal way of equity, peace, love, social equality, conservation, and concern for others. Unregenerate men may be able to mimic these aspects with limited success, but they will be sharply contrasted wherever they encounter real followers of Christ. We should be little cities set upon a hill amidst the dark realms of men. Our goal is not synthesis, or the culture recognizing our beliefs in symbolism. And it is certainly not assimilation into the societies of men. Our job is to live the reality of truth as the Kingdom of God amongst the kingdoms of men, so that Christ is lifted up, (cf. John 12:32).

As believers we do not need the government’s of men to uphold the righteousness we know in God. We need to stand clear of governments on this aspect to be a testimony of righteousness whether they believe it, allow it, incorporate what they know of it, or crush any representation of it. We can warn, advise and offer our help as they ask what we think, but the culture around us must choose what they will do with a free hand to choose. They should not be forced, coerced or manipulated into doing what is right, just because it’s right. We need to be free to let men and their governments fail and do foolish things. They will find their error quickly, especially as we stand in comparison to them and their ideals. Left to freely choose their own device; destruction, poverty and degeneration will follow. *a

When failure strikes the state due to its’ rejection of God’s principles, this will open the door for the answers we have that the world doesn’t. If we don’t take sides on their issues we can be available to minister to man’s need on to either side of the issue, which has been made hopeless by the political process.

*Note: The thought that real peace is possible amongst mankind, without the direct influence of God, is the vain attempt to prove God wrong or that He is non-existent. Since man in the 20th century has put such an emphasis on world peace it is more out of reach now than ever before. What does this tell us? Man’s attempts to leave God out will end in hopelessness!

The state can’t be the Kingdom of God and the church can’t be the state. If Christians are going to busy themselves predominately in the affairs of the state, who will be the Kingdom of God as Christ modeled it? *b

The idea of changing the world, as in making it a better place, is a ruse. This focus basically denies God’s assessment of this fallen world (cf. Rom. 3:9-18, 1 Cor. 2:6, 1 John 2:17). It places a futile cause in front of believers that keeps them pre-occupied. The Kingdom of God [the collective of believers] is to represent God and His eternal purposes to men in all the kingdoms of this world. If we take the truth and play the political games the world has turned it into, this only serves to eliminate the realities of who and what we are.

The world will be changed only as its people are transformed, and no government can do this. Governments can only hold off anarchy and keep corruption to a bearable level. The people of God should be in the midst of the culture waiting to offer the means of transformation to all that would cross the line separating the Kingdom of God from the kingdoms of men. Our job is not to make the world a better place in which to live. Our job is to offer the exclusive truth of God to any who would listen. Those who cross over into the Kingdom of God will have a positive affect on the world around them, but this is a by-product not the prime objective.

Conscientious people, who always wanted to fully follow God, do not have to take sides in the world’s political games in order to advance a shred of truth buried in some issue. In reaffirming the Kingdom of God, rejoining its aspects in its exclusivity, we won’t be upstaged by the world. The non-believing world will buffet us, mock us, kill us, and jail us or whatever else. But if we are doing what is right in the eyes of God, the aggression against us will merely be evidence that we are doing what God wants, (cf. Matt. 10:22, John 15:18, 17:14).

The church has to once again become a contrast to the world, which it hasn’t been from centuries. We can’t try to benefit from something to which we are trying to be an alternative. The contrast between the world and the Kingdom of God will expose the emptiness, foolishness and futility of the world’s way. We cannot do this and hope to maintain our rights, privileges and security. If we continue to immerse ourselves in the ways of the world for the purposes of inclusion or security or to manipulate towards our private purposes, we will fail to represent God. God wants a stark contrast between the world, whichever side it puts forward, and the Kingdom of God. God wants a separation between His Kingdom and the kingdoms of men, and this separation is truth, [God never intended that we separate from the world, by ways of walls, distance or appearance (cf. john 15)].

