Faith & Social Justice: In the spirit of Richard Overton and the 17th C. Levellers

A Biblical Case for Christian Pacifism III: Ways People Evade Jesus

There are numerous ways that Christians claim that Jesus is Lord, but still manage to evade his teachings and examples as claims on their lives as disciples.  I was first alerted to this by John Howard Yoder, who describes many of these evasions early in his The Politics of Jesus.  Later, my teacher, Glen Stassen presented a similar lengthy list of ways people evade taking the Sermon on the Mount seriously. (Since the Sermon on the Mount is the largest block of Jesus’ teaching we have recorded in the Gospels, how we treat it is a strong indication of how we’ll treat Jesus altogether.)  If we name and describe (briefly) the various ways we dodge Jesus (while swearing loyalty to him), it will help us avoid falling into the same traps.

  1. The Dispensationalist Dodge:  Jesus’ teachings, especially the Sermon on the Mount, were not meant for the “Church Age,” but for the future Kingdom of God.  My disagreements with Dispensationalism, even “progressive Dispensationalism,” are legion, but now is not the time to rehearse them.  Suffice it to say that I find it extremely unlikely that when the Kingdom or Rule of God comes in all fullness that we we will still have enemies to love, that anyone will backhand us on the right cheek, sue us for our cloaks, or any occupying troops will force us to carry any packs even one mile.  In the fullness of God’s Rule (whether in heaven or on earth), will we still have relationship problems that require us to stop our worship, go to our sister or brother and talk to them, seeking peace?  All these teachings seem very much for this world.  And at the end of the Sermon, Jesus tells the parable of the houseowner who built his house on rock (comparing him to the one who hears Jesus’ teachings and puts them into practice) versus the one who built his house on sand (comparing him to the one who hears Jesus’ teachings and doesn’t practice them.) The idea that Jesus never intended his teachings to be for the “Church age” is falsified by the very words of Jesus in the text.
  2. The “Preterist” Dodge: Jesus expected the Rule or Kingdom of God to Come either in his lifetime or shortly after–and his teachings were only meant to be an “interim ethic.”  He did expect his disciples to practice his teachings, but they are so heroic that they could never be practiced for long–and the ongoing centuries required a different ethic for the Church.  This view was made popular by the New Testament scholar, Albert Schweitzer, in his classic The Quest for the Historical Jesus.  Schweitzer had much right, but this seems off.  Why would the ongoing centuries make Jesus’ ethic less normative?  It is true that many Christian pacifist movements throughout the history of the Church had, at least initially, a heightened eschatological feeling, but the resurrection and the Holy Spirit give an empowering grace for Jesus’ ethic.  When Schweitzer later adopted his own spirituality of “reverence for life,” I wonder that it did not lead him to reconsider his “interim ethic” view.
  3. The public/private split dodge.  Jesus’ teachings are only for individual Christians in their private lives, but if they hold a public office requiring violence (e.g., soldier, judge, executioner, head of government) they must be governed by some other ethic.  This dodge was a favorite of the Reformer, Martin Luther and many Lutherans (and others) since then.  The problem with this is that there is no evidence for this in the New Testament texts.  Nowhere do we find Jesus saying, “In your private lives, if struck on the right cheek, turn the other also, but as a member of the Sanhedrin it’s okay to condemn people to death.”  The problem with such “two kingdom” thinking was shown most graphically in the German Third Reich–with many Christians reserving their Christian behavior for private lives, but as guards or doctors at death camps they used a different morality.  We cannot limit Christ’s lordship to the church; Christ is cosmic lord and if that is still hidden in the world (to finally be revealed at the End–Phil. 2), it is to be manifest throughout all aspects of the lives of Christians.
  4. The “inner attitudes” dodge.  This one was popular with John Calvin.  Jesus’ teachings are about our inner attitudes more than about our outer actions.  We can love our enemies even if, in war, or execution of criminals, we must kill them.  There are attitudinal dimensions to Jesus’ teaching.  Jesus wants us to renounce the nursing of anger and holding grudges rather than just avoiding killing people. But Jesus has plenty of instruction for actions, too. He tells us that we love our enemies by praying for them, seeking to do them good, stopping our worship to make peace.  We confront those who backhand us (an act of humiliation) by turning the other cheek, so that they are forced to acknowledge our human dignity; we confront those who who would sue us poor for the very coat on our backs by stripping naked in the court of (in)justice; we react to the occupation troops who force us to carry their packs one mile, by carrying them two miles.  None of those commands are simply about our inner attitudes.
  5. There is the dodge that simply ignores Jesus’ teachings and example because, supposedly, the only that counts is Jesus’ atoning death.  Historically, one strand of Lutheranism took this view–even concentrating on justification to the exclusion of sanctification. (I’ll never forget how stunned I was when one Lutheran theologian defined sanctification as “getting used to your justification!”) But this view is becoming more popular with a broad range of American evangelicals–especially the resurgent 5-point Calvinists in the Southern Baptist Convention.   But this makes Jesus into a cipher–so that he was just marking time until the crucifixion.  It also reduces the cross and resurrection into a divine transaction–not asking what the human motives of the Romans and their Jewish puppet leaders were for killing Jesus (something this series will discuss).  While it is true that the Apostle Paul could say that he determined to know nothing “but Christ Jesus and him crucified,” (1 Cor. 2:2  ), but even Paul could paraphrase Jesus’ teachings (e.g., Romans 12) and was quick to say that Christ was also an example for his disciples.  The Baptist prophet Clarence Jordan mocked this view by saying that American Christians “will worship the hind legs off Jesus, but not do the first thing He says!”  The debate in the ’90s among some American evangelicals over whether or not Jesus could be someone’s savior without also being Lord gets into this, too.  The answer is clear:  Jesus called out disciples, that is followers and in the Great Commission commanded them to make disciples from among all the nations and part of that disciple making would be “teaching them to practice all things that I have taught you.” (Matt. 28:18-20).  Following Jesus’ example and teachings is not an optional add on to Christian salvation–but part of the very definition of the term “Christian.”

