Love Your Enemies... Unless...

It will be quite clear in this article that my focus is primarily on the Christian being obedient to Christ and loving to the enemy. Many folks want to focus on the innocent party involved in the discussion (which is about to be introduced) but I believe it is in our best interest to focus on the victimizers/enemy and Christ. After all, Jesus did not come to focus on those who were well and righteous but sinful and sick (Mark 2:17) and we are those very sick and sinful people and owe it to our fellow sick and sinful siblings to admit that solidarity.

The Issue:

In discussions centered on enemy love, nonviolence, and overcoming evil with good people often bring up the suggestion that we as Christians should hold to those things most of the time but not necessarily all the time. In other words, these commands of Christ to do good to enemies, love them, and forgive unconditionally are not absolutes but mere suggestions or hopeful ideals that he doesn't expect us to really take seriously. This idea usually uses examples such as self-defense or defense of others (and the other is almost always a powerless and innocent party who will be sacrificed without some sort of action that compromises enemy love which, for several reasons, isn't entirely a fair framing for the discussion). It has to be said that defending others is always a noble pursuit. Christians should defend people all the time. They should defend little girls from being shoved into sex slavery, little boys from being abducted and made soldiers by rebel armies, hostages from suffering more than gun point, and wicked men who are about to be bombed. Yes, Christians should defend/love all people and not just the ones who seem the most innocent. We all have blood on our hands. We're all wicked. We're all sinners. We're in the same sinking boat (that we put a hole in) and Christ has come to our shipwreck to rescue us. How can we on the rescue ship (assuming we're on that ship) possibly claim which of the others in the sinking boat should be rescued and which should sink with the ship, let alone claim which ones we ought to wrap in lead ropes? Should we not be concerned with all our brothers and sisters? If we care for one life should we not care for all others?

Let's return to the initial proposal that Jesus offers exceptions to his commands or that there are exceptions to his commands even without his direct say-so. I submit that not only does Jesus not leave room for us to believe that he is making mere suggestions or introducing us to initial tactics to employ that we can move away from should they not achieve the ends we are seeking but that he is commanding us to live a specific way with great consistency and that there are no exceptions to his commands.

So we know the argument right? We should love enemies except when they endanger our lives or the lives of others. That's what we often say. Once someone endangers our life or the life of someone else we are no longer obligated to love, forgive, or do good to them. That's the argument in a nutshell. Granted, the argument always puts emphasis on the motivation. The motivation is to protect or save the person in danger. Which, again, is noble motivation. However, noble as a motivation it may be we must remember that Christ told us "If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that... But love your enemies, do good to them... Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful" (Luke 6:32-36, emphasis mine). Jesus is pretty straight forward about enemy love. He must have anticipated that we would say "Yeah, but what about when..." and thus inserting a preemptive teaching that commands us to do good to those who are intentionally against us. In obeying these commands even to death we model Christ for "You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:6-8). Some have translated this to show that while we were against God or enemies of God he died for us. I find it interesting that righteousness is dying for others but not killing for others. Moreover, righteousness is dying for those who are against us (individual and/or communal).

We'll return to this basic idea later on but let us now address the issues that are often the reasons for the exception clause; Preserving the life of self and preserving the lives of others.

Preserving the Life of Self:

I must make it clear that preservation of our own lives is not seen as a big concern in the scriptures or early church witness. If it were a large concern we wouldn't celebrate martyrs as much as we do, we wouldn't be as proud of the disciples as we are, we wouldn't respect Christ for rebuking Peter in the garden, we wouldn't think the apostle Paul as wise or of teacher status when he said things such as "for me to die is gain" (Philippians 1:21) and we would view Peter as sane for encouraging believers to expect and joyfully accept persecution instead of fearing it and various threats. Self-preservation is nowhere near as important as loving others. Peter writes, "Who is going to harm you if you are eager to do good? But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. 'Do not fear their threats; do not be frightened.' But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord... For it is better, if it is God’s will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil. For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit" (1Peter 3:13-18). When Christ suffered he brought us to God. When we suffer for others, which is what we do when we choose to die instead of kill, then we bring others closer to God for we force them to see the love of God which was shown to us in Christ on the cross. Self-sacrificing love trumps self-preservation every time. Self-preservation doesn't show Christ to our enemies. Suffering can. On this point many want to argue that Peter is discussing mere religious persecution and thus it doesn't apply to the street mugger, home intruder, and similar enemies. But let us consider that he says "if you should suffer for what is right" that is, if we do what is right and love as we have been taught by Christ and we suffer as a result then we are blessed. We are not told we are blessed if we defend others by harming or destroyingthose who stand against them. You will not find that message in the gospels.