*a Note: If we hoping to benefit from or protect ourselves with the system of the world, or if we want to keep comfortable within the realms of men, we won’t be able to let the world do its foolishness. Allowing the world to run its course in its’ foolishness would endanger our sugar-daddy relationship with it. And thus we will compromise the truth we say we believe for the continued benefits of the state: belonging, security, and a passive but co-dependant relationship with the non-believing world. Do you see how we could be going at the world with selfish motives? Wanting non-believers around us to go along with our principles has more to do with maintaining our position of luxury and ease within its’ system than it has to do with furthering the kingdom of God or allegedly “standing up for righteousness.”

*b Note: If God only recorded 12 to 15 people throughout the entire history of the Bible, to directly do His bidding within the political realms of their day, then why do religious people today need to spend so much time and energy to try and force a religious agenda by populating parties and institutions with “our people” to try and get the job done? I bet its because this approach is our own will and not God’s. God doesn’t believe in futility or forcing people to do what they don’t want to do, so why do religious conservatives?

The Kingdom Of God As Jesus Illustrated

“Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” (cf. Matt. 10:34)

Jesus was our example in providing an alternative to society. The essence of the Sadducees and Pharisees represented the politics of polar opposites, which divided people into groups. Then they used aspects of truth to manipulate society politically. The Sadducees and Pharisees respectively represent the Left and Right that we see at work in politics today. *

The Sadducees believed in God but they didn’t believe in the super-natural, the resurrection from the dead or miracles (cf. Matt. 22:23, Acts 4:1-2, 23:8). They were incrementalist, not wanting to rock the boat, but wanting to give the pretense that all considerations had been made in public affairs. The Sadducees were concerned about their power base, but not much beyond this. The Pharisees were similar in many ways, but their soapbox was religious legalism. They were mainly concerned about everybody towing the line on their brand of religious orthodoxy, whether society at large believed the same way or not, (cf. Matt. 12:2, Luke 12:37-42). You couldn’t bear a Pharisees, just like many cannot bear the average religious Conservative today. The Pharisees were enforcers of the Mosaic Law, (cf. John 8:3-5). They had a dim view of humanity, one of sternness and control as a means to perfection.

In various stories Jesus illustrates the Kingdom of God as the alternative to the Kingdoms of men by means of contrasting the religious approach against His. Matthew 5:20 is a verse that seems to imply that the Kingdom of God was definitely something other than what the Sadducees of Pharisees had in mind.

Woman Taken In The Act Of Adultery

(cf. John 8:3-11)
In this story Jesus illustrates the nature of God’s Kingdom. It is not one of harsh rules and stern analysis, or legalism but one of forgiveness, restoration and love. Jesus illustrates that the Kingdom of God is about relationship, not laws, political maneuvering or mushy relativity. Why would the woman stop sinning if it wasn’t for Jesus’ kind words of forgiveness?

Her obedience was based out of her connection to and experience with God in the person of Jesus Christ. Jesus wasn’t soft on sin, “forgiving” as it is thought to be, to the point where there is no moral standard. Nor was the Son of God so “under-standing” of her background or environment that He would excuse her sins as understandable extension of them. But neither was Jesus a do-it-because-its-right, or fear-of-cultural-breakdown, kind of guy.

*Note: If God only recorded 12 to 15 people throughout the entire history of the Bible, to directly do His bidding within the political realms of their day, then why do religious people today need to spend so much time and energy to try and force a religious agenda by populating parties and institutions with “our people” to try and get the job done? I bet its because this approach is our own will and not God’s. God doesn’t believe in futility or forcing people to do what they don’t want to do, so why do religious conservatives?
Jesus illustrates how the Kingdom of God doesn’t need to be bullied by political urgencies (cf. John 8:7-8), or even their pressure to conform to a subjective cultural ideal. Jesus stood resolute, independent of the power base of a majority but all the while representing the alternative of the Kingdom of God. His quiet way and standing in comparison to the excesses and weakness of the political realm offered people of that day a contrast they could see, feel, touch and have if they wanted it bad enough.

My Kingdom Is Not Of This World

(cf. John 18:36 – 19:16)
In this text Jesus is talking to the epitome of power in the human realm in the region of Judea: the Roman Governor, Pontius Pilate. There should be now doubt in the mind of anybody who reads this text as to who was in control. Jesus was in control not because He was God. He was in control because He was an ambassador of a realm that was becoming increasingly attractive to the people of the realm Pilate governed.