There are other evasions, other dodges, but these are the most common, especially among lay Christians.  Readers can bring up others in comments.  Naming and rebutting these dodges, these ways we evade Jesus’ claims even while calling him “Lord, Lord!” puts us on guard against the evasive tendencies of our own unfaithful hearts.  For, as John Calvin rightly noted, the human heart is an idol factory.  We seek to root out these evasions and to be able to take Jesus’ teachings seriously as describing a distinct way of life for Christians who embody a foretaste of inbreaking Rule of God.

October 14, 2009 - Posted by | Biblical exegesis, discipleship, Jesus, Kingdom of God, New Testament, nonviolence, pacifism, peacemaking, violence


  1. […] A Biblical Case for Christian Pacifism III: Ways People Evade Jesus « Levellers […]

    Pingback by Links for October 15th | jonathan stegall: creative tension | October 15, 2009

  2. Good list. Re: The “for laymen” comment in the previous post, you might strive for that here further in the “Dispensationalist” comments – “what IS dispensationalism?” is probably a question many lay-folk would have after reading that line.

    Comment by Dan Trabue | October 16, 2009

  3. Hmm, so that leaves me the choice to either not refer to Dispensationalism at all (just the dodge) or to go into a long definition that gets us off-topic. Because there is no brief, easy, definition of Dispensationalism.

    Comment by Michael Westmoreland-White | October 16, 2009

  4. Understood. I’m not saying it definitely ought to be there, just that the average layperson may or may not know what that means, and certainly the average non-church-goer likely wouldn’t.

    But I don’t know that it would require an overly long and perfectly full definition of Dispensationalism. Perhaps something as easy as a sentence that gives the gist of the theory, at the beginning. “Dispensationalism is a belief in … My disagreements with Dispensationalism…” Just something to give people an idea of what it means and a footnote on where to find more info.

    Comment by Dan Trabue | October 16, 2009

  5. I think it would be wrong to remove it from the list. I think it is an important and common dodge.

    I guess you could remove the label of “Dispensationalist Dodge” and just refer to the dodge as something else, but keep the tag: “Jesus’ teachings, especially the Sermon on the Mount, were not meant for the “Church Age,” but for the future Kingdom of God.”

    Comment by Dan Trabue | October 16, 2009

  6. What about the “just peacemaking” dodge that tries to have it both ways. Rather than being radically in favor of nonviolence, it compromises with the evil of just war!

    Comment by Susan R | October 16, 2009

  7. Just Peacemaking is not a dodge to have it both ways. The pacifists in favor of JPT (like me)part ways with JWTers whenever peacemaking fails. But we cooperate with whomever we can in making peace. Your comment reminds me of the disciples demanding that Jesus stop an exorcist/healer from healing and casting out demons in Jesus’ name. Jesus told them to leave him alone. “Whoever is not against us is for us.” Mark 9:38.

    Comment by Michael Westmoreland-White | October 16, 2009

  8. You are touching on some of the reasons I believe that the Wesleyan tradition, with its strong emphasis on sanctification, is particularly consistent with pacifism. Wesley thought that Luther was right about justification, but that Luther was way off on sanctification. When Wesley read Luther’s ‘celebrated comment on Galatians’ he wrote in his journal that he “was ashamed,” because it left no room for sanctification. Of course, I also know there have been many good Lutheran pacifists, despite Luther’s dodges; and Wesley himself was not a pacifist, but his theological framework lends itself to pacifism.

    Comment by Jonathan Marlowe | October 23, 2009

  9. I think you’re right. Wesley wrote strongly against war–and like Barth was inconsistent in not completely embracing pacifism. When we get to the Johannine writings, with their strong emphasis on love and imitation of Christ, and the empowerment of the Paraclete. I think you’ll see many themes that John and Charles Wesley picked up on and emphasized.

    Comment by Michael Westmoreland-White | October 23, 2009

  10. Great stuff. I think I’ve seen the fourth and especially the third used the most. Good simple rebuttals on all of them.

    Comment by Michael DeFazio | October 24, 2009

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: