Faith Builders Educational Programs

Nonresistance - Fighting Evil with God’s Weapons

By Stephen Russell

PART I

3D"Text INTRODUCTION

In January, 1991, I was living at home with my mother in Alexandria, Virginia, and like many other Americans I was following the buildup of American and coalition forces in = Saudi Arabia with great interest. The year before on August 2 Saddam Hussein sent the Iraqi army into Kuwait to claim it as Iraq<= /st1:place>’s nineteenth province. Most of = the world, led by the United States, reacted vigorously to this act of aggression, and on August 8 President Bush announced Desert Shield, the deployment of American forces in Saudi Arabia to protect it and other oil-producing Arab states from Iraq’s army. Intense political maneu= vering now began between Iraq= and the United States to secure the most advantage on the world stage. Ir= aq tried to pull the Arab and Muslim world to its side while the United States worked to line up as many countries as possible in its coalition.

Because Iraq’s aggression was against a fellow Arab and Muslim state, the United States had the easier time succeeding in its goal. On November 29, 1990, the United N= ations Security Council authorized the use of force against Iraq if the invading Iraqi forces were not= out of Kuwait by January 15, 1991. On Janua= ry 12 the United States Congress also authorized the use of American forces again= st Iraq in fulfillment of the UN resolution.

On Wednesday, January 16, my mother and I sat = down to watch developments in Iraq on the evening news. Little d= id we realize that that evening, just as we sat down, the war would begin before = our eyes. At 6:38 pm Eastern time, bombs and cruise missiles began to explode on the tv screen as CNN reported from Bagdad. Although it was expected, it was s= till a surprise to realize that a multi-national coalition led by the American army had actually begun the Gulf War against Iraq.

Next Sunday, however, an even bigger surprise awaited me. After the service= that Sunday morning several of the young men were discussing the Gulf War. The intense interest among the youn= g men was understandable, but I was taken aback by some of their language. These young men expressed exciteme= nt as they discussed what “our missiles and bombs” were able to do. What seemed to me an excessive identification with the American Armed Forces and their sophisticated weapo= ns only made sense to these young men. This profoundly touched me because of my own conversion history.

When I was seventeen I heard the Gospel messag= e at a Baptist church and responded by surrendering my life to Jesus. I had been raised in a church-goin= g home and I already knew the essence of the Gospel, but here I heard of the need = to yield my life to Jesus and to follow him.&= nbsp; God worked immediately on my nationalistic attitude. One day I was intensely nationalis= tic and the next day, after surrendering my life to Jesus, I still loved my cou= ntry but I had the strong sense that one should not kill, even for one’s country. I say sense b= ecause although the heart sensed the truth here, I had not yet formulated fully in= my mind what this meant.

Almost four years after my conversion I was wrestling with God’s will for my life when several apparent coinciden= ces led me to join the Beachy= Amish Church. In our local community college lib= rary one day I noticed a church history book and began looking through it. I came to a chapter on the Anabapt= ists. I was struck with the amazing agreement between their beliefs and those I h= ad developed as I read the Bible over the four years since my conversion. The book mentioned that the Anabap= tists were much like the other Protestant reformers of the sixteenth century, exc= ept for five areas of serious disagreement.&nb= sp; The author listed as areas of disagreement positions such as believer’s baptism, voluntary church membership, priesthood of the believers, the sharing of temporal goods, and, of course, nonresistance. Here at last was a clear and unamb= iguous description of what I had come to believe at my conversion. I began to attend the Beachy Amish Church to which som= e of my high school friends belonged. I was impressed with the church’s teaching on many points which were of particular importance to me, especially the ones mentioned above.

I was baptized October 13, one month before I turned twenty-one. The teachi= ng of nonresistance had been a major factor in my decision. So it is easy to see that the atti= tude of some of the young men at my church in Virginia at the beginning of the Gulf War in 1991 might have affected me deeply.

The teaching of nonresistance is not limited to small peculiar isolated sects, as some may think. Christians throughout history and = all over the world have believed and practiced nonresistance to varying degrees= . A story from the late 1940s in the= land variously called Palestine or Israel = will help to illustrate my point.

The story from Father Elias Chacour’s li= fe begins when he was a boy of eight. In 1947 the villagers of Biram in northern Palestine heard that Jewish soldiers wo= uld be coming one day soon and staying in their village.

After having heard that the Jewish forces would be coming= to their village just south of the Lebanese border prior to the end of the Bri= tish Mandate over Palestine, Rudah, Elias’ oldest brother, brought an old rusty rifle into the Chacour home without asking his father, Michael.<= /o:p>

“When Father saw the rifle he erupted in a rare sho= w of anger. ‘Get it out of here! I won’t have it i= n my house.’ Mother and the = rest of us stood frozen and mute.

“Poor Rudah was wide-eyed, stunned. ‘I–I thought we might = need a gun to protect ourselves in case–‘

“‘No!’= Father would not hear more. ‘We do not use violence ever.= Even if someone hurts us.’&nb= sp; He had calmed a bit, and he took the gun.

“‘But Father,’ Rudah persisted, anxious= ly, ‘Why do the soldiers carry guns?’

“Slipping his arm around Rudah’s shoulders, Father replied, ‘For centuries our Jewish brothers have been exiles in foreign lands. They were hunt= ed and tormented–even by Christians. They have lived in poverty and sadness. They have been made to fear, and sometimes when people are afraid, they feel they have to carry guns. Their souls are weak because they = have lost peace within.’

“‘But how do we know the soldiers won’t harm us?’ Rudah pressed him.

“Father smiled, and all the tension seemed to relax. ‘Because,’= he said, ‘the Jews and Palestinians are brothers–blood brothers. We share the same father, Abraham,= and the same God. We must never f= orget that. Now we get rid of the gun.’” &= nbsp;

The soldiers arrived about two weeks later. One day by the soldiers told the villagers to leave temporarily for their own safety. After locking everything into their homes and giving the keys to the soldiers, they all left and camped under t= he nearby olive trees. After hea= ring no word from the soldiers and beginning to worry, the village leaders returned= to the village about two weeks after they had left. They were ordered by the soldiers = to leave; this was now Jewish land.

Unsure what to do, the villagers marched to Gish, the nea= rest neighboring village. They fou= nd it deserted as well and decided to settle in the empty houses.

“In November refugees fleeing from larger towns bro= ught more devastating news.

“Pales= tine was to be partitioned in what the UN called a ‘compromise.’ Our elders and hundreds of thousan= ds of Palestinians throughout the land were shocked beyond words, for the terms of the ‘compromise’ were brutal.

“The Zionist were to possess the majority of Palestine–fifty-four percent–even though they owned only seven percent of the land!”

When the village elders investigated again, they discover= ed that Biram has been given to new settlers–Jewish settlers. They were forbidden to return, even though the former villagers offered to share the land with the newcomers.

“‘Children,’ [Father] said softly, turn= ing those sad eyes upon us, ‘if someone hurts you, you can curse him. But this would be useless. Instead, you have to ask the Lord = to bless the man who makes himself your enemy. And do you know what will happen?<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> The Lord will bless you with inner peace–and perhaps your enemy will turn from his wickedness. If not, the Lord will deal with him.’”

The villagers of Biram petitioned the Israeli Supreme Cou= rt to allow them to return to th= eir homes and live together with the new settlers. Twice the Court told the villagers= they could return. The first time = the army simply refused to listen. The second time the army asked for time to prepare. The villagers could return on Dece= mber 25. On December 25 as the vil= lagers marched over the last hilltop anticipating the sight of their village once again, they were greeted with a terrifying and saddening shock. The army had surrounded their vill= age and had begun leveling it to the ground.&n= bsp; Eventually the villagers dispersed to other parts of the new country= , Israel.=

Elias Chacour eventually was ordained as a Mel= kite Greek Catholic priest and made it his life’s work to strive for peace= and reconciliation between the Arabs and Israeli Jews. He has established a whole series = of schools in northern = Israel meant to train Israeli Arabs to fit better into the society in which they f= ind themselves and to promote peace and understanding. This story of the approach to life= by Elias’ father, Michael Chacour, that avoids violence and revenge beca= use of his faith, and the continuing effort by his son because of his faith to further the effort to seek peace and reconciliation where there has been violence and revenge, is but one illustration of the widespread practice of this teaching of Christ. Men = and women in all the various branches of Christianity have heard the voice of Christ call them to follow him even into suffering and sometimes to death.<= /p>

In this first session, we will examine the New Testament teaching on nonresistance. We begin with Jesus. “You have heard that it was said....But I say to you...” Jesus repeated = these words several times in the Sermon on the Mount. They are so familiar. Yet, like so many familiar words, = we have hardly understood them. = Have we really grasped the shock and dismay that these words would have caused t= he first time they were spoken, even among some of the very closest of Jesus’ followers? Who i= s this who would dare to change even the commandments of the Torah?

Perhaps even more importantly, do these words cause us the shock and dismay that we ought to experience as we hear them?<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Not only were they deepening and broadening God’s message as compared with how it had originally been given in the Old Testament, but they were going completely against the natu= ral, though fallen, instincts of man. Is it even possible to live such a life as Jesus described here? Could one actually turn the other = cheek or go the second mile? And, j= ust as his disciples later exclaimed in disbelief when they heard Jesus do away wi= th divorce, many today would think that without the potential escape route of divorce, marriage is not worth risking.&nb= sp; Can a man actually live the way that Jesus taught?

Of course, it is only with the power of God’s Spirit that anyone can live as God calls us to live. With God’s Spirit in us we h= ave all the resources we need to do whatever God commands. Admittedly our appropriation of God’s resources for living is never complete in this life and therefo= re the lives we live are not perfect. Yet as our minds are progressively renewed by a reevaluation of our thinking under the guidance of the Spirit and as we turn to the Lord with an unveiled face, that is, with complete openness and honesty, we are gradually “being transformed into the image [of the Lord Jesus], from one degre= e of glory to another. For this co= mes from the Lord who is the Spirit.”

The question still remains, what is the normal Christian lifestyle? Again, t= he Bible-believing Christian seeks his directions from the whole Bible, but wi= th special emphasis placed on what Jesus said and did and how he understood the scriptures he already had. As implied above, we should attempt to read the New Testament as though for the first time so that the full impact of what Jesus and his disciples had to s= ay penetrates through the protective cocoon of familiarity that repeated readi= ngs of the sacred text may have woven in our minds.

As we consider the sort of life that God calls= his children to live, our focus will be on what God expects of us as we relate = to others. We will consider five areas: the two kingdom concept, the church and state, our citizenship in he= aven and on earth, and active nonresistance or love in action, which is our Christian warfare.

THE TWO KINGDOMS

The Old Testament shows that God controls all = of history. This applies even to= the details, such as who rules. A= ll throughout Israel’s history God chose who would rule his people. But God chooses not just Israel&= #8217;s kings but he also chooses the rulers of all nations. And God uses these rulers, whether= good or bad, to accomplish his own purposes.&nb= sp; Some, like Cyrus the first ruler of the Persi= an Empire, God uses in powerful and positive ways in spite of the fact that they are pagans and do not know him. Others God uses to chasten and pun= ish even the people over whom they rule. In any case the principle is the same;= God rules in the affairs of men without being thwarted and accomplishes all his purposes.

What, then, is the relationship between the church, God’s people, and the state which God has also established? The church was founded that first Pentecost after the resurrection of Jesus when God’s Spirit came to d= well in his people as his presence had once dwelt in the T= emple in Jerusalem. These members of the new covenant = with God were the earthly part of the kingdom of God that Jesus h= ad come to proclaim and establish. They were those who had freely and consciou= sly yielded to God’s rule in their lives. While it is true that God also controlled the earthly kingdoms, it was not by means of a conscious or yiel= ded submission on their part. Ind= eed, these earthly kingdoms were actually controlled in a more direct and obvious way by the devil whom Jesus recognized as the ruler of this world.^{^[1]}

Thus there are two kingdoms at the present tim= e in this world. The kingdom of God on earth is composed of those who have repented of their sins and chosen to give their lives to God. Its members consciously desire to be ruled by God. It is also called the Church, the = Body of Christ, the Israel of God and the Bride of Christ. Everything and everyone else that = is still in rebellion against God is, in contrast, part of this world’s system and thus under the rule of the devil. Until the Lord returns and ends all rebellion this dichotomy between the two kingdoms will remain and allow no = room whatsoever for neutrality. Al= l are either under the lordship of God, or else their master is the devil. We all either say, “Yes, Lord!” to Christ= or we implicitly say, “No!” and reject Christ’s lordship in our= lives. “Do you not know that friend= ship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.”

Martin Luther during the Reformation proclaimed the truth of the two kingdoms, but he did not emphasize or even recognize t= he fact that the devil was the ruler of the kingdom of this world. For him the two kingdoms were two = realms of action, one spiritual and the other physical. Christians could be involved in bo= th, although the Christian did not actually need the earthly political kingdom because he followed a higher law. However, because of his higher calling, it was better for all if the Christian chose to participate in the political system, thus providing it w= ith the benefit of his spiritual nature and insight. Thus participation by the Christia= n in the kingdoms of this world was justified by Luther because of the benefit it brings to everyone, believer and unbeliever alike. This is essentially how most modern Christians understand the two kingdoms concept today.

The biblical picture of the schism between the= two kingdoms is much starker than that portrayed by Luther. His understanding was conditioned = by twelve centuries of close interaction between the church and state which eventually included the joining together of the two into a union after the = time of Constantine the Great. Jes= us himself insisted that we would either store up treasures here on earth or e= lse in heaven, but not in both. H= is point was that “no one can serve two masters, for either he will hate= the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other.” The Chris= tian’s first loyalty must be to the Kingdom of the Lord of heaven and no commitmen= t or partnership of any kind is to come between the believer and his Lord. Paul says in 2 Corinthians 6 that = the Christian is not to dilute his loyalty to God with any other commitments but rather the Christian is to be separate from connections involving worldly loyalty, “for we are the Temple of the living God.” This restriction does not exclude those interactions that pertain to daily living but do not involve a commitment of loyalty, “since then you would nee= d to go out of the world.” B= ut we are to be in the world, though not of it, otherwise we could not bear witne= ss to our Lord and his grace in our lives, as we are called to do in order to = win others to his Kingdom.

These two kingdoms are diametrically opposed s= ince the bases upon which each is built are contradictory. Because the one is based on loyalt= y to God and the other, consciously or not, is based on self-will and rebellion against God, a constant warfare rages between the two. Not everyone recognizes this warfa= re since it is spiritual and not physical.&nb= sp; But the believer must recognize it in order to remain spiritually so= und and to maintain healthy growth. Otherwise he is in danger of compromise and laxness in the struggle against our enemy. As in any conflict the consequences of being caught off guard can be catastrophic bec= ause our “adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.” So,= like good soldiers, we are called to “be sober minded; [to] be watchful.”

CHURCH AND STATE

What, indeed, then, is the proper relationship between the church and the state? Since the very orientation of each is antagonistic to the other, sho= uld there be outright conflict between the two? Although there is ample opportunit= y for conflict to erupt between earthly expressions of the two kingdoms, they have been ordained by God for two different spheres of operation, so ideally the= re is no need for conflict to arise. By and large the New Testament deals with the Christian’s relationship with the state from an ideal situation with little or no confl= ict between the two. Only occasio= nally does it face the unpleasant possibility that from time to time the state wi= ll abandon its proper role and usurp what properly belongs to the individual, = to the church or to God.^{^[2]}

So, first let us consider how the church is to relate normally to the state, when both the church and the state are in the= ir proper sphere of action. The state’s proper sphere of action is to restrain evil and to reward, honor and encourage good. The point of the state is to restr= ain fallen man from pursuing his natural course of action which is always self-centered and often destructive or oppressive towards others. The highest goal for the state is = to maintain equity by which every man receives his just due and carries out at least the minimum required responsibilities, which may vary from one societ= y to another. Ideally the state wi= ll interfere in the life of the individual only to the degree necessary to maintain this state of equity.^{^[3]} The more the state impinges upon t= he conscience of the individual, the more the state risks losing its legitimac= y.

The church, on the other hand, has as its task= the Great Commission given by Jesus: “Go therefore and make disciples of = all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, = to the end of the age.” = In this short command to the church we can see all the areas of responsibility that God has given to the church. She is to proclaim throughout the earth the Gospel and to call people from all the nations of the earth to become followers of Jesus and thus subjects of the Kingdom of God. She is to initiate formally by bap= tism those who respond positively to this invitation, and to announce their submission to God and the church. And finally she is responsible to instruct and guide all believers i= nto complete obedience. Her spher= e of action is twofold: proclamation throughout the whole earth to those who do = not yet believe and the exercise of authority throughout the body of believers.= There is no room for the exercise = of authority by the church outside the body of believers. The more the church attempts to ex= tend its control beyond the boundaries of the body of Christ, the more it runs t= he risk of devaluing and sullying its moral authority even among unbelievers a= nd of obscuring the clarity of its true task of wooing the lost into the Kingd= om of heaven and then guiding them “to grow up in every way into Christ.” Both bodies ha= ve their proper area of operation and if either steps outside that sphere it inevitably undermines and upsets the fulfillment of its proper work.

Clearly the state exists to maintain order and= to protect lives and property and to lessen and resolve the tensions and animosities that naturally arise among fallen men. Just as clearly the church is ther= e to call men to a higher life and give direction on that road to full maturity. When both are functioning accordin= g to the plan of God, how should the Christian relate to the state? The New Testament has four main pa= ssages that deal with this topic: Romans 13.1-7, 1 Timothy 2.1-10, Titus 3.1-11 an= d 1 Peter 2.13-21.

Perhaps the most significant detail from these various passages is the recognition that believers now live differently from their past lives. Whereas the= y were “once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing [their] days in malice and envy, hated by others and hat= ing one another,” now they were “to be obedient, to be ready for ev= ery good work, to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and = to show perfect courtesy toward all people.” Out of this fact flows the rest of= the details from these passages dealing with the relationship between church and state. By the very fact that = their lives have changed, the believers should generally not run afoul of the government, at least not when the government is operating in its proper sphere. Christians are the on= ly truly free persons there are since they are no longer under obligation to t= he passions and sins that once controlled and enslaved them.

The one who is being transformed by the work of the Holy Spirit in his life is then able to “be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor = as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good.” The governing authorities have, after all, their sphere of responsibility and Christians are required to accept this and to honor these authorities in the fulfillment of their ministry from God. As the Christians do this, their o= wn sphere of ministry–the proclamation of the Kingdom of God–should be open for greater exercise. Admittedly this does not always happen because the state often tries= to control and limit the church’s exercise of its ministry since it sees= the church as a competitor for the people’s allegiance and an adversary because of the refusal by the faithful church to yield the state unconditio= nal authority in the areas of life in which God has spoken. One command from these passages th= at Christians have concerning the government can help avoid this problem, or, = if the government has begun to act against the church, it can soften the persecution or even bring it to an end.&nb= sp; We Christians are told to pray “for kings and all who are in h= igh positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified = in every way.” Of course, = we are given no guarantee that the rulers will automatically respond and relent, b= ut we must nevertheless be faithful to God.&n= bsp; Normally it is true that no one will “harm you if you are zeal= ous for what is good. But even if= you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troub= led, but in your hearts regard Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in = you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, w= hen you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put= to shame. For it is better to su= ffer for doing good, if that should be God’s will, than for doing evil.= 221;

Beyond praying for the rulers of earth’s kingdoms, there are several other positive commands that we are given in re= gard to the state. We Christians a= re told to “honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.” Each part of this verse relates to= our relations with the state and society outside the church, for, if we fear God and love the brotherhood, our witness to the world will be strong and cause them to respect and honor us. And, if we honor everyone, and especially the emperor, our respect will be retur= ned, and if any false charges are brought against us, their lack of substance wi= ll be obvious to all who are open to the truth. Furthermore, we are to “pay = to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue= is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed” because these men, although they may not be believers, are God’s serv= ants and deserve their reasonable compensation for “attending to this very= thing.”

There are some pacifists who argue that this passage in Romans 13 tells us to pay these things to those to whom they are due, and that it is then our responsibility to decide to whom they belong.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Yet the passage itself makes it am= ply clear that all government officers, not some or those we choose to submit t= o or consider honorable, are chosen by God and the Christian has the responsibil= ity to obey this command. This ho= nor is not dependent on our evaluation of their service as government officials, a= ny more than the respect we owe to all men is dependent on whether we think th= ey have earned it.

Finally, we Christians have been given some commands concerning government officials that might be described as more negative. We are to fear them= and obey them in all things that do not infringe upon God’s call on our lives. When the government do= es infringe on God’s call on us, we must give our loyalty completely to = God. Twice the apostles were commanded = by the Jewish authorities in Jerusale= m not to speak of Jesus or spread the gospel. Forthrightly they explained, ̶= 0;We must obey God rather than men.” They simply left it to their tormentors to decide “whether it = was right in the sight of God to listen to [them] rather than to God.” The apostles chose to obey God and= to leave the results in his hands. In the end all but one of the apostles suffered martyrdom for his faith and witness, but they regarded this as a small thing so long as they could be f= ound faithful to God.

Paul told the Christians not to resist human authority since it had been established by God, and resisting it would be t= he same as opposing God himself. This does not mean that all authority is righteous or good or even capable. But God chooses whom he will and f= or his own purposes. It may be that a people has turned its back on God and deserves a ruler who will bring disas= ter upon them. Regardless, it is = not our place to judge them or to try to replace them, but rather to support th= em by prayer and to encourage them to do their best.

Before moving on to the next point, it is necessary to evaluate one very important challenge that the Pharisees, Herodians, scribes and chief priests directed towards Jesus. It speaks in a very decisive way a= bout the whole question of our responsibility to government and to the limits of governmental authority. It is certainly one of the best known of the Gospel stories. In an attempt to trap Jesus some J= ewish authorities came to him and asked a question meant to trap him whichever wa= y he answered it. After telling Je= sus that they were convinced that he never showed partiality and therefore would answer truthfully, they asked him, “Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caes= ar or not?” If Jesus said = not to pay taxes to Caesar, they could turn him over to the Roman officials as a malefactor and rebel. If he s= aid it was permissible to pay taxes to a foreign oppressor, they felt sure he would lose his popularity and influence with the common people.

But as in many other cases Jesus surprised the= m by his answer. As he often did, = he responded to their question with his own question: “Show me a denarius. Whose likeness and inscription does it have?” The answer was obvious and surely they were taken completely off guard. Candidly they responde= d, “Caesar’s.” Jesus then told them, “Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” The story ends by saying that Jesus’ opponents “were not able in the presence of the people to catch him in what he said, but marveling at his answer they became silent.”

There are at least two truths that we often mi= ss in this very familiar story from the two Gospels. The first has to do with the fact = that things bear the mark of the one to whom they belong. There is some clear resemblance th= at says, I belong to this one. I= n the case of man the mark is that very special characteristic that is mentioned = in God’s first expression of the thought of creating man in Genesis 1. It is the image and likeness of Go= d that man alone bears of all God’s creatures. It has been marred by the Fall, bu= t it remains the identifying mark of mankind.&n= bsp; It says in a very special sense that we belong to God. But this is not the only place whe= re the mark of ownership can be seen. Jesus says that the Roman coin bears the same sort of sign of ownership. In this case it is= the image of Caesar that the coin bears. And just as our bearing the image of God marks us as God’s rightful possession, so too, the bearing of Caesar’s image by the coin marks it as rightfully belonging to him.&n= bsp; This truth is obvious, but it was an obvious truth that needed to be proclaimed before it could be perceived.&n= bsp; As we think of this principle further, it becomes obvious that not o= nly the coin, which literally bears Caesar’s image, but other things which are made by Caesar also bear his image.&nb= sp; So, schools and airports and roads and harbors and governmental buildings and many other things bear the mark of Caesar’s or the government’s ownership as well. And all these things belong to or are under the rightful control of = the government.

This brings us to the second truth from this passage. All of those things = that bear Caesar’s image, literally or figuratively, belong to him and mus= t be responsive to his commands. H= e can do with them whatever he will. Like the builder or maker of any object, its fate lies in the hands of the one w= ho made it. He can cherish it an= d take care of it, or he can abuse it and destroy it. Even so, the same is true of manki= nd. Mankind belongs to the one who mad= e him and whose image he bears. And= man ought be responsive to the co= mmands of the one who made him. God = can do with us whatever he will. But= in his grace and love he yearns for the blessing and salvation of each one of = his creatures that bear his image. For he “desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” Thus by right o= f the mark of ownership, all men ought to obey their maker. In the final analysis the only one= who has the right to take man’s life is the one who bestowed it. For the Christian this ought to be self-evident and an unchanging principle in his approach to living with others. God has given life to= man and only God has the right to end it. The government, on the other hand, has full say over those things wh= ich it has built or made possible–the roads and schools and hospitals and much more–all of them things without life.

CITIZENSHIP IN HEAVEN

Considering the nature of the two kingdoms, one potential area of conflict for the Christian is citizenship. In our modern world almost everyon= e is considered a citizen of the country in which he was born, or from which his parents came. The concept of citizenship as we know it, has its roots in ancient Greece and Rome and was given its modern form under the influence of the Enlightenment and the American and French Revolutions. In all these cases the citizen was the person who had rights that were protect= ed by the state, and who owed the state the fulfillment of certain duties in return. Unlike the modern wor= ld the ancient world was very sparing in awarding citizenship to its inhabitants.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> It was a high honor that was not t= aken for granted. The rights that = it conferred were significant and elevated the position of citizen high above = that of mere subject. Paul’s= Roman citizenship was an extremely valuable asset and set him apart as one of the elite within the Empire. That= is why those who were about to flog Paul as a means of discovering the reason = for the riot in the Temple left his presence so quickly when they heard he was a Roman citizen, and why the tribune who was questioning Paul was also afraid= .^{^[4]}

Citizenship in the modern western world confers enormous privileges and rights on all who live in the western democracies.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> The protections and safeguards tha= t the average person in the West experiences because of his citizenship are far beyond anything that any but the most privileged in the past could have expected. Because of this we westerners are very possessive of our rights as citizens.

However, we Christians must also remember that we possess another citizenship. “O= ur citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Chr= ist.” Unlike Paul’s Roman citizens= hip which was limited to a small minority of the Roman Empire, this heavenly citizenship belongs to all who are part of God’s Kingdom. Like Roman citizenship it also has rights and duties. Although t= hese are not specifically enumerated as the rights and duties of citizens in the tex= t, they can be ascertained by a careful reading of the New Testament. As would be expected of a Roman ci= tizen, the citizen of the heavenly Kingdom owes honor and respect of the highest o= rder to his ruler, as well as heartfelt loyalty and obedience to his commands. Jesus told his followers, “I= f you love me, you will keep my commandments” and, “If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father̵= 7;s commandments and abide in his love. These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and th= at your joy may be full.” = Our commitment to this Kingdom is to be so great that it overrides natural human fears so that, not only should we believers help those in physical need, bu= t we are also called on “to lay down our lives for the brothers.” Paul himself lived his life recogn= izing this and was committed “to be poured out as a drink offering upon the sacrificial offering of your faith.”= Indeed, in what was probably his last letter before his martyrdom, P= aul repeats this verbal picture in admonishing Timothy to carry on his ministry after Paul is gone: “For I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the time of my departure has come. I have fought the good fight, I ha= ve finished the race, I have kept the faith.”

Furthermore we have the duty to give verbal testimony to God’s work in our lives. When Christ left his disciples out= side Jerusalem to ascend into heaven, he commanded them to “be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in= all Judea and Samaria<= /st1:City>, and to the end of the earth.” To fulfill this requirement God has commissioned his people to fill = two necessary functions in this fallen world.&= nbsp; First of all he has made his people “a kingdom of priests.R= 21; This commission is a fulfillment o= f the commandment in Exodus 19.6 for the nation of Israel to be a kingdom of pri= ests to make God known to all the world. Now the church is “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession” so that they “may proc= laim the excellencies of him who called [them] out of darkness into his marvelous light.” Just as the pri= ests in the Old Testament had specific duties, so too the priests in the New Testament have similar duties. In the Old Testament the priests offered sacrifices for the people of God, offered incense and prayers for them, taught them God’s law, judged cases and made practical decisions about issues that were not otherwise dealt with in= the law. Today God’s people= as priests of the living God do these same things, but in the context of the n= ew covenant. God’s people,= who are all priests, make known and apply to others the one true sacrifice of Christ. They pray for all men, especially for their salvation. They proclaim God’s moral law and his judgment. And they seek in God’s Spiri= t to make practical decisions about living for God in today’s world. Their efforts are making God, his Kingdom, the invitation to enter his Kingdom, and God’s glory known throughout the whole world.

The second function we have as witnesses in the world is related to our role as priests and citizens of the heavenly Kingdom. As those who have experienced God’s favor and the reconciliation with God that is in Ch= rist even while we were yet alienated from him because of our sin and enmity, we= are able to convey the message of God to those who are yet his enemies in langu= age they can understand. Thus, “we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore [all who have not yet responded positively to the Gospel] on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.” Each of us has a testimony that is precisely the one that a particular unbeliever needs to h= ear to be able to respond to the Gospel. Conversely we as ambassadors “have boldness and access with confidence through our faith in [Jesus]” to approach God on behalf of those who struggle as they seek him. As is true of any ambassador, our primary loyalty is to the kingdom = we represent and we must allow nothing to come in the way of fulfilling this responsibility.