Pilate could not manipulate Christ or turn a blind eye on what His non-conforming alternative was doing to the politics of the realm [Judea] for which the governor was responsible. Jesus stood before this ruler vulnerable, but Christ made weighty statements in the face of a brutally oppressive dictator simply because He was an ambassador valued by the common people yet unconnected to the encumbering political machine Pilate was being crushed in by this situation.

Jesus’ approach was a menace to the power structures of His day, though it was totally unintentional on His part. The feeling of menace was more a reflection on the religious/political attempt to control the people to which He ministered. The oligarchy of the ruling class in Israel could not upstage Jesus or disenfranchise Him, and thus He was a threat to their being valued by the people, i.e. being in power. Christ’s approach trumped their practice of marginalizing everything towards the goal of the ruling class being important [in reality being a god] and having the last say. Jesus made His Father and His Kingdom so real that all who wanted to see could understand the difference between the god of this world and his kingdoms and that which God offers. This type of contrast could never have been demonstrated so drastically from within the systems of men.

Washing The Disciples’ Feet

(cf. John 13:1-17)
Jesus illustrates the Kingdom of God as being totally different than the world’s thinking. In this text Jesus, the King of Kings, takes up the job of a slave. In those days the people who washed the feet of guests’ were the bottom of the social structure. Jesus was a recognized “Rabbi” [a revered position in that society] but He took up this task and presented a powerful illustration about His upside-down Kingdom. His Kingdom is upside down because it values and accesses everything opposite of natural human thinking.

Here in John’s gospel, Jesus shows us the meaning of, “the greatest among you shall be your servant” (cf. Matt. 23:11). He contrasted the righteousness of the Sadducees and Pharisees, who wouldn’t stoop to such a lowly task for various reasons, by doing the unthinkable: stripping down, taking up a washbasin and washing a bunch of nasty feet.

What does this have to do with war and peace?

The discussion of war and peace is a discussion over which the church —The Kingdom of God— has allowed itself to be divided. We have come to think there are two sides of this discussion: a right one and a wrong one. In reality, the opposites everybody argues over are really in fact only opposite ends of the same quagmire. Either end of this discussion [the entire debate] in no way emulates the example of Christ, where He constantly contrasted the polar opposite debates of His time with an alternative.

Why would God settle in on one side of an oppositional discussion in human terms, when He has an alternative?

The world’s system has bought and sold parts of the truth, which the Kingdom of God once represented as a single reality. But because the world has successfully infiltrated and neutralized the Kingdom of God as being the single representative of truth. And since it has split the truth into pieces, now it is thought that these scrapes can be taken or left as it becomes useful to do so. The world’s system has mixed the truth with other things, offering them as political footballs that can be; tossed around in order to gather a following, or it can be taken sides of, or held ransom in a political game.

Jesus on the other hand stood in front of the political Left [the Sadducees] and Right [the Pharisees], neither playing their game nor retreating into obscurity, all the while spreading His Kingdom just by the reality of being an identifiable alternative. Jesus shows us in just these few vignettes, what the Kingdom of God is and what it is not. He also directs us to follow in His footstep, (cf. John 13:15).

Conclusion

Peace is something that the non-believing world can only know by comparison. They don’t have it and never will. The warring world can only know its futility by comparing what it has [death, war, infamy, betrayal, inequity, conquest and treachery] to the Kingdom of God, whose main mark is the ability of peace.

Peace does not mean a mushy, compromising ideal; that gives into aggressive factions who want to take advantage, as the political Left has tended to respond. Nor does peace mean being anti-war or being pacifistic. At the same time beating your enemy into surrender or arming yourself to the teeth so that no one will want to mess with you, as the political Right has tended to believe, does not achieve peace.

War is the inescapable reality of a world order that is full of sinful people, especially as they try to prove that God either wrong or non-existent. War is natural to mankind since he originally chose to disbelieve God in the beginning. Man’s attempt at “peace” is either ignorance or foolishness, because Christ only promised peace in Himself, but tribulations a plenty in the world, (cf. John 16:33).

