THE PARADIGM OF ISRAEL.

As a rallying slogan for our civil religion, the proclamation that we are "one nation under G.o.d" arguably serves a useful social function, for it gives many Americans a sense of shared values and vision. But it is not a slogan kingdom people in America should take too seriously. We must always remember that, while some nations serve law and order better than others, the powers that govern all all nations are to a significant extent corrupted by the polluting influence of Satan. We should know that part of this influence is manifested in a violent, nationalistic pride, often b.u.t.tressed by a nationalistic religion. We are to live in such a way that we manifest the radical difference between the kingdom of G.o.d and every version of the kingdom of the world. Our job, in other words, is to manifest the nations are to a significant extent corrupted by the polluting influence of Satan. We should know that part of this influence is manifested in a violent, nationalistic pride, often b.u.t.tressed by a nationalistic religion. We are to live in such a way that we manifest the radical difference between the kingdom of G.o.d and every version of the kingdom of the world. Our job, in other words, is to manifest the holiness holiness of the kingdom of G.o.d, and of the kingdom of G.o.d, and that that is how we are to be a light of hope to the world. is how we are to be a light of hope to the world.

When the theocratic-sounding slogan "one nation under G.o.d" is taken too seriously, it makes people think of America along the lines of Israel and the Old Testament rather than Jesus and the New Testament.2 Just as G.o.d gave the Promised Land to Israel while vanquishing and enslaving opponents, so too, many believe, G.o.d gave America to white Europeans-while vanquishing all who resisted this takeover and enslaving others to build the nation. For obvious reasons, this baseless and racist theological interpretation of American history helps explain why the church remains the most segregated inst.i.tution in America. Just as G.o.d gave the Promised Land to Israel while vanquishing and enslaving opponents, so too, many believe, G.o.d gave America to white Europeans-while vanquishing all who resisted this takeover and enslaving others to build the nation. For obvious reasons, this baseless and racist theological interpretation of American history helps explain why the church remains the most segregated inst.i.tution in America.

Just as G.o.d led Israel in the past, or so some believe, G.o.d leads America today. When America goes to war, therefore, G.o.d is on our side, just as he was on the side of Israel. For obvious reasons, this understanding does not endear this Christian warrior-G.o.d of America to all who are or have been the enemies of America or feel oppressed by America.

There are at least two conceptual problems with the Israel-theocratic paradigm, and two further negative consequences that result from it that we need to discuss. First, the conceptual problems.

IS AMERICA, OR WAS IT EVER, A THEOCRACY?.

The first conceptual problem is that there is no reason to believe America ever was a theocracy. Unlike Israel, we have no biblical or empirical reason to believe G.o.d ever intended to be king over America in any unique sense. True, some of those who were part of the original European conquest of this continent claimed this, but why believe they were right?

Undoubtedly, part of the reason evangelicals accept this claim is the fact that fallen humans have always tended to fuse religious and nationalistic and tribal interests. We want want to believe that G.o.d is on to believe that G.o.d is on our our side, supports side, supports our our causes, protects causes, protects our our interests, and ensures interests, and ensures our our victories-which, in one form or another, is precisely what most of our nationalistic enemies also believe. So it has been for most people throughout history. victories-which, in one form or another, is precisely what most of our nationalistic enemies also believe. So it has been for most people throughout history.

Related to this, fallen humans have a strong tendency to divinize our own values, especially those most dear to us. Feuerbach was at least partly correct: we tend to make G.o.d in our own image.3 If something is important If something is important to us to us, we reason, then it must be important to G.o.d to G.o.d. Hence, we must in some sense be special to G.o.d for agreeing with him! Since political freedom is dear to American evangelicals, it seems obvious to them that it must also be dear to G.o.d. Indeed, it seems clear to many that G.o.d uniquely established America and leads America for the express purpose of promoting this supreme value around the globe.4 Now, we may (or may not) grant that it's "self-evident" that political freedom is the most precious thing a government can give its people. We may (or may not) think it would be good if every version of the kingdom of the world espoused this value. But on what basis can a follower of Jesus claim this is obviously a supreme value for G.o.d for G.o.d? Political freedom certainly wasn't a value emphasized by Jesus, for he never addressed the topic. He and various New Testament authors speak about freedom from sin, fear, and the Devil, but show no interest in political freedom.

In fact, until very recently, political freedom wasn't a value ever espoused by the church. To the contrary, most branches of the church resisted resisted the idea that people can govern themselves when it first began to be espoused in the Enlightenment period. Yet now, quite suddenly, it's supposedly a preeminent the idea that people can govern themselves when it first began to be espoused in the Enlightenment period. Yet now, quite suddenly, it's supposedly a preeminent Christian Christian value-to the point of justifying the view that America is uniquely established and led by G.o.d because it emphasizes this value! And this many contemporary evangelicals regard as obvious! value-to the point of justifying the view that America is uniquely established and led by G.o.d because it emphasizes this value! And this many contemporary evangelicals regard as obvious!