There are many other rights and duties we have= as Christians and citizens of the Kingdom of God. The ones already mentioned relate = most directly to our responsibilities to the fallen world and how we are to rela= te to others. It is because Chri= st “has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to t= he kingdom of his beloved Son” that we are able to “have redemptio= n, the forgiveness of sins” in Jesus.&n= bsp; This salvation makes us “partakers of the divine nature” because we “share in Christ.”&= nbsp; Because we share in Christ and are thus children of God, we also sha= re in discipline “for our good, that we may share in his holiness.” And all of t= his leads us to “the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus̶= 1; when we finally “attain the resurrection from the dead” when “our lowly body” will be changed “to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him to subject all things to himself.”= ;

CITIZENSHIP ON EARTH

But we must not forget that we also possess an earthly citizenship. This also confers real rights and duties and we must recognize this. But all the while we must also rem= ember that our primary citizenship is in heaven and whatever relationship we have with the state here on earth is temporary, secondary and subservient to our= citizenship in heaven and its call on our lives. Whatever good we could do by expending our time, talents and wealth = on this earthly commonwealth pales in comparison to the eternal results that c= ome out of lavishing our efforts on serving Jesus in the Kingdom of God. Where there is no conflict, howeve= r, we do need to remember that we are in the world and we need to carry our fair share and provide for the smooth functioning of the our earthly community.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> This is not only equitable, but it= will also allay bad feelings that may hinder us in our primary goal of wooing unbelievers into the Kingdom. Besides the obligations mentioned earlier toward the state of honori= ng and obeying our rulers and paying the taxes that fall to them as ministers = of God in this sphere, we should look for ways to help out locally that do not jeopardize our witness and that truly help the community as a whole. Helping with disaster relief, ambu= lance work and volunteering with the local fire department are some obvious possibilities. And we should = seek as well to help out in useful ways in the broader world community with disa= ster relief and educational or medical assistance.

How, then, should we use this earthly citizens= hip in relation to our heavenly citizenship?&n= bsp; Paul himself, because of his use of his Roman citizenship, gives us = some good clues. Three times the b= ook of Acts records Paul’s use of his Roman citizenship as he exercised his duties to his heavenly citizenship.^{^[5]} It is important to notice that Paul never used his citizenship to try to change the Roman system as it stood by seeking a high office where he could influence the decisions of state. In each case where we see Paul usi= ng his Roman citizenship, he is using it to advance the Gospel. Each time Paul uses it to protect = not so much himself as the reputation and expansion of the gospel.

In the first instance Paul was misused in Philippi after he had cast a demon out of a slave g= irl who made her masters money by fortune-telling. Her owners brought Paul and Silas,= his helper, before the magistrates to complain of unlawful behavior and causing= a disturbance. Apparently their= real grievance, that their slave girl no long told fortunes, was either not grou= nds for action or impossible to prove. As often happens, a crowd gathered and, becoming caught up in the ex= citement, also threw accusations against Paul and Silas. The magistrates ordered them strip= ped, flogged and thrown into jail. After all, these men seemed inconsequential and this action would appease the men with whom the officials had to do business on a daily basis.

In the morning the magistrates again take the easiest way and tell the jailor to release the prisoners so they can leave = the city. Now Paul demands that h= is rights as a citizen be recognized by the magistrates. Is Paul simply demanding his right= s like so many Americans would? Or is something else happening here? It is far more likely that Paul is acting, not out of grievance or retaliation, which would go against so much of Jesus’ teaching and Paul’s message, but rather that he is seeking to eliminate a danger to the infant church in Philippi. In the confusion and disorder of t= he previous day, the general population of Philippi would have gotten the impression that Paul, the troublesome leader of a very disreputable group, had been punished. The whole reputation of the church = in this city and its future progress depended on the outcome of this run in wi= th the government officials. Paul intended one outcome alone from his demands–that the appearance of evil be removed from his actions so that the church would not= be rejected out of hand by the people as dangerous or dishonorable. Thus Paul secured the place of Christianity in Philippi by demanding the apology and escort out of the city by the magistrates. Thus, the name of the small, fledg= ling church was cleared!

In the second instance another tumult put Paul’s life in danger. = This time Paul was in the Temple in Jerusalem helping four men fulfill thei= r vows to God. The apostle James, the leader of the Jerusalem church, had suggested this course of action by Paul to remove suspicions in= the minds of the local believers about Paul.&n= bsp; Unfortunately this backfired and almost cost Paul his life when some Jews from Asia who had opposed Paul’s teaching, accused him to the pe= ople in the Temple of preaching against the law and the Temple and of bringing a Gentile into the forbidden courtyard of the Temple. Again Paul was seized by a crowd t= hat really did not know the true situation.&nb= sp; Nonetheless they dragged him out of the Temple to stone him. The Romans had a fortress next to = the Temple to enforce= order there. Noticing a disturbance= , a band of soldiers came out and arrested Paul. The tribune allowed Paul to addres= s the crowd, which began rioting again when Paul mentioned his mission to the Gen= tiles. In order to learn the reason for t= he disturbance, the tribune carried Paul back to the barracks and ordered him flogged “to find out why they were shouting against him like this.= 221;

In this more settled environment Paul simply asserts his protective right to avoid an unnecessary beating. The soldiers and their officers re= spond as they should have, and Paul is not beaten. However, in the course of trying to decide what to do with Paul, the third situation arises where Paul uses his Roman citizenship.

Paul had been transferred to Caesarea, the cap= ital of Roman rule in Palestine. The Jewish leaders sought to kill = Paul to end his influence on the people. Realizing their scheme to take his life, Paul refused the Roman governor’s request to go back to Jerusalem to be tried there on the charges of the Jews. Paul declared, “I am standing before Caesar’s tribunal, where I ought to be tried....I appeal to Caesar.”

Paul had several motives for this appeal. First, he recognized the depth of = hostility of the Jewish leaders against him. Probably Festus the newly appointed governor did not understand this= and only sought to gain favor with the Jewish leaders by trying Paul before the= m. It is unlikely that he was willing= ly seeking a miscarriage of justice. Paul was undoubtedly also seeking to bring a resolution to his imprisonment which had already lasted two years. And finally, Paul knew that God in= tended for him to witness for God in = Rome since the Lord himself had appeared to Paul in prison and told him this, and this surely influenced Paul’s use of his citizenship to demand a deci= sion in his case by Caesar.

It is obvious that it is permissible to use our earthly citizenship to advance the cause of the Gospel. In our modern world our passports = and our citizenship open many opportunities to us to travel safely and to testi= fy in places that might otherwise have no Gospel witness. But we must be careful not to depe= nd on this citizenship or value it in such a way that it usurps the place of our heavenly citizenship.

CHRISTIAN WARFARE

One serious objection to nonresistance is the appearance that it is passive. Even some who accept the doctrine struggle with its apparent passivity. It is true that there is a certain seeming passivity inherent in some aspects of the teaching, but when the complete range of action is understood, nonresistance appears in a complete= ly different light. Indeed, prop= erly understood, nonresistance is how a Christian fights in this world. There are two aspects to this war = that is the Christian’s battle on earth.&= nbsp; There is an internal battle against the strongholds of the devil in = our lives and there is the external battle in this war for God. The external battle, however, unli= ke any physical battle, is to be fought with love, even with love directed toward those who hate us and make themselves our enemies. And it is fought for the good of o= ur enemies, as well as our own good. Let us look at these two aspects of the Christian’s warfare.

One very unique feature of this war is that its purpose is to achieve shalom, or peace and welfare for all mankind–including the enemy. The enemy is not destroyed in the Christian’s warfare. Instead the Christian hopes to per= suade him to turn to God for his own good. Once again, in the Sermon on the Mo= unt Jesus warned his followers against anger which only stirs up dissension and strife. And Jesus not only re= jected retaliation and replaced it with good deeds towards those who hurt his disciples, but he even demanded of them that they “love [their] enemi= es and pray for those who persecute [them], so that [they] may be sons of [the= ir] Father who is in heaven.” God himself in his perfection cares for those who love him and obey him, and for those who are unjust and disobedient. Amazingly, God calls on Christians to imitate him in his perfection = by loving those who are unloving and do not return their love.

Paul is quite explicit, both in Romans 12 and = in Romans 13 after the passage on our duties to rulers, about how Christians o= ught to conduct themselves with others. It is significant that these two passages come on either side of the most important scripture dealing with our responsibilities towards the government. We are to put beh= ind us the deeds of our past lives and to “walk properly as in the daytime.” We are to “owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law.” This love is described in detail: “Let love be genuine. Abhor what is evil; hold fast to t= hat which is good. Love one anoth= er with brotherly affection. Out= do one another in showing honor. Do = not be slothful in zeal, be fervent in spirit, serve the Lord. Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer. Contribute to the needs of the saints and seek to show hospitality.<= /p>

“Bless those who persecute you; bless an= d do not curse them. Rejoice with = those who rejoice, weep with those who weep.&nbs= p; Live in harmony with one another.&n= bsp; Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be conceited. Repay no evil for evil, but give t= hought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends = on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, = for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.’ On the contrary, ‘if your enemy is hungry, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.’ Do not be overcome by evil, but ov= ercome evil with good.”

I have quoted this rather lengthy passage verb= atim because there is no way to say it any better. In one short passage Paul makes it= clear that he is calling for a lifestyle that is the exact opposite of how the non-Christian would see things or how the natural fallen man would respond = to opposition and conflict and even outright persecution. This does not mean that the Christ= ian automatically responds as he should. If that were so, this passage would be useless. No, the Christian needs direction = and encouragement from the Word of God to take hold of the resources of the Spi= rit that he has within himself if he truly is born again, and he needs the supp= ort and spiritual enablement of other brothers and sisters in Christ “to = grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ...so that [the body] builds itself up in love.”