The Kingdom of God cannot be intertwined with the kingdoms of men through a political faction just because one party advertises openness to religious ideals for a time, as the political Religious-Right has tended to believe. Neither should The Kingdom of God be so gullible as to think that it can be properly represented in a society by another political faction who is bent on proving God wrong or that He is non-existent.

The pretense of inclusion in society through its political apparatus should never be a motive or even an attraction for the Kingdom of God to involve itself with the foolishness of men. This is not to say we cannot be involved with the society or its politics. To be clear, there are more ways to do be involved with a society and its people other than through its political realm. Jacques Ellul makes an astute comment about the lack of creativity Christians have in engaging a culture. He wrote, “The moment one speaks of ‘presence to the world’ Christians translate this as political presence. It would seem that there is absolutely no other way to be present to the world other than to engage in politics.”7 God is not limited to a one-dimensional approach. Ellul speaks further on this point by saying:

One soon becomes aware of the idea that politics constitutes a sort of ultimate issue for the Christian. For some not to engage is a betrayal of the entire Christian life…The political order takes on such importance that all teaching seems to converge on this entrance into politics. Bible passages, which clearly have nothing to do with the question, are interpreted in a straight political sense. One rejects those biblical passages which minimize politics.”8

In addition, the Kingdom of God cannot support or be active in the wars of a political realm under any circumstance, be they offensive or defensive. * To do so discredits the Kingdom of God as being an alternative. Believers would by denying their loyalty to God by joining either side in the worlds’ affairs. Stanley Hauerwas put it right when he wrote:

Christians have never killed as willingly as when they have been asked to do so for “freedom”. I take it, therefore, that one of the most important challenges facing Christians today is to remember that the democratic state is still a state that would ask us to qualify our loyalty to Jesus in the name of some lesser loyalty [of men]. 9 [additions mine to clarify]

Conscientious believers who have fallen for the political Left or Right need to come back to being the Kingdom of God. They need to rid themselves of the dogma and ideals that the various political factions have wrapped truth into and begin to be as Jesus: an identifiable alternative. There is nothing significant that either the political Left or Right can do in which the Kingdom of God isn’t already far superior. God would be better represented in our day, as He was through Christ and his disciples. They did not enter the political arena of their day; accept on their own terms. But Christ and His followers presented to the world, what the political Left and Right is bankrupt and incapable of. Thus, the example in Christ and His disciples is even a contrast to the approaches of most religious people, in their attempt at relating to the state, over the past 1600 years.

*Note: This may seem harsh since many believers have served in the military, even as I have. Yet, we ought not feel condemned in reading this pamphlet, because we are exposed to new ideas that challenge or nullify our prior activities. We can be forgiven for misrepresenting our true Kingdom through the things we’ve done in the past. We personally are not nullified or less of a person because we did something that is totally inconsistent to our acclaimed beliefs. We can move on with God and forget the things that lay behind us, (cf. Phil. 1:13-14).

Believers should never lower themselves to being the special interest group of a political system. We should not give into being represented in the political arena or in a society by a political faction. We are the only representation of God in the world. In representing the Kingdom of God solely, believers will rob the world of its’ pretense of truth, goodness, equity or peace. In addition, the world’s utopian dreams will be destabilized if believers stop empowering them by through our patronage. Then we can concentrate on our own Kingdom’s work. Peace on earth is not, just not warring. Neither is peace anti-war, deterrence or the obliteration of any potential enemy.

Peace is submitting to Jesus Christ and living in His Kingdom now!

Bibliography:

Divine Conspiracy, Dallas Willard, HarperSanFransico p. 59
A Boy Named Sue, Shel Silverstein, sang by Johnny Cash Columbia Records 1969 #44944
Reformers and their Stepchildren, Leonard Verduin
Dallas Willard, p. 25
The False Presences of the Kingdom, Jacques Ellul, Seabury Press, pp. 50-51
Ibid, Dallas Willard, p. 28
Ibid, Jacques Ellul, p. 96
Ibid, Jacques Ellul, p. 95
Resident Aliens, Stanley Hauerwas, Abingdon Press