This is an amazing and significant new twist on the Christian religion. Indeed, it arguably const.i.tutes a new nationalistic religion new nationalistic religion-what we might call "the religion of American democracy." Like all religions, this religion has its own distinctive, theologized, revisionist history (for instance, the "manifest destiny" doctrine whereby G.o.d destined Europeans to conquer the land). It has its own distinctive message of salvation (political freedom), its own "set apart" people group (America and its allies), its own creed ("we hold these truths to be self-evident"), its own distinctive enemies (all who resist freedom and who are against America), its own distinctive symbol (the flag), and its own distinctive G.o.d (the national deity we are "under," who favors our causes and helps us win our battles).5 This nationalistic religion co-opts Christian rhetoric, but it in fact has nothing to do with real Christianity, for it has nothing to do with the kingdom of G.o.d. This nationalistic religion co-opts Christian rhetoric, but it in fact has nothing to do with real Christianity, for it has nothing to do with the kingdom of G.o.d.

Not only is the supreme value of this new nationalistic religion (political freedom) not espoused in Scripture, as we've said, but the Calvary-quality love that is is the supreme value espoused by the New Testament is impossible to live out consistently if one is also aligned with this nationalistic religion. Among other things, the nationalistic religion is founded on individual self-interest-the "right" to political freedom-whereas the kingdom of G.o.d is centered on self-sacrifice, replicating Calvary to all people at all times. Moreover, because it is a nationalistic religion, the religion of political freedom must use "power over" to protect and advance itself. As we have seen, however, the kingdom of G.o.d planted by and modeled by Jesus uses only "power under" to advance itself, and it does not protect itself by force. It is impossible to imitate Jesus, dying on the cross for those who crucified him, while at the same time killing people on the grounds that they are against political freedom. It is impossible to love your enemies and bless those who persecute you, while at the same time defending your right to political freedom by killing those who threaten you. the supreme value espoused by the New Testament is impossible to live out consistently if one is also aligned with this nationalistic religion. Among other things, the nationalistic religion is founded on individual self-interest-the "right" to political freedom-whereas the kingdom of G.o.d is centered on self-sacrifice, replicating Calvary to all people at all times. Moreover, because it is a nationalistic religion, the religion of political freedom must use "power over" to protect and advance itself. As we have seen, however, the kingdom of G.o.d planted by and modeled by Jesus uses only "power under" to advance itself, and it does not protect itself by force. It is impossible to imitate Jesus, dying on the cross for those who crucified him, while at the same time killing people on the grounds that they are against political freedom. It is impossible to love your enemies and bless those who persecute you, while at the same time defending your right to political freedom by killing those who threaten you.

Now, I want to be clear: none of this detracts from the important kingdom-of-the-world value of political freedom. Nor is it meant to minimize the tremendous sacrifice many have made, and continue to make, to defend our freedom. It is only meant to highlight the fact that, however much one cherishes political freedom, a kingdom-of-G.o.d citizen must never elevate this to the status of a kingdom-of-G.o.d value. We must always preserve the holiness and beauty of the kingdom of G.o.d by not letting it get co-opted by a nationalistic religion-even, and especially, when we agree that the central value of the nationalistic religion is very important. We must never allow cultural sentiments to compromise our calling to be radically set apart from the ma.s.ses by our willingness and capacity to love those nationalistic enemies that others despise.

The danger of kingdom people taking the slogan "one nation under G.o.d" too seriously is that we set ourselves up for idolatrous compromise. We may judge that G.o.d wants all people to be politically free. We may believe that to this extent G.o.d approves of America. But we have no grounds for thinking that America is for this reason a nation that is more "under G.o.d" than any other nation. As in all nations, G.o.d is working in America to further law and order as much as possible, and, as with all nations, America is under the strong corrupting influence of demonic powers. So while we may agree that the "one nation under G.o.d" slogan serves a useful civil function, as kingdom people we must never take it too seriously. The only people who can be meaningfully said to be "under G.o.d" in a kingdom-of-G.o.d way are those who are in fact manifesting the reign of G.o.d by mimicking Jesus' love expressed on Calvary (Eph. 5:12).

THE THEOCRATIC PROGRAM IS OVER.

The second fundamental problem with viewing America as a theocracy is that G.o.d's theocratic program in the Old Testament was temporary, conditional-and ultimately abandoned. G.o.d formed Israel to be a distinct, set-apart, holy people in order to use them to reach the whole world. Through the descendants of Abraham, all the families of the world were to be blessed (Gen. 12:23). The Israelites were to be G.o.d's ministers, his priests to the world. G.o.d took great pains (and inflicted great pains) to get this people into "the Promised Land" because it was strategic in accomplishing this global mission.