Our first responsibility is to realize in the church, the body of Christ, the reconciliation that Jesus has brought us through his death and resurrection. This reconciliation was meant to heal the biggest rift in the ancient world, that between Jews and Gentiles.&nbs= p; Paul writes that “now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who h= as made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments and ordinances, that he mig= ht create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and mig= ht reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.” For many re= asons there was intense hatred between the Jews and the Gentiles in the ancient R= oman world. Yet God’s purpos= e was to bring these two together as they accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior= in one body that would be “a dwelling place for God by the Spirit.” This same love= is available to all who will yield themselves to Jesus as Lord and Savior to r= emove even the most intense modern day hatred, whether it be between Catholic and Protestant, German and Frenchman, Arab and Israeli, communist and capitalis= t, Christian and Muslim. The lov= e and healing in Jesus can overcome these seemingly insurmountable obstacles and = bring together the fiercest of enemies in the bond of Christian love. But it does not happen automatical= ly and the struggle to make it happen must be fought in the deepest recesses of our hearts and minds. How well we Christians do here determines to a large degree how successful our evangeli= sm will be. “The whole wor= ld lies in the power of the evil one,” and only something that is identifiably able to bring its adherents out of their common plight with everyone else will attract those who are looking for something truly better. A young Palestinian M= uslim, Eyad Sarrai, has aptly said, “Christianity’s message of nonviol= ence is very important, and it is not there in Islam, and I believe it is not th= ere in Judaism. I would honestly = say that if I could choose a religion, I would choose Christianity and its idea= l of universal acceptance, love, and forgiveness. It is all so beautiful. It is just so unfortunate that the history of Christianity has nothing to do with these ideas.” Peace in the truest, deepest sense= , in the sense that only Jesus can give, is what the world is seeking, even as it runs after the thrills of drugs, illicit sex, extreme sports and rabid nationalism. But when we Chri= stians tie our faith in Jesus to our own nation and our own nationalism, or to our= own nonessential customs and practices, we drive away many who are seeking the truth. This does not mean tha= t a Christian does not love his country or that his group may not have its own customs and practices, but it does mean that we must see these things in the proper light and strive to keep our loyalty and devotion to Jesus ahead of anything else. This is the re= al external battle for real men and women who want to follow Christ. The end result is being built up i= nto “the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith an= d of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ.”

But to fight this external battle well, the Christian must first engage in the internal warfare mentioned above. This is both a battle each of us m= ust fight inside himself, and one that each of us may be called on to help anot= her with as he struggles with his own problems. Although Christ has taken care of = the sin problem for all who trust in him, there is still a need by each believe= r to surrender his life progressively to God.&n= bsp; As a believer grows in Christ, he will discover new battlegrounds in= his life where the devil seeks to defeat him and even to subvert his loyalty to Jesus. How we fight here will= go far in deciding how victoriously and successfully our lives are lived for t= he Lord. Often we Christians are unaware of this major battlefield. But as Paul says, “For though we walk in the flesh, we are not waging war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of G= od, and take every thought captive to obey Christ.”

As in any battle or war the soldiers need to a= rm themselves well to insure a favorable outcome. It is not a question of resources;= those are limitless for the Christian. Instead it is a question of acquisition and practice. Again, Paul provides the insight w= e need here. He exhorts his hearers = to “be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. Put on the whole armor of God, tha= t you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. For we do not wrestle against fles= h and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in = the heavenly places.”

This is a difficult and continuing struggle and many never engage in it or give up on it because of its strenuous requirements. However, engagi= ng in this spiritual battle is the only way to maturity, fulfillment and success = in this life, as well as the next. Although the enemy and his schemes look forbidding, we have the prom= ise “that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at = the day of Jesus Christ,” if we but remain faithful to him. Our focus must be clear. We must look to Jesus as our patte= rn and yield ourselves wholeheartedly to God in whatever he calls us to. It may be costly and it may be frightening, but we must always remember the promises of God. If we “resist the devil...he= will flee from [us].” If we “draw near to God...he will draw near to [us].” In this spiritual battle God requi= res all we have to give, but he will supply us with all we need to win. Let us not give up the real battle= whose faithful completion brings jo= y and eternal life for the worldly battle whose victories and results are illusory and transitory.

The challenge for today’s Christians is = to take up the truly difficult fight, to destroy the devil’s strongholds= in themselves and other Christians, to resist steadfastly his temptations agai= nst them, to frustrate his schemes, to live lives that radiate the joy of the L= ord and that are patterns of lives well lived and to offer truly redeeming solutions to problems in the lives of everyday people–solutions that = are godly and real rather than superficial and self-protective. If we follow our Savior in these difficult things, he will reward us by transforming us so t= hat “when [Jesus] appears, we shall be like him, because we shall see him= as he is. And everyone who thus = hopes in him purifies himself as [Jesus] is pure.”

PART II

In the last session, we considered some of the= New Testament teaching on nonresistance as the path for effecting godly change = in the world. In this session we= will consider four humanistic ideologies that offer an alternative route to solv= ing man’s problems. Then we= will look at the great temptation for the church, that is the temptation to use = the state’s coercive power to accomplish kingdom purposes.

HUMANISTIC BELIEF SYSTEMS

Many in the world are yearning for the truth, = for something different from what they normally experience, for a better reality. Even those who would= discount the possibility of finding the truth or who publicly reject God are often seeking for the answer to the God-shaped hole in their souls without realiz= ing it. But to a large degree the church has failed them. Somet= imes the failure comes from silence and fear.&n= bsp; Sometimes it comes because of assertion and pride. This failure often involves mixing= the message of the Gospel with something outside and foreign to the Gospel. The church in the fourth century d= id this by joining the missions of the church and state together. Each of these institutions desired= to complement the other in what both saw as a helpful way, and they both imagi= ned that it could be done. Instea= d much harm was done to the simple and pure Gospel by this mistake. Modern American Christians have li= kewise contaminated the Gospel message by identifying themselves and the Gospel message with a particular political party and program.

The Christian, however, is told not to be conformed to the ways the world thinks and acts, but to have a renewed mind= and a pure life, shaped by the Gospel. But there is always a temptation to go an easier route by using the world view and institutions of the society in which the church lives in ord= er to advance the Gospel more quickly. But it never succeeds.

In the modern world there are at least four be= lief systems that have offered themselves in opposition to Christianity with gre= at success. In each case they co= uld be characterized as heresies or exaggerations of some aspect of Christianity.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> In each case these ideologies take= some truth of Christianity and mix it with something that appeals to the natural fallen man to yield a world view or belief system that is palatable and reasonable to the person without a biblical world view. Two of them seldom tempt a Christi= an to follow, but they are alluring substitutions for truth for many others in the world.

Communism

The first is communism. It has probably passed its zenith = in influence in the world although it still has enormous power in some areas a= nd the potential for a comeback. Communism as it was originally envisioned emphasizes social and econ= omic justice and seeks to end inequalities in the lives of the common people. Everyone is supposed to work for t= he common good–to give according to his abilities and to take according = to his needs. The original vision foresaw a time in which the state would wither away because of the harmony = in relationships brought about by the new socialist man. The simila= rity in goals with the Kingdom= of God is startling= , but communism’s method for bringing about this utopian kingdom is massive coercion. And, the new social= ist man who is willing to do all this was supposed to come about by education a= nd example, rather than by conversion, as in the Christian view. Each one can judge for himself whe= ther that actually happened or not during communism’s seven decade rule in= Russia.=

Militant Islam

The second ideology that is very popular in the world today is militant Islam. While communism emphasizes that man can achieve heaven on earth with= out any God, Islam recognizes the reality of one God and the responsibility of = man to obey him in all things. It= also recognizes God’s concern for us and his desire to communicate with man through his Word. In Islam al= l of life is regulated either directly by the Koran, which Muslims believe is God’s Word, or by the tradition that has been recorded about Muhammed= and his early followers. At first glance there is a superficial similarity with Christianity, which also reco= gnizes one God and the need to obey him. However Islam has a significantly deficient view of man, his fallenn= ess and the need for an internal change in man in order to be able to serve God= . Islam, unlike Christianity, sees m= an as naturally good and pleasing to God. All of us, according to Islam, are born Muslims. But we are corrupted by outside influences and turn away from Islam. Islam, however, misses the key truth of Christianity that man has be= en severely corrupted by the Fall and needs a renovation of the heart that only God can perform. Thus Islam a= ccepts the natural inclinations of man’s heart as normative and acceptable, while Christianity seeks to call man to repentance (a new way of thinking) = and conversion (a new way of acting). This acceptance of the natural inclinations of the heart, of course, justifies the use of violence, revenge, coercion and warfare to establish t= he dar al-Islam (household of submission).&nb= sp; Violence, is, after all, inherent in how man naturally tries to corr= ect problems and resolve serious conflicts.&nb= sp; This is amply documented, not only in the Bible itself, but in all of history.

Both communism and Islam seek to establish the= ir version of the Kingdom of God here on eart= h by coercion. That is the appeal = of these beliefs–they answer in part to the yearnings and desires of the human heart that God has placed in us and that motivate us even after the F= all, although they answer to these yearnings and desires in a corrupt way. A Christianity that compromises an= d also uses the same means, at the best confuses and clouds its own message. More likely such methods destroy i= ts intended message since they contradict it.

Capitalism

Two other ideologies make a strong appeal even= to many believers. In opposition= to communism, many believers, especially Americans, exalt capitalism as consis= tent with, or even required by, Christianity.&n= bsp; It is true that at present capitalism seems to be bringing new prosperity to many regions of the world as it did earlier to the United States and other countries that operate under its principles. But it is equally true that many o= f its principles directly contradict the economic pronouncements of the scriptures. Interest, high ra= tes of profit, the accumulation of lands and buildings, suing, the pursuit of money–these are all things that are criticized in the Bible.

The Bible does not promote one economic system over another. Both capitalism= and communism have strengths, and both have weaknesses. Regardless of which economic or po= litical system a Christian lives under, he will need to guard against the aspects o= f it that appeal to the natural man and emphasize the countering influence of biblical teaching to be a faithful witness to Jesus. In economics, the biblical emphasi= s is on equity, integrity and faithful service.

Democracy &n= bsp;

The other belief system that often appeals to Christians as though it were scriptural is democracy. Our American and western history a= nd consciousness are so tied into the practice of democracy that it is inconceivable for many to think of it as one option among many, but not biblical in its essence. Many American Christians will proclaim that it is our duty to vote and stand for office so that the best leaders possible are elected and direct the nation = in a godly fashion. We westerners = have been well served by democracy and a republican form of government so far. But neither is biblically mandated= , and both have the potential to become an improper focus for believers because of the benefits they have historically provided.

It is important to recognize as well that the political process itself, whether in a democracy or any other type of polit= ical system, emphasizes conflict and differences. In recent American experience this= has led away from intelligent discussion of issues to bring about satisfactory outc= omes and towards so-called “attack politics” in which the character = of the person running for office is denounced and impugned simply for the purp= ose of winning power. This approa= ch has the potential for running amok and causing violence, and it surely is not t= he Christian approach to solving problems.