We do not fear the loss of self by the hands of an enemy because we know it showcases the love of God that was first made evident in Christ in his sacrifice but we also do not fear the loss of our own lives because we know this life is not the end. Our earthly lives are hardly a blip in eternity. This life is incredibly important but if we die today we will not be dead forever. Jesus and Paul often refers to people who have died as being "asleep" (John 11:11, 1Corinthians 11:30, 1 Thessalonians 4:14-15). There is an age to come in which we will be raised with Christ, have indestructible bodies, and live (1Corinthians 15). That means that this is not the end. At one point St. John even speaks of a second death after we initially die on earth which means there is life after death. What's more is this continued life, this resurrected life, this eternity is better than the life we are experiencing right now. It is referred to by Jesus as "paradise" (Luke 23:43). In this coming life we know that there is "no more death, or mourning, or crying, or pain" (Revelation 21:4). Staying alive for as long as possible is not our greatest goal. It's not even a goal above loving others. As shown above, dying and giving up a longer life can be a great tool in loving others and that doesn't make our lives worthless by any means. Instead, it makes our lives very worthwhile. Paul makes it clear that he avoids dying so he may continue spreading the gospel. If we can stay alive, we should do so, but that does not mean we seek to stay alive by killing others. If someone must die, we Christians must choose ourselves over others. It is the way of Christ. Did Jesus not switch places with the murderer Barabbas (Matthew 27:15-26, Mark 15:6-15, Luke 23:13-25)? Did Jesus not die for us? In our place? Why should we not be willing to give up ourselves for others? Staying alive is nice but not necessary or always best. Death is defeated in Christ (1Corinthians 15:53-54). Saving our own skin just isn't worth killing someone else.

Finally, self-defense is not a Christian virtue in scripture or the witness of the early church. In 198 A.D. Tertullian wrote, "But even such acts of great love set a stain on us in the eyes of some people. 'Look,' they say, 'how they love each other' (for they hate each other). 'See, how ready they are to die for one another' (for they would sooner kill each other)." In A Plea Regarding Christians Athenagoras wrote, "We cannot bear to see a man or woman put to death, even justly! How then can anyone accuse us of murder... How can we possibly kill anyone when we cannot even look on lest we are polluted with the guilt of murder and sacrilege! How can we possibly kill anyone, we who call those women murderers who take drugs to induce an abortion, we who say they will have to give an account before God one day! We are convinced that with God nothing goes unexamined, and that the body, after serving the irrational urges and lusts of the soul, will have its share in punishment. We have, therefore, every reason to detest even the slightest sin" (emphasis mine). Athenagoras points directly to the coming judgment in which all people will receive according to how they lived. God has justice taken care of. This means that we do not have to worry about evening the playing-field here on earth. We can set aside the philosophy of "a tooth for a tooth" (Exodus 21:24). The disciples wrote down their teachings and called it the Didache (pronounced did-uh-kay). In the Didache they wrote, "You shall not plot evil schemes against your neighbor. You shall not hate any man. You shall admonish people, you shall pray for people, and you shall love them more than your own life. My child, flee from all evil and from everything resembling it. Do not get angry, for anger leads to murder. Do not get into passionate tempers or be quarrelsome or boil with rage, for all these things breed murder" (emphasis mine). Justin "The Martyr" once wrote, "We must then offer no resistance. He never wanted us to imitate the wicked. Rather, he challenged us to lead everyone away from shamefulness and pleasure in evil by patience and kindness. We can in fact show that many who were once among you have been transformed in this way" (emphasis mine). There aren't many quotes concerning self-defense because early Christians didn't typically think of defending self. They were happy and ready to die for others so that they may illuminate Christ's love.

To review: For Christians, self-preservation is not worth pursuing by violent or lethal force against an enemy because 1) It does not showcase the love of Christ whereas suffering does, 2) earthly life is fleeting and physical death is not the ultimate end, and 3) The New Testament and early church witness do not seem to prioritize an individuals self-preservation over an enemy's preservation but flips the two around.

Preserving the Lives of Others:

First, let it be known that Christians ought to defend others (Proverbs 18:5). Passivity is wrong and can not be encouraged. There are many powerful, wily, and effective ways to defend others without resorting to violence or lethal force. One of the greatest tools is prayer and it should always be our first response. It should not be our only response if we are able to act though. It is clearly not unloving towards the victim if we love the enemy. Love is not unloving. Loving one person doesn't necessarily mean neglecting to love another person. However, choosing one person over another complicates things. Perhaps this is why God shows no partiality (Deuteronomy 10:17, Luke 20:21) and why we also shouldn't (Leviticus 19:15, Deuteronomy 16:19, 1Timothy 5:21). We can extend love to both the victim by defending them and to the enemy by loving them at the same time. Love is our ultimate goal as Christians. Sadly, there will be casualties. Love demands risk and as a result there will always be casualties. But we'll get to that later. We can't deny that there are no casualties when we employ unloving, violent, or lethal action against enemies. Again, the goal is not to save skins but to love God and all people.

To lethally defend one person for love's sake is to kill another person and to forsake loving that other person. To preserve one life by lethal force we must choose to forfeit another. This can not be denied. There was a time in Israel's history when the death penalty was ordained but Christ came and turned things around a bit. He told us to toss out some former understandings of God's Law and to embrace love which fulfills the law (Romans 13:10). We have been told that not even God desires to see wicked men perish but to be changed (Ezekiel 18:23, 33:11, Luke 6:35, 2Peter 3:9). God has revealed himself through time and Christ is the true fulfillment of God (2Timothy 1:8-12) and we now know the Way of heaven better than those who came before us who did not experience Christ. Humanity has matured and learned more about her Father and can now put childish ways behind her (1Corinthians 13:11-13). Someday, there will be full revelation as God is all in all for all creation (1Corinthians 15:28).

Now, when we are really honest with ourselves it becomes pretty easy to discern good from bad. We typically have an easy time declaring what is classified as loving action and as unloving action. The average sane person would admit that it is not loving to take the life of someone who does not wish to be killed (killing those who want to die is an issue for another time but I'd argue it's, at least, usually not loving). Thus, husbands don't gift their wives with a shotgun blast to the face for their 20th anniversary. It just doesn't make sense. It doesn't fit. A fancy dinner and nice adornments are more appropriate. I mean, how often do people question the loving nature of God based on the deaths found in scripture? Something inside us says "killing isn't loving." If killing weren't an unloving or bad action then it would not need to be countered and thus protecting people from being killed wouldn't be necessary. But it isbad for one person to kill another person. It is unloving to take life. And we know it. Young men may cry "head-shot!" when they play Call of Duty on XBox Live as if to celebrate but if they shot someone in the head on the street they wouldn't expect a parade. For these reasons we must stand against killing and we must defend those in danger. We want to eliminate evil but we can only do it with that which is good. Christ teaches his follower to treat others the way they wish to be treated (Luke 6:31). He teaches his followers to do good in the face of bad. Divine tactics are not tit for tat. The solution to bad behavior is not similar behavior. Perhaps this is part of the reason Jesus commands his followers to pick up their own crosses and count the cost of being kingdom citizens under his lordship. Paul, in Romans, writes that we should not be "overcome by evil." We should not give into it. We must resist it. We must stand against it. We can stand against the evil of other people by loving them and speaking truth and we can stand against our own evil but choosing to love.

Just War Theory must be addressed at this point. Christians often point to this theory to support their claim that Jesus would be okay with lethal or violent defense of others. It seems just. Unfortunately, revenge is not permissible for Christians (Romans 12:19) and preemptive violence and/or lethal force is beyond inexcusable since it is not a reaction to injustice but is itself actual injustice. At no point in His ministry did Jesus give the idea that his followers ought to beat their enemies to the strike. Preemptive violence was never promoted by Christ or His disciples (except maybe Peter but that didn't work out as I showed earlier). Even Augustine, often called the Father of Just War Theory, didn't believe in the violent defense of individuals. Proponents of this theory do not argue that is just to defend individuals with violence or lethal force. That's not the point of the theory. If they didn't have that outlook, why do we? Not even Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who attempted to assassinate Hitler, claimed that such action was permissible for the Christian. Instead, he admitted that his endeavor was sinful. We'll return to him later on.

As stated earlier, Jesus let the murderer Barabbas trade places with Him. We know Jesus could have stopped this from happening. He had the army of heaven at his disposal (Matthew 26:53). We don't know if Barabbas was reformed. Nothing seems to indicate that he was. In fact, the narrative loses power if Barabbas were a reformed prison. Perhaps he later was transformed by Christ's love but odds are in favor of Barabbas still being murderous when he was released. Had Pilate truly not wanted to crucify Christ, which scripture indicates he was uneasy about, then it makes sense for him to put Jesus and Barabbas side to side. Why would the people choose a murderer over this Jesus fellow who has preached love, mercy, and forgiveness? It seemed like a safe bet. He was wrong. Thank God. Jesus faced the possibility of a murderer being unleashed on the public to demonstrate head on. He took that risk. Love demands risk. There will be casualties.