This nationalistic program, however, never worked well, and Israel eventually demanded an earthly king like other nations. Many of their leaders didn't listen to G.o.d and drove the country into ruin. Even more tragically, Israel forgot that its unique calling was not an end in itself. They were supposed to be set apart from the world so that they could effectively serve the world. But like so much of the church today, they became prideful of their unique holiness and judgmental of the people they were called to serve.

G.o.d, therefore, abandoned this nationalistic means of transforming the world. While G.o.d is by no means through with Israel, he is no longer using them or any other nation to grow his kingdom on the earth.6 The kingdom is now growing through Jesus Christ who lives in and through his corporate body. In this sense, Jesus and the church const.i.tute a new Israel. The kingdom is now growing through Jesus Christ who lives in and through his corporate body. In this sense, Jesus and the church const.i.tute a new Israel.7 Unlike the nation of Israel, this new Israel, this new "royal priesthood" (1 Peter 2:9) is not to be conditioned by any nationalistic, ethnic, or ideological allegiances. To the contrary, it is to be comprised of people from every tribe, every tongue, and every nation (Rev. 5:9; 7:9; 21:2426). Through his death and resurrection, Jesus utterly abolished all the typical kingdom-of-the-world categories that divide people: nation, race, gender, social and economic status, and so on. And inasmuch as the church is called to manifest everything Jesus died for, manifesting this divisionless "new humanity" (Eph. 2:14) lies at the heart of the kingdom commission.

In light of this, we must conclude that any suggestion that G.o.d has returned to his Old Testament theocratic mode of operation-as in raising up America as a uniquely favored nation-is not only unwarranted, it is a direct a.s.sault on the distinct holiness of Jesus Christ and the kingdom he died to establish. While one may or may not contend that America wields the sword more justly than most other versions of the kingdom of the world, under no circ.u.mstances is a kingdom-of-G.o.d partic.i.p.ant justified in claiming that it is a nation that is more "under G.o.d" than any other nation in the world.

The holiness of the kingdom of G.o.d must be preserved. If Jesus refused to acknowledge and fight for Israel as G.o.d's favored nation-even though it was the one nation in history that actually held this status at one time-how much more must his followers refuse to acknowledge and fight for America as G.o.d's favored nation? To say it another way, if Jesus was committed solely to establishing a kingdom that had no intrinsic nationalistic or ethnic allegiances-not even with Israel-how much more should his followers be committed to expanding this unique, nonnationalistic kingdom?

OVERRELIANCE ON GOVERNMENT.

We've discussed the two fundamental conceptual problems with "one nation under G.o.d." We turn now to two negative consequences this slogan has for the church.

First, people who believe America is in fact a "nation under G.o.d" may be inclined to view government as the handmaiden of G.o.d and thus inclined to rely on it to carry out the work G.o.d has called the church to carry out. More specifically, as with most other Americans, many Christians a.s.sume it's the church's job to take care of people's spiritual spiritual needs and the government's job to take care of people's needs and the government's job to take care of people's physical physical needs. We preach the gospel while government is supposed to care for the poor, the homeless, the oppressed, the disabled, or the sick. Many would, in fact, deny they believe this, but based on how the church needs. We preach the gospel while government is supposed to care for the poor, the homeless, the oppressed, the disabled, or the sick. Many would, in fact, deny they believe this, but based on how the church acts acts-which is always a far better indication of true belief than profession-the point is undeniable. The evangelical church as a whole is not known for its willingness to a.s.sume responsibility for these areas (though there are are wonderful exceptions). And this, I submit, is largely due to the fact that we trust government to carry out these duties. wonderful exceptions). And this, I submit, is largely due to the fact that we trust government to carry out these duties.

Now, it is certainly good for governments to take care of people's physical needs as much as it is able to (by taxing citizens, rightly prioritizing the budget, and so forth). But it's not a good thing for Christians to rely rely on government to carry out this function and thus limit themselves to ministering to people's spiritual needs. As William Booth (founder of the Salvation Army) saw so clearly a century and a half ago, it's the church's job to minister to on government to carry out this function and thus limit themselves to ministering to people's spiritual needs. As William Booth (founder of the Salvation Army) saw so clearly a century and a half ago, it's the church's job to minister to people people, not just their spiritual needs. Indeed, there's no biblical warrant for separating a person's physical needs from their spiritual ones. When a person is without food, without shelter, and without hope, this is a physical and and spiritual issue. Hence, rather than relying on government, the church is to take responsibility to do all it can to care for people in every possible way. spiritual issue. Hence, rather than relying on government, the church is to take responsibility to do all it can to care for people in every possible way.