Christianity intermixed with these failed humanistic systems is not faithful to the truth and will not attract follow= ers who will try to be faithful to the truth.&= nbsp; Because of our fallenness there will always be struggles to achieve = our goals and ideals, but only a nonconformed and separated Christianity can be= gin to show the way. This include= s, of course, a different way of approaching disagreements, violence and decision-making.

That is where nonresistance comes in. Nonresistance is not a strategy for winning more people or for strengthening our position. Rather it is a move towards faithf= ulness that the church needs to make to follow her Lord more closely. A likely result of faithfulness by= the church in following her Lord on this path of nonresistance will be a greater openness by honest seekers to examine more closely who this Jesus is and wh= at the church teaches and does.

THE GREAT TEMPTATION

As I recounted earlier, I became aware of the Anabaptist witness and began to attend and then joined a Beachy Amish congregation. It felt as thou= gh I were home at last. But, as might be expected, a conve= rt is often more “kosher” than those raised in a tradition. Seeming contradictions between off= icial beliefs and actual practice startled me and made me question my decision to join the tradition that I had chosen. I became discouraged, or maybe even depressed. It seemed to me that many of those= who possessed a wonderful tradition and teaching did not appreciate it or really practice it.

Now, I want to be fair and I recognize that th= ose raised in any tradition often have experiences that make them question the value of that tradition. And = I was young then and expected, not only an unrealistic conformity to what was tau= ght, but also a commitment by all the members of the Church that was rock solid. A little bit of age and experience and struggling on my own and talking with others with more experience and wisdom than I myself have has convinced me that I was expect= ing too much. That is not to say = that the teaching of nonresistance is not of utmost importance or that real commitment is not needed in our churches on this subject. Rather I recognize now that this w= ill only come with calm, convincing and extended teaching and explanations. There is no other way to convince = and there is no other way to hold on to something that is good and true and beautiful and spiritually powerful.

On my way from disappointment to my much more hopeful present state, I dabbled with political involvement. Of course, before I joined the Beachy Amish Church, I had voted= and I was very interested in politics. But after I joined the Beachy Church I refrained = from voting during the next election, as I understood I ought. Even though I was committed to the teaching of nonresistance, I was not yet sure how refraining from politics = fit in. Then, as I have said abov= e, some disappointments set in.

During the next two presidential elections I resumed my practice of voting. One key issue that motivated me very much politically was the abortion issue. I did and do feel strongly about t= his political and ethical issue, and it was very important in my decision to vo= te even though voting was at least discouraged by my Church. I hoped and expected that by votin= g I would make a real difference in what seemed to me a scandalous situation wh= ere over one million babies were aborted in the United States each year.

Well, politics can be fun and exciting. It makes you feel involved and it = seems as though you are making something important happen. This is especially so when your ca= ndidate wins and you expect to see action that will vindicate your participation and enthusiasm. For some reason we humans seem to be primed to enjoy such vicarious action and victories. Or perhaps we use these things to replace the joy of Kingdom work.

I was not the only believer drawn into politic= al participation during the seventies and eighties. Many conservative Catholics and Protestants voted for the first time ever because they felt that the nation= was on a moral decline unlike anything our country had ever before undergone. Abortion was simply the most flagr= ant of the many symptoms that pointed to American decadence. Many of those who voted for the fi= rst time were fundamentalist Christians and Anabaptists who had previously avoi= ded political involvement as inappropriate for the Christian, although often wi= thout adequate thought given to why this was so.= Jerry Falwell, a fundamentalist Christian and televangelist, founded= the Moral Majority in 1979. It wa= s a new political action organization that would be an important part of the ef= fort to mobilize these new voters to elect Governor Reagan as president.

They succeeded in electing President Reagan, b= ut did they actually succeed in their larger goal? Two men who were actively involved= in the formation, work and leadership of the Moral Majority, Cal Thomas and Ed Dobson, have written a book called Blinded By Might. This is their summary of the effec= t of the Moral Majority on American politics and culture: “Did the Moral Majority really make a difference?...Even a casual observation of the curre= nt moral climate suggests that despite all the time, money, and energy–despite the political power–we failed. Things have not gotten better; the= y have gotten worse.”

To a large degree this was also my own evaluat= ion that caused me to withdraw from political participation around 1985. I began to notice that except for = a few minor changes that were possible by means of executive orders by the Presid= ent, little changed legally concerning abortion, this issue of such great import= ance. While President Reagan expended tr= emendous political capital to achieve his tax cuts and his increased military expenditures, and while he remained firmly resolved to ride out a difficult recession without significant reductions in the tax cuts or the military expenditures, he used none of his political capital to advance the pro-life agenda in any significant way. Several years I marched in the annual pro-life march in Washington, and = each time President Reagan would address us from the White House over the public address system to encourage us in our efforts. But, once again, no real political effort was expended to accomplish significant change in the law that allowed unlimited abortions.

Since I was involved with the pro-life movement from the beginning, I also began to notice something else. At the very beginning of the contr= oversy which began nationally in January, 1973, when the Supreme Court of the United States overturned almost all abortion law in Roe v Wade, there was great reluctance to engage in the discussion of abortion from an ethical position. Even those who clai= med that the unborn child did not yet possess life or the characteristics of be= ing human felt morally uneasy about their own arguments. However, as time went on and the Christians who became politically involved pushed abortion as an election issue, the debated shifted subtly from ethics to political rights.

It was a brilliant political move for the pro-abortion side. If there i= s one thing in American politics that trumps anything else, it is individual rights. Little movement can be expected away from unlimited abortions rights as long as the issue is frame= d as the right of a women to control her own body. You do not want anyone controlling= your body, and the vast majority of Americans adamantly agree with you and feel uneasy about imposing their beliefs on someone else if it means this.

I also began to suspect something else as I thought about my political participation and what I was realizing about the= use of politics to achieve ethical goals. I recognized that the issue that wa= s so important to me was not important enough to those now in power to exert any great effort to resolve the issue successfully. And that made me realize that at s= ome point the whole array of minor adjustments that had been initiated by execu= tive orders could be reversed at any time by a new election in which a majority = of 50% plus one chose a new president who opposed the pro-life position. Was this really how I wanted to ma= ke such a momentous decision?

Then, when President Clinton was elected,^{^[6]} I discovered I had been wrong. It did not take a slight majority to overturn the small positive enactments of President Reagan and President Bush (41) on this issue. It just required = that one be elected president. In a three-man race Bill Clinton won the presidency with 43% of the total popular vote. As Cal Thomas wrote in = his book: “The impotence and near-irrelevance of the Religious Right were demonstrated on the day William Jefferson Clinton was inaugurated. Clinton’s first two acts as president were to sign executive orders liberalizing rules against homosexu= als in the military and repealing the few abortion restrictions applied under presidents Reagan and Bush.

“With a few pen strokes, Bill Clinton er= ased the little that the Moral Majority had been able to achieve during its brief existence. The tragedy was no= t the failure to succeed, but the waste of spiritual energy that would have been better spent on strategies and methods more likely to succeed than the quest for political power.”

Which leads me to two other discoveries I made= as I considered politics and the Christian anew. I discovered first that all politi= cs is based on compromise and pragmatism, not principle and truth, and second that the basis of action for government is coercion.

No matter how the leaders of any form of government are chosen, at some level there will be give-and-take or comprom= ise to decide who rules and how he rules. Now I freely admit that this is usually a good thing in the realm of= the kingdoms of this world, since the policies the rulers enforce will affect everyone under their authority and the broadest consensus in the political realm will most likely bring the greatest civic unity. But for the believer in absolute t= ruth there are certain areas where compromise is not possible. When the state oversteps its prope= r role and moves into these areas, the Christian is required to say with Peter and= the apostles, “We must obey God rather than men.” But, since these areas concern principles of faith and depend on the world view that one holds, they should never be forced upon the general population by laws and governmental action= s, according to Christian principle and understanding. Real faith that makes a difference= in someone’s life must be freely held and practiced regardless of what others think of it. This is u= sually possible without too much conflict in our land where individual freedom is extoll= ed. But not always. The true measure of belief and commitment comes when the state exalts itself and demands recognition that belongs only to God. Sometimes faith will then result in persecution and even martyrdom as the believer st= ands faithfully with God.

If, on the other hand, we Christians become de= eply involved in the political process, compromise will of necessity become part= of our approach even towards important issues. This has already happened. One example that ties in with the abortion issue is the compromise decision made by President Bush (43) to al= low federal funding for research conducted with certain lines of stem cell cultures. Because these cultu= res were obtained from embryos, many Christians would see this as complicity wi= th the taking of human life. Regardless of how an individual Christian would see this issue, the question that comes to mind is whether we would want politicians who claim = to be Christians making these decisions based on political considerations.

Even more pertinent to our discussion on nonresistance is the discovery that coercion is the basis of all government. This may be a surprising statement to many who live in one of the western democracies suc= h as the United States. We in America, however, live in a political setting that is remarkably gentle. This is true to a large degree bec= ause of our culture which so far has convincingly promoted democracy as the supremely good method of government and our history which has seen a consis= tent willingness to follow through on the promise of democracy by maintaining a smooth transition from one government to the next. Even so, the basis of all governme= nt, our own included, is force. <= /p>

One of the most discerning and forthright Amer= ican political commentators, George Will, has written in regard to the American occupation in Iraq: “Nevertheless, the first task of the occupation remains the first tas= k of government: to establish a monopoly on violence.” And this is indeed true, the first= task and absolute requirement of any government is to hold the reins of force and coercion exclusively under its control.&nb= sp; It is somewhat difficult for us Americans to see this because our own government has the confidence of the people and works its will with remarka= ble care and sensitivity, raising the level of coercion gradually and only to t= he degree needed to accomplish its purposes.&= nbsp;

Thus the mailed fist of force which is so often experienced in other countries with naked brutality, is by and large kept covered in a velvet glove in American political and governmental practice.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Nonetheless the American government implements its will by fine tuning the level of coercion necessary. Thus we Americans are typically encouraged to do this or that, whatever the government’s agenda might= be, thereby receiving a tax benefit or perhaps even a monetary disbursement from the government. When the leve= l of importance of our cooperation with the government’s agenda rises, we = may be ticketed or fined or even taken to court by the government. Finally, if the issue rises to a s= erious enough level, we may face loss of certain rights, imprisonment and even the ultimate sanction available to the government, death.

Obviously, if this is so, the government is in= deed an inappropriate setting for the nonresistant Christian to exercise his tal= ents and skills. The methods of co= mpromise and force are incompatible with the calling and responsibilities inherent in citizenship in the Kingdom of God. And the goals and accomplish= ments of the methods used by the kingdoms of this world do not and cannot bring a= bout the goals and aims of the heavenly Kingdom, which deserve our complete attention and effort.

When a Christian attempts to combine the two–his Christian calling and service to the state–either one or the other, or both, will suffer. In fact, despite the belief of many that Christians will make a difference in = how government functions, this can only be true if the exercise of governmental powers corresponds with the exercise of the Christian’s calling. But this is impossible. Instead the reverse happens. We have seen this over and over ag= ain in history, beginning with Consta= ntine in the fourth century.

The intentions of Constantine were noble. He wanted to bring peace and unity= and prosperity to an Empire that had been wracked by civil war. The bishops who supported him and rejoiced in the triumph of Christianity over paganism and the christianizat= ion of the Empire were sincere and honest men who thought that they saw the han= d of God in the victory of Constant= ine and the favor he showed the church. But this is not how it works. We have the example of their attempt and the attempt of others to wed the state and Christianity together. Other belief systems may be compatible with this union of religion a= nd state, but it is poison to true Christianity.

&= nbsp; Instead of the Christian raising the state to a higher ethical level, the Christian must adjust himself in his exercise of political office to the realities of politics. As T. S. Eliot has written: “The Christian and the unbeliever do not, and cannot behave = very differently in the exercise of office; for it is the general ethos of the people they have to govern, not their own piety, that determines the behavi= or of politicians....It is not primarily the Christianity of the statesmen that matters, but their being confined, by the temper and traditions of the peop= le which they rule, to a Christian framework within which to realize their ambitions and advance the prosperity and prestige of their country....What = the rulers believed, would be less important than the beliefs to which they wou= ld be obliged to conform. And a skeptical or indifferent statesman, working within a Christian frame, might= be more effective than a devout Christian statesman obliged to conform to a secular frame. For he would be required to design his policy for the government of a Christian society.= 221;

While I would argue with Eliot over whether or= not a Christian society exists or whether a Christian framework could be constructed for a government, his essential point that the people being rul= ed shape the type of government they have is true. I would also argue with Eliot that= the kingdoms of this world will by their very nature and organization shape how= the ruler executes his authority, whether he is a Christian or a pagan or compl= etely secular. Almost imperceptibly= the Christian who takes up governmental authority will move towards the same methods anyone else would use.

When I attended Eas= tern Mennonite College during the winter term of 1978, I took a class on the history of Latin America.&nbs= p; In the course of a discussion one day the professor remarked that he found it impossible to criticize poor Latin American peasants for rising up against their oppressive governments and landlords. Although my response may have refl= ected some immaturity, I challenged him that in that case I would also not be abl= e to criticize the landlords or the government for taking up arms to defend what= was legally theirs. Would it not = be better for us Christians, I asked, to come up with a creative alternative w= here there was injustice? Perhaps I could have framed the rebuttal better, but I still believe the basic point. If we seek more out of government than they are designed to give, we will be disappointed.

This is not to say that no good things come fr= om government or even that some good things have come out of the union of chur= ch and state. If history is a gu= ide, however, the consequences will most likely be more negative than positive f= or the church and the witness of the Gospel&n= bsp; The eventual result will be the church relying on the state for enforcement of its directives and the state expecting and demanding support= in its projects and agendas, even when there may be serious question about how closely they actually fit with the Gospel.

************

I br= ing up the place of the Christian in politics and the government because this is w= here the great temptation occurs for the Christian. Many of us try diligently to avoid vengeance in our personal interactions with other individuals and would not chose to join the military. B= ut what could be the harm of participating in the political process, especially when we are invited or even strongly urged to join in? The situation, however, is much mo= re complicated than this.

Inherent in politic action is a strong attachm= ent to the country or political unit to which one belongs. This is a good thing, used rightly= . Strong attachment can mean commitm= ent to the needs of others and a willingness to work for needed change. The problem comes when this strong attachment leads to fear, distrust, hatred and disparagement of those who a= re different from ourselves or outside our “home.” This is nationalism–and at s= ome level all politics involves this nationalistic spirit. There are at least two problems wi= th nationalism. In the first pla= ce, although the attachment can lead to positive action, without the Christian vision, which is inimical to the political process because of the absolute = quality of Christianity and its aversion to compromise on issues central to its own message, nationalism will not have the resources to move in the right direc= tion for good change and to maintain that direction when, as is unavoidable, it becomes difficult to do the ethically correct thing. Although our views would be very different on the subject of the Christian and participation in the state, G= . K. Chesterton has seen this problem very clearly. He has written: “For our tit= anic purposes of faith and revolution, what we need is not the cold acceptance of the world as a compromise, but some way in which we can heartily hate and heartily love it. We do not w= ant joy and anger to neutralize each other and produce a surly contentment; we = want a fiercer delight and a fiercer discontent. We have to feel the universe at on= ce as an ogre’s castle, to be stormed, and yet as our own cottage, to which= we can return at evening.”

What Chesterton is talking about is something = only a Christian can have and understand. Other religions such as Judaism and Islam proclaim that a man is born into his religion. Indeed, Is= lam insists that all are born Muslims and only become Christians, Jews or pagans because they are corrupted by outside influences. Thus, these other religions assert= that they are advocating what is natural for man. With them there is no need for a revolution–especially not an internal revolution, but only for confor= mity to the way God has made man. = And this is what they teach, conformity with the natural man. This approach works well with poli= tics and always leads in the end t= o the “cold acceptance of the world as a compromise” because there is= no vision beyond the understanding of what man naturally is at present.

Amazingly the Christian says “No!”= to this. We need a revolution in= side us to change the way we are naturally.&nbs= p; We and all of nature are corrupt now because of something that happe= ned long ago, at the beginning, says the Christian. What is needed is first an interna= l and then an external revolution. Internally we need a completely different orientation and motivation that can come only from God. = This is conversion. Externally we = need to learn a new way to live that does not conform itself to the natural ways= of fallen man and of the world. = Only the Christian can have these revolutions.&= nbsp; Only the Christian has opened himself up to the God who provides the resources necessary to become new. But the revolutionary life of the Christian does not fit into the systems of this world, including the systems of government and politics.^{^[7]}

This realization of the fallenness and evil of= man and the goodness of God and the gifts he has given us is the “faith a= nd revolution” that Chesterton mentions. The “fiercer delight” = that he claims we Christians have or need to develop is the awareness of the goo= dness of Creation and comes from the offer of change that God places before all men. Real change can and does happen and God has provided the way to it through Jesus and his death and resurrection. The “fier= cer discontent” is the radical recognition of the magnitude of the problem that exists inside each one of us and in the whole universe. Only the one who has seen the real= ity of the dislocation that exists inside each man and the universe as a whole and only the one who has glimpsed the offered remedy from God can long for and understand the revolution that man needs.&= nbsp; All political solutions and governmental programs are mere compromise and misdirected activity that may affect some of the symptoms but never tou= ch the heart of the problem.

It is the Christian, Chesterton maintains, who sees the problem–the fallen and rebellious world as ogre’s cast= le, but also sees the true goal to which God is directing all of history–= the warm and inviting home cottage–that can only be reached by surrender = to Jesus.

&= nbsp; The other problem with nationalism is the disconnection it fosters among men. The Lord wants unity in Jesus amon= g all the different races and nationalities and communities. Of course this is only possible in Christ, but many of us Christians risk loosing this ideal and alienating brothers and sisters in Christ from other nations by our participation in politics that often seems to be attempting to realize the Kingdom of God in the United States through the American political system.&nbs= p; The scriptures know nothing of this.

Instead we Christians, who have come to have p= eace in the fullest meaning of the word because Jesus gave his all by dying for = us, are to actualize in our lives and hearts the results of Jesus’ death = and resurrection, the creation of “one new man in place of the two [hosti= le enemies], so making peace, [in order to] reconcile us both to God in one bo= dy through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. And he came and preached peace to = you who were far off and peace to those who were near. For through him we both have acces= s in one Spirit to the Father. So = then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom = the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In him you also are bei= ng built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit.” (Eph 2.13-22) This passage of scri= pture concerned itself specifically the greatest division within the Roman Empire in Paul’s day–between Jew = on the one hand and the Gentile on the other.&nbs= p; The non-Jew recognized the magnitude of the division, and the Jew sa= w in his calling by God a justification for it.= But Paul says that even this seemingly impossible to bridge chasm is done away with in Jesus. If t= his is so–if Jesus could heal that divide between Jew and Gentile–then= any division or chasm or hatred that exists in our world between any groups can= also be healed by Jesus. But we Christians are the hands and feet of Jesus in the realization of this. We are the ones who must work to m= ake it first a reality in our own lives and then to challenge other Christians who have not laid down their worldly disputes and arguments and hatreds to purs= ue this goal.

Politics and nationalism are diametrically opp= osed to this approach to life. Som= eone is always the enemy, both at home and abroad. Someone else must always be made t= he villain so that our own virtues are recognized and our programs are enacted. It was easy for many Americans to imagine the Soviet Union as= the “Evil Empire” that President Reagan wanted to cause to fall. It is much harder for us to see ourselves as others outside our own nation, world view and assumptions see us. To a fervent Muslim much = in our society and our world view is impious and destructive. Our freedoms appear to them as decadence. Our freedom to que= stion all things, even God, is blasphemous and cannot be allowed. The fervent Muslim sees himself as rightly opposed to these western developments and wants to restrict them at= all costs from his own society. A= nd, even if he does not approve of the tactics of Islamic terrorists, he can of= ten understand their motivation.