Here's the thing about not doing whatever it takes to annihilate evil: We do not have the power to annihilate evil completely. Men will not purify the world. God will. Yes, loving enemies and doing good to them, no matter what they threaten or do, may mean that they continue sinning and committing wicked acts. It may mean people die but people die every day and we can not be responsible for all those deaths. There will always be casualties. And if we do not want to be responsible for deaths then we should not kill, even if it means not killing those who kill. One can not defend against death by killing. One may keep one, two, three, or more persons from death but they will not eliminate people being killed. By killing someone the tragedy of someone being killed continues to exist and the tragedy that a person killed continues. The cycle obviously is not defeated. So yes, not killing someone who is dangerous may mean evil flourishes but we must remember that life is fleeting, that this life is not the ultimate glory and this first death is not the ultimate tragedy to avoid. Being apart from Christ is the ultimate tragedy. Being of the world and in the kingdom of Satan is the tragedy. Killing is a tragedy.

Many early Christians refused military service and violence of any kind. Origen, an early Christian who many honor, once told a man named Celcus, who was not a Christian but was still around in that early era, that Christians could not be asked to join the military and that instead of using earthly weapons Christians chose to pray as their means of fighting on behalf of others. Celsus responded to this notion by saying, "If everyone were to act the same as you[Christians], the national government would soon be left utterly deserted and without any help, and affairs on earth would soon pass into the hands of the most savage and wretched barbarians." A popular answer even in this late era by Christians and nonChristians alike. The obvious answer to this is of course "perhaps." But Jesus believed "perhaps" was a good enough answer and so we should believe it to be as well. Love demands risk. It's worth the risk. Apparently.

If we are truly concerned with redemption, salvation, reconciliation, transformation and the will of God then we can not possibly remove the wayward men and women from this earth but instead we must do all we can so that they see Christ and are knocked off their ass (or some other animal) by Him like the apostle Paul was on his way to Damascus (Acts 9:1-19). If we are truly concerned with Christ then we have no choice but to love the enemy and seek to see them reconciled to God. First and foremost, that means not killing the enemy but introducing them to life, even if it means they may continue in death. Perhaps people will continue to be killed. Perhaps people will find new life. That is not fully in our hands. We can risk with a hand that shows only hearts.

To review: Preserving the life of others is not worth pursuing by violent or lethal force against an enemy because 1) even though it looks loving in one perspective it isn't loving to those in need of the most love, that is, the wicked who are blind to love and evidence it by their action, 2) it is not permissible according to orthodox Christian doctrine through history, 3) Jesus seems okay with letting murders have freedom just as much as he is okay all other sinful people having freedom. In other words, God risks everyone having life. 4) Many influential early church fathers stood directly against the idea that killing is an appropriate way to rid the world of evil and even accepting that evil may flourish if they continued to live as Christ commanded and 5) killing an enemy removes the opportunity for them to find redemption while on earth and hurts the witness of the Christian who forces such a fate upon the enemy.

Back to the Overall Issue:

For every claim I've encountered that introduces the idea that these exceptions to enemy love exist for those following Jesus Christ I've yet to see any scriptural evidence. It'd be nice if we could love neighbors and hate enemies or take and eye for an eye, or even entertain the anger we have towards others but Jesus specifically speaks against both of those lifestyles (Matthew 5:21:26 & 38-48). It would make us feel better (momentarily) if we could do bad to those who are against us, curse those who curse who, or neglect those who insult us but Christ does not grant that permission and instead forbids it. Mercy is what we Christians must always embrace. At no point do Jesus or his apostles give an exception to enemy love. To harm or kill an enemy is to do the exact opposite of loving an enemy. Nothing in the teachings of Christ leads us to believe he meant for his commands on enemy love to be occasional. Some may point to Jesus' command for the disciples to buy swords but if anyone claiming that is evidence that Jesus has given exception to enemy love and self-sacrificing love they should read to the end of the chapter and notice Jesus' harsh rebuke to Peter when he actually seeks to defend Jesus with that very sword. In reaction to this passage Tertullian said, "The Lord, in disarming Peter, subsequently unbelted every soldier". Tertullian has been a prominent voice in church history, like it or not, and at the very least we must admit this rebuke of Peter by Christ sent out some powerful theological ripples in its wake. Jesus meant for us to be consistent in our love and he knew it would cost us dearly. All of us. It costs individually and communally. But there is no fear is such losses even if there is grief.

Christ never says "Love your enemies but if loving them doesn't work then go ahead and do X" because the point isn't doing what works (in the way of preserving life) as much as it is imitating the God of mercy and love who forgives those who do evil while they do evil. This is why Christ prays on the cross "forgive them for they do not know what they are doing" (Luke 23:34). Why would we harm those who do not know what they are doing? Should we think those who hurt/kill the "innocent" (are not almost all of our hands stained?) today know any better what they do than those who put Christ to death? Are both not acting in accordance with the kingdom of Satan and proving they belong not to heaven but the world and to sin? If that is the case then our only suitable reaction as citizens of God's kingdom is forgiveness and love. We have bee forgiven and thus we can and must forgive (Colossians 3:13). If we do not forgive we reject forgiveness entirely and do not receive it with Christ and do not have union with him (Matthew 6:15). We can defend and fight for the people in trouble but in doing so we can never neglect the imago dei in the enemy (Genesis 1:27), the love God has for the enemy (John 3:16), or our duty to the enemy. We absolutely can not neglect the Way of Christ in any of our pursuits. Not purposefully. Field trips to hell are not a scheduled part of the Pilgrim's progress towards heaven. Satan games must be dropped on the ground when we pick up our cross.

Even though he later went against his words, with great regret, Dietrich Bonhoeffer writes beautifully about the narrow way of Christ in his book The Cost of Discipleship by stating, "To be called to a life of extraordinary quality, to live up to it, and yet to be unconscious of it is indeed a narrow way. To confess and testify to the truth as it is in Jesus, and at the same time to love the enemies of that truth, his enemies and ours, and to love them with the infinite love of Jesus Christ, is indeed a narrow way. To believe the promise of Jesus that his followers shall possess the earth, and at the same time to face our enemies unarmed and defenseless, preferring to incur injustice rather than to do wrong ourselves, is indeed a narrow way. To see the weakness and wrong in others, and at the same time refrain from judging them; to deliver the gospel message without casting pearls before swine, is indeed a narrow way. The way is unutterably hard, and at every moment we are in danger straying from it. If we regard this way as one we follow in obedience to an external command, if we are afraid of ourselves all the time, it is indeed an impossible way. But if we behold Jesus Christ going on before step by step, we shall not go astray. But if we worry about the dangers that beset us, if we gaze at the road instead of at him who goes before, we are already straying from the path. For he is himself the way, the narrow way and the strait gate. He, and he alone, is our journey's end."

Living with these exception clauses in our theology means not only that we disagree with scripture but that we are unwilling to truly submit to it. If we are adding to scripture because we want to be comfortable and get what we want then we're clearly in a bad place. If we refuse to take Christ as his word (and tis so sweet to trust in Jesus, just to take him at his word) then we also refuse to submit to his authority. That's a big deal since Jesus, as Christ, has all authority in heaven and earth (Matthew 28:18). If we are denying the authority of Christ we're in a bad place. To deny enemies our love is to deny Christ our love as well(1John 3:10, 4:7-21). To not love is to not know God. If we do not know God we are in a bad place. Well, the worst place. We must stick to the narrow way of Christ. We must stick with God for it is only by Him that we can love, forgive, and do good to those who seek to harm. He who seeks to kill, steal, and destroy - Satan - is vanquished by Christ for He who is in us [Christ] is greater than he who is in the world (1John 4:4). In this we put our trust. We trust Christ's instruction, as dangerous and strange as it may seem, because of his power, authority, victory, revelation, coming judgment and coming fullness of his kingdom. For all these reasons we do not need to add exception clauses to the commands of Jesus Christ but rather we need only to faithfully obey Him by extending unconditional love to all even if it costs us everything. This is the way of Christ Jesus. It is the way of love. It is risky. It is worth it. Either we trust that or we do not. Either we trust Christ or ourselves.

Therefore, brothers and sisters, "Make every effort to live in peace with everyone" (Hebrews 12:14a) by turning from evil and doing good while seeking and pursing peace (Psalm 34:14). Remember that "if you can carry the whole yoke of the Lord you will be perfect; but if you cannot, do what you can" (Didache). May the peace and grace of Christ our Lord be with you.