Something which we Christians must strive to understand and to recognize is that our western democracies do not have the stamp of God’s approval. There are many injustices and immoral things that we allow and approve. And our societies tr= uly have become decadent. It may = seem obvious to us that the United States ought to be fighting as it is aga= inst the Islamic terrorists. Their violence is clearly wrong and we all desire a world of stability and not chaos. But, as hard as it is = for us to conceptualize, we must also recognize that God may be using these evil m= en to accomplish his will. This = does not justify them anymore than God’s use of Assyria to punish Israel and Judah justified her. Assyria was the rod of God’s wrath although she herself did not mean to be or understand what God was doing with her.&nb= sp; And then for her own sins Assyria= was punished.

We must not be so committed to our own national existence that we fall into the same mistake that the Jews of Jeremiah̵= 7;s day fell into. In chapters 26 through 29 Jeremiah delivered the Word of God to the priests, the prophets = and the people of Judah, t= o the rulers of Judah and their allies and to the first Jewish exiles who had alr= eady been sent to Babylon in 605 BC and 597 BC. He warn= ed the priests, the prophets and the people that unless they repented and obeyed God’s Word, the Temple, which had be= come for them an idol, would be destroyed as the first house of God in Shiloh had been destroyed. He warned the rulers of Judah a= nd the neighboring countries to submit themselves to Nebuchadnezzar so that they c= ould remain in their own lands. Bu= t if they opposed Nebuchadnezzar, Jeremiah warned them that they would be punish= ed with war, famine and exile. F= inally Jeremiah addressed a letter to the exiles telling them that the Lord wanted them to “build houses and live in them....Take wives and have sons and daughters....But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into ex= ile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare.” Saying the Temple would be d= estroyed and that the princes must submit to Nebuchadnezzar was treason! Praying for the welfare of the cit= y that had brought you captive into it was unthinkable! But that was where God was at work= .

In his book Orthodoxy Chesterton states that the Christian has something that the ordinary politician does not have. He has an unchanging vi= sion or a model of what ought to be. He has the perfect man, Jesus, as the model for his own life, and he has the N= ew Jerusalem as the model for the life of the church. These are non-negotiable. Without them there is no Gospel or Kingdom. It is our focus on t= hem that keeps us on the right path. If they lose their rightful place in our lives, we will settle for second best= and miss the mark.

CONCLUSION

The way of Jesus is not the way of politics. It is the way of service not coercion. It is the way of lo= ve not power. Rather than overcoming= evil with force, it is the way of suffering love. Indeed, it would seem that for the genuine Christian suffering and persecution are to be expected. Jesus told us that “if the w= orld hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you....If they persecu= ted me, they will also persecute you.”&n= bsp; Paul, after recounting his own sufferings for Christ, insisted that “all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.” But we mus= t not despair and lose heart. The w= ork of the Lord can be weighty, but his promises are sure, and they are good. Jesus also told us: “Blessed= are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed ar= e you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Re= joice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.” The reward, even here on earth, can be far more than anyone ever expected.

Many Christians have persevered and served the= ir Lord faithfully in spite of persecution, even in the face of death. One such faithful follower of Jesu= s was Darlene Deibler Rose, an American missionary to the Dutch East Indies, now = Indonesia, before World War II. Her stor= y is encouraging and illustrates that the perseverance God asks of us is indeed possible with his help even in the harshest situations.

Darlene sensed that God had called her to be a missionary= and was preparing herself for this future at the Christian and Missionary Alliance<= /st1:PlaceName> Bible School when she met her future husband, Russell Deibler, already a missionary in <= st1:place w:st=3D"on">Borneo. One year after they married, she and her husband arrived in the Indonesian archipelago in August, 1938. = After only a few short years of service to the Lord, she and her husband were cau= ght up in the Japanese occupation of the Dutch colony. Since they were foreigners, they w= ere imprisoned in separate concentration camps, one for women, the other for me= n.

Darlene, along with the other women in her camp, experien= ced severe deprivations of food and medical care, as well as overwork. Gradually all of them became physi= cally mere shadows of their former selves. But this was not the worst of their sufferings. Senseless orders followed by ruthl= ess punishments for the slightest infractions were the order of the day in the camp. The prisoners never kne= w what to expect from their camp commander, Mr. Yamaji. He had once even kicked a prisoner= in the men’s camp to death.

Despite the horrendous conditions and the unpredictable a= nd harsh behavior of her captors, Darlene strove to maintain her relationship = with God and to help the other women in their struggles. Then one day she learned that her husband had died of sickness at the men’s camp. That afternoon Mr. Yamaji called D= arlene into his office to speak with her. &n= bsp;

“This is war. What you heard today, women in Japan have heard. You are very young. Someday the war will be over and y= ou can go back to America. You can go dancing, go to the thea= ter, marry again, and forget these awful days.&= nbsp; You have been a great help to the other women in camp. I ask of you, don’t lose your smile.” She then = had the opportunity to share her faith with Mr. Yamaji.

“Mr. Yamaji, I don’t sorrow like people who h= ave no hope. I want to tell you a= bout Someone of Whom you may never have heard.&= nbsp; I learned about Him when I was a little girl in Sunday School back i= n Boone, Iowa, in <= st1:country-region w:st=3D"on">America= . His name is Jesus. He’s the Son of Almighty God= , the Creator of heaven and earth....He died for you, Mr. Yamaji, and He puts lov= e in our hearts–even for those who are our enemies. That’s why I don’t hat= e you, Mr. Yamaji. Maybe God brought= me to this place and this time to tell you He loves you.”

Mr. Yamaji was visibly shaken by her testimony. “With tears running down his cheeks, he rose hastily and went to his bedroom, closing the door. I could hear him blowing his nose = and knew he was still crying. We weren’t supposed to leave the presence of a Japanese officer without permission; however, since he didn’t return to dismiss me, I sat quie= tly praying for his salvation, that he might understand new life in Christ Jesus and someday go home to share God’s love with his wife and family̵= 1;to be a light in some dark, possibly even remote, area of Japan. Realizing finally that he was not = coming out of his room, I left, knowing from that moment that Mr. Yamaji trusted me and understood why I was in the Netherlands East Indies.” Indeed, his actions towards Darlen= e and the others began to change. Seemingly he began to understand some of the motivations of Darlene = and the others who professed to follow Jesus.

Later, the secret police took Darlene away to their prison and condemned her to death as an American spy. Her treatment there was particular= ly harsh. However, Mr. Yamaji ca= me to the prison and interceded for her and saved her life. She was eventually returned to Mr. Yamaji’s camp to stay there until the Allies liberated the camp late = in 1945. In a short time she was evacuated back to Am= erica. Before she left she learned that M= r. Yamaji was condemned to death for having kicked a prisoner in the men’= ;s camp to death. Darlene testif= ied to the court of his rescuing her from the secret police and saving her life. Because of this his sentence was commuted to life imprisonment with hard labor and later he was freed.

Years later she learned through a priest who worked in Indonesia but had visited Japan that Mr. Yamaji was still alive and that he= had asked the priest to apologize to any women he might meet who had been imprisoned in his camp. He wa= s a different man, he asserted. D= arlene felt that he had indeed had a real change of heart.

Stories just as remarkable abound in the life = of the church throughout the ages. And yet we need continual reminders that we are called to such sacrificial livi= ng both in the public and private spheres.

Have you ever found yourself thinking something like this: I don’t care about so-and-so, but I do care about the environment or my country or my political party and its program or my job?<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> I have. There is nothing of active love or suffering love in this attitude. In fact, it is an extraordinary attitude for a Christian who ought to value any and all who are bearers of the image of God. All other things, no matter how va= luable they may be, are transient and will pass away. Only the bearers of the image of G= od will continue on into eternity. This is the very reason that Christ became a man and gave himself for our sins. And his humility, w= hich is a model for us, far outstrips any emptying of ourselves that we would ev= er have to do. Jesus, after all,= who “was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born= in the likeness of men.” I= ncredibly this is the mind we are to have in ourselves! Unity in spirit and mind ought to characterize the church so that we “do nothing from rivalry or concei= t, but in humility count others more significant than [ourselves].”

As Paul wrote in Romans 5, we Christians must learn to “rejoice in hope of the glory of God. More than that, we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produc= es character, and character produces hope, and hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.”&nb= sp; What he has promised us he will bring to pass, while “this sli= ght momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond = all comparison.” “Beh= old,” Jesus said, “I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to rep= ay everyone for what he has done....Surely I am coming soon!” Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!

^{<=
![if !supportFootnotes]>^[1]}See John 12.31; 14.30,31 and 16.8-11. This dual control by both God and = the devil is a difficult concept. At its heart is God’s ultimate control and allowance for all that happens while at the more concrete and apparent level the devil is active in men’s lives directing them to actions and attitudes which are meant to oppose God and his kingdom. E= ven so, these very actions and attitudes in the long run are used by God to accomplish his will and purpose.

^{<=
![if !supportFootnotes]>^[2]}There is, of course, an extended treatment in th= e New Testament of the situation where the state usurps God’s proper role, = that is, the book of Revelation.

^{^[3]}I am not trying to elevate the American concept = of emphasizing the individual and freedom of choice. Rather I am trying to recognize th= at every society attempts to strike some sort of balance between the private a= nd the public and that this is recognized in the scriptures. The Christian approach should be flexible and can adjust to many different forms of government. Neither democracy nor republicanism is granted special status in the Bible.<= /p>

^{<=
![if !supportFootnotes]>^[4]}Acts 22.29 = ; A Roman citizen had the right to vote, to hold office, to make legal contracts, to lawful marriage, to sue and be sued, to trial, to appeal the decisions of magistrates as well as the right not to be tortured. In this passage the soldiers almost violated two of Paul’s rights. In Acts 25 Paul takes advantage of the right to appeal.

^{<=
![if !supportFootnotes]>^[5]}Acts 16.35-40; 22.22-29 and 25.6-12.

^{<=
![if !supportFootnotes]>^[6]}Just for the sake of clarity, I did not vote aga= in after the 1984 election.

^{^[7]}Only Christianity teaches the Fall of man and it= s destructive effect on the whole of Creation. Only Christianity teaches the need for a radical modification in man’s deepest nature that can only be experienced through faith in Christ. Religions and ideolog= ies attempt to bring man into line with his natural course. However, if Christianity is correc= t, this natural course is a continuation in bondage while the revolution of the heart that Christianity teaches is true freedom.