Doing Evil For the Sake of Good

"There will be plenty of time for opting out of evil once we are in heaven." Well, it's not exactly his words but that was the general idea of what this one particular man said. It's a popular idea. The idea is that we, as humans, Christians, live in a sinful world and as a result must, from time to time, commit sinful acts. We all fall short, make mistakes, screw up. That's different. This idea stated by the particular individual is that we must or should commit sinful acts. And why must/should we do things scripture tells us not to do? Why ought we go against Christ from time to time? For the common good. That's the common thought anyhow. There was a movie in recent years titledThe Boondock Saints which is a cult classic. It's abut two Irish Catholic brothers who kill corrupt men (mob type fellas) as a service to God. Their motto is one that provides a slogan for this very idea. They would pray "Destroy that which is evil so that which is good may flourish." It sounds cool. However, cool isn't always right.

At no point in Jesus' ministry is this theory proposed or encouraged. In fact, it is spoken against. The entire law is summed up by "Love God and love your neighbor as yourself" (Matthew 22:37-40). Love is the fulfillment of the law (Romans 13:10). Love and evil do not mix. God is love. God can not mix with evil. At no point does Jesus say "Love your enemies and do good to them... unless..." The argument that killing a wicked person or doing evil for the sake of good can't be argued scripturally since we're given concrete examples of what it looks like to love others (Luke 6:27-36). Jesus is pretty clear that it is not only those who are good to us that we are to extend love and good deeds towards but those who are against us. And remember, most of the you statements in the New Testament are closer to y'all statements than to an individual use of the word you. These teachings were directed at groups. Together we suffer and live as sacrifices. My friend Jmallory and his wife T_Sheffield are a great example of understanding this. One would not kill for the other and one would not ask the other to kill for them. But killing is only one small example. Let's not get too hung up on it.

Back to the original theory that we'll have time for dismissing evil when we're in heaven but not right now on earth. This idea flies in the face of the teaching of Jesus and his apostles. Jesus is quite clear that the kingdom of God is at hand and that we are to embrace it (Matthew 3:2). Jesus makes it clear that his followers are citizens of his kingdom and act accordingly, as though they did not belong to the world and its ways any longer (John 15:19, 17:14-16, 18:36, 2Corinthians 2:10:2-4). God's people have moved away from evil and into life/goodness/love (Ephesians 2:1-9). Yet there is a tension. Christians belong to the kingdom of God and act as if heaven were already present even though the era of eternity to come has not yet arrived. It's strange. It is as if they have entered God's dimension (aka heaven) while still living on earth. Perhaps this is why Jesus instructs his followers to pray the words "Your kingdom come, your will be done here on earth just as it is in heaven" (Matthew 6:10). Christians recognize that whatever there is time for in heaven there is a need for on earth. Since Christians make up the Church and the Church is the Body of Christ (1Corinthians 12:27) which continues Jesus' ministry of reconciling all things to God (2Corinthians 5:11-21) then the Christians are the vehicle by which God ushers his kingdom into the world day after day in this current era. This is why Paul demands that Christians "Be imitators of God" (Ephesians 5:1). Paul says we are Christ's ambassadors, "as though God were making his appeal through us." One ancient writer named Aristides put it this way: "And see, because of them [Christians], good flows on in the world!" These words could not be true if the Christians he encountered were doing evil for the sake of good. So when we read in Isaiah that men "will neither harm nor destroy" that means that it is imperative that Christians, right now, neither harm nor destroy. Since evil will not exist in the kingdom of God in the coming age it can not exist in the kingdom of God in this age and thus must always be dismissed for what it is. Evil. That is, not good. Or, not of God.

Throughout the Old Testament there are examples of God's people seeking to do God's will according to their own tactics and it never pans out. Abraham seeks to fulfill God's will for him to be the Father of Israel by committing adultery. After escaping Egypt the Israelites create idols to worship God. In the New Testament some of Jesus' disciples try to keep children from annoying Jesus so he could spread his Good News but they are rebuked. Later, Peter, a close friend and student of Jesus, cuts off the ear of a Roman soldier to defend Jesus and is harshly rebuked for that as well. Time and time again people in scripture go against God's words to fulfill his commands and it never works out. The means do not justify the ends and the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

So when we ask ourselves if we must face those who do evil with evil or with actions that are not good we have a clear answer from Christ. When we ask if we must uproot the evil from amongst the good he advises "No... because while you are pulling the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn." (Matthew 13:26-27). The judgment will come. God is just and all will judged according to how they lived (Revelation 20:12-13). We can trust God to take revenge and deliver his wrath on those who seek it (Romans 12:18). We can love all people, at all times, forgiving them and doing good to them, no matter what they do to us or others (Romans 12:9-21). We can treat everyone the way we desire to be treated because Christ is victorious and the righteous judgment is coming. All shall be well. The world shall be purified at the end of this era of eternity so that the next era of eternity may begin. In that era, there will be no pain. There will be no war. We can live in the peace of Christ with the rest of creation instead of enduring a fallen creation.

The conclusion can not be argued against. "Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." I'd also suggest we don't try to dress-up evil for our own purposes and give it a different name. A wolf dressed like a lamb is still a wolf. Intentions can not change evil into good. The wrong thing done for the right reason is still wrong. Why would we live any other way? What possible reason does the Christian have to not love enemies and neighbors at all times? What reason is there to not forgive? What reason is there to not do good to, pray for, and bless all people? What reason is there to invest in evil? I submit that there is no reason. At least, no good or scriptural reason. So if you think of heaven/eternal life/the era to come and you can't envision the existence of the deed you are about to commit or are currently endorsing then rethink it. If doesn't belong in heaven then it doesn't not belong on earth.

"Dear friend, do not imitate what is evil but what is good. Anyone who does what is good is from God. Anyone who does what is evil has not seen God" (3John 1:11).

In the Didache (teaching of the disciples) it is written, "...for if you can carry the whole yoke of the Lord you will be perfect; but if you cannot, do what you can." God saves us and moves us along but we do our part as well. Therefore, in as much as we are able, let us "Hate what is evil; cling to what is good" (Romans 12:9).

Owning What We Create

My brother Nick Don reminded me in his latest personal blog of a poet, farmer, theologian, and social justice warrior named Wendell Berry that I admire. In reading some of Berry's work online I came across an excerpt from one of his works that reflected the way I view the work I pen/type. Wendell Berry writes,

I do have an interest in this book, which is for sale. (If you have bought it, dear reader, I thank you. If you have borrowed it, I honor your frugality. If you have stolen it, may it add to your confusion.) Most of the sale price pays the publisher for paper, ink, and other materials, for editorial advice, copyediting, design, advertising (I hope), and marketing. I get between 10 and 15 percent (depending on sales) for arranging the words on the pages.
As I understand it, I am being paid only for my work in arranging the words; my property is that arrangement. The thoughts in this book, on the contrary, are not mine. They came freely to me, and I give them freely away. I have no "intellectual property," and I think that all claimants to such property are thieves.

I too believe that an author has very little ownership over his work just as any artist has very little ownership over her work. This is not a stance that I think ought to necessarily be placed side by side with truth in the mind of any person or enforced upon any person but it is a view that I wish many others would share because I have come to find, thus far, that it is a view that frees a person from a self-constructed prison in which the individual feeds on the crumbs of man's praise and payment instead of God's approval and provision. Not only does such a view benefit the individual who holds the view and who produces the work but it benefits those in the surrounding community who receive the work of the individual.

While the author and/or artist should always be given credit for their wonderful and talent drenched work of manipulating (in a positive way) what God has already given to man - for all one can do is manipulate and not truly create ex nihilo - in a way that educates and inspires the viewer/reader, the author and/or artist must admit that he/she does not "create" any of his/her work for the sake of hiding it in a drawer, under a bowl, or placing it in any location or fashion so that it may be hidden and of no use to anyone. The purpose of literature and various forms of art is to educate and inspire. All artistic work, which I believe all literature should be considered, is grounded in edification.

Therefore, if an artist/author can admit that he or she does not truly create but merely manipulates the sounds, colors, languages, truths, and beauty that surround the daily life of all beings then he/she must also admit that God is far more responsible for his/her work than he/she is (Deuteronomy 2:7, 8:17-18). I believe this is a biblical approach to production no matter the product. Not only can this be admitted but the author/artist must admit that he/se is not owed much for his/her manipulation. Creating communication is worthwhile. Arranging words to communicate a truth that is preexistent is worthwhile also. However, one is far superior to the other. I'm not saying that man's work is not worth strong wages simply because man can not do what God has done but rather that man is dependent on God not only for provisions of all kinds, be it money, food, shelter, or influence/power, but also for the ability to seize those provisions in whatever way he is able. In other words, man must not seek profit that keeps him from being dependent on The God Who Provides (Proverbs 30:8b-9), take ownership for what The God Who Creates has done, or entertain the idea that he is ever right to receive praise for more than what he has done.

All an author/artists can do is manipulate and compile in impressive fashion. This is worthy of both praise and reward but only to a reasonable degree. Berry calls the people who claim :intellectual property" thieves and rightfully so. As Berry points out, God has freely given to man and thus man ought to freely give what he has received. The scriptures that teach about the tithe and year of Jubilee should make this abundantly clear. The way Jesus teaches his followers to give should grind into our minds the truth that everything belongs to God and if he lay hold of it then the best way to worship, give thanks, and honor God is to share whatever we have laid hold of with those around us, especially if they are in need.

Others who may be worthy of the term thieves are the men/women who receive more praise or reward than is owed them for their mortal work. I would agree. Any artists/author who asks for more than what he/she needs is essentially a thief. If he/she is not a thief then at the very least he/she could be considered selfish and a hinderance on the edification of a community, which in turn makes his/her produce ironic. At such a point, the work of such a person changes from a blessing to a curse. Those who turn out curses can not be considered anything less than in cahoots with evil for they now kill, steal, and destroy. However, those who produce edifying works that continue to bless others and do not seek to receive more than they need for their work are a blessing and produce blessings for their communities. As Christ said, "Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit" (Matthew 7:17-18).

There is a great deal more to say on the subject of an artists ownership and reward and perhaps one day I will return to the subject to elaborate but I've run out of energy for now. Let me end by stating that it is the duty of every author/artists to glorify God, edify the people around them with their work. May all artists/authors be careful to bless and not curse by asking and accepting only for they need so they may continue being good trees that produce good fruit.

The Need for Mysticism

I dread the idea of a church without mystics. I dread the thought that I could live without embracing mysticism to some degree. I believe that Christians are not living fully if they do not embrace mystery as much as they embrace truth. I'm not trying to say we should arrive at a place in which we say all paths lead to God or anything like that because then we'd be neglecting truth. However, scripture shows a God who interacts with his creation in an immensely intimate and powerful way. To not be open to the mystery of God's power and love in relation to his creation would be foolish. To not delve into experiencing the mysterious God of love and truth in various ways, be it living in caves, mental prayer, leaning into anguish, not wearing shoes, or fasting would be to let our relationship with our bridegroom fizzle out. Married couples have to learn ways to communicate to one another for a successful relationship and they have to keep things spicy between them. I think mysticism is one of the ways to keep our relationship with Christ spicy and in good communication.

Teresa of Avila is a mystic I thoroughly enjoy. Thomas Merton is also a wonderful read. I'm reading several of his works right now.

Who are some of your favorite Christian mystics?

Anima Christi; Hiding in Wounds

During the Catholic Reformation there lived an important man. Ignatius of Loyola (1491–1556) was a soldier who, upon being wounded and hospitalized, converted to Christianity and later founded The Society of Jesus which later was referred to as The Jesuits. As a former soldier he approached Christianity with a military mindset and thus was incredibly militant about discipleship and living out the Christian life. Few men in history have been as fond of and submissive to the church as Ignatius. He had a great heart for obedience, education, and missions. He wrote a beautiful piece of work entitled Anima Christi. Below is that work.

Soul of Christ, sanctify me.

Body of Christ, save me.
Blood of Christ, inebriate me.
Water from the side of Christ, wash me.
Passion of Christ, strengthen me.
O good Jesus, hear me.
Within Thy wounds, hide me.
Separated from Thee let me never be.

From the malignant enemy, defend me.
At the hour of death, call me.
To come to Thee, bid me,
That I may praise Thee in the company
Of Thy Saints, for all eternity.

Amen.

The most powerful line in this piece to me is "Within Thy wounds, hide me." The picture painted by these words is beautiful. Knowing that Ignatius spent a good chunk of time after his conversion living in a cave (a smart move in my opinion), I can't help but think of a man hiding in the wounds of Christ like he would in a cave. He wraps himself in the holes as if he were the remains of the nails that kept Jesus on those planks. The torn flesh is his blanket of safety and strength. The great proof of weakness and creates strength and victory. In the most beautiful wounds of history a man finds his refuge. Within the cave of Christ's sacrifice no enemy can come against a man. He is hidden. He is safe. He is unable to see anything except his surroundings which are the very evidences of Christ's great love. There is true safety and comfort in those tears of flesh. Strangely, in those wounds is where healing ultimately and eternally is found. Perhaps that is why Ignatius placed such a powerful sentence in the middle of this work. Even the written line is hidden between poetic walls.

I ask myself what it looks like for me to daily allow myself to be hidden in the wounds of Christ. What does it mean to enter into the suffering of Christ and find comfort, purification, and restoration there? What does it look like to be protected by the wounded Messiah? These are questions I must continue asking myself. These are questions I believe we can all ask for ourselves and our communities of faith.

What stands out in Anima Christi to you? How do you hide yourself in the wounds of Christ?