What would happen if, instead of waiting on Uncle Sam to solve social issues, the church took responsibility? What would happen if kingdom people honored Jesus' command not to own anything (Luke 14:33) and followed the kingdom principle of giving to those in need and taking in those who are without a home (Luke 6:3031, 3536; 10:2937; Rom. 12:13; Eph. 4:28)? What would happen if wealthy suburban congregations took it upon themselves to build affordable housing for the poor? What if we actually took seriously Jesus' teaching that we are to treat everyone in need as though they were Jesus himself (Matt. 25:3446)?

Such kingdom work would obviously require tremendous sacrifice on our part. Many of us would have to readjust our lifestyles to fund such ministries. Perhaps this in part explains why we so often overlook it and rather choose to spend our time tweaking the civil religion and concerning ourselves merely with the "spiritual" needs of people. But precisely because it requires us to bleed, this sort of sacrificial activity is a distinctly kingdom one. It is the essence of what we are called to do.

While it is good for government to be compa.s.sionate, of course, kingdom people need to remember that the hope of the world doesn't lie in government; it lies in Jesus Christ and in the willingness of his people to mimic his example (Eph. 5:12). We are not to rely on government to do what G.o.d has called us to do: namely, serve people by sacrificing our own time, energy, and resources. Only insofar as we do this are we the authentic body of Christ manifesting the holy kingdom of G.o.d.

If the church understood itself to be a tribe of kingdom soldiers stationed in enemy-occupied territory, whose sole mission was to advance the cause of their King by imitating what he did for them on the cross, we would rely on the government much less and take responsibility to serve the needs of people much more. Unfortunately, the "one nation under G.o.d" mindset has contributed to the loss of this spiritual warfare mindset, and thus the shirking of much of the American church's responsibility in service to our nation and to the world.

AN UNWARRANTED MODEL OF EVANGELISM.

Closely related to this is a second negative consequence of taking "one nation under G.o.d" too seriously. As noted above, this nationalistic slogan influences many Christians to turn to the Old Testament more than the New in their understanding of America and of the role of the church within America. Consequently, Christians often turn to the models of Old Testament "watchmen" (as in Ezek. 33) and of John the Baptist to understand what they are supposed to be doing in the culture, rather than to the model of Jesus. Instead of living to sacrifice for others, we become the official "sin-pointer-outers." Instead of gaining a reputation of being humble servants who manifest Calvary-quality love, we gain a reputation for being moralistic and self-righteous. And predictably, we drive away the tax collectors and prost.i.tutes of our day, just as the Pharisees did, rather than attracting them, as Jesus did.

The error of this thinking is obvious once we understand that G.o.d's nationalistic agenda ended with Christ. Though it never truly functioned in this manner, Israel was intended to be a theocracy. The Israelites understood themselves to be in a covenant relationship with G.o.d, and they also understood that the job of watchmen and prophets such as John the Baptist was to hold the people and their leaders accountable to this covenant. As a matter of principle, prophets and watchmen didn't hold non-Jews accountable to G.o.d's unique covenant with Israel; their role was only to hold Jews accountable, for the covenant that formed the basis of this accountability was made only with the Jews.

This is why John the Baptist pointed out the sin of Herod-a Jewish governor-but not the sin of Pilate or any other Gentile leader (Matt. 14:34). That's why Nathan exposed the sin of David (2 Sam. 12:112), but not the sins of any pagan kings, even though their sins were, by Israeli covenantal standards, often worse. And that's also why Jesus, a.s.suming the role of a prophet, exposed the hypocrisy of the Jewish religious leaders, but never concerned himself with Gentile religious or political leaders.

While there is a comparable role for prophets and watchmen within intimate Christian communities, these roles have no application to Christians within American society as a whole. G.o.d's nationalistic program came to an end with the death and resurrection of Jesus, and in any case, his covenant with Israel was not a covenant with America or any other nation. What's more, the self-understanding of most people in America today is worlds removed from the self-understanding of Jews under the Old Covenant. When Christians model themselves after Old Covenant prophets and watchmen, they end up trying to hold people accountable to things these people know little about and care even less about. It is at best ineffective, and at worst it is positively harmful to the advancement of the kingdom of G.o.d.

To ill.u.s.trate, one of the most clear expressions of the Old Testament model of evangelism today is found in an increasingly popular form of witnessing sometimes called "confrontational evangelism."8 In this model people are taught that it is the job of Christians to get others to realize they have broken one or more of the Ten Commandments and that they, therefore, deserve G.o.d's eternal wrath. The goal is to get people to see their need for a Savior. In this model people are taught that it is the job of Christians to get others to realize they have broken one or more of the Ten Commandments and that they, therefore, deserve G.o.d's eternal wrath. The goal is to get people to see their need for a Savior.

The trouble with this approach, of course, is that despite the veneer of civil religion, most people in America aren't worried about whether they break one of the Ten Commandments now and then, and they certainly don't see the logic behind the claim that infractions of this sort warrant everlasting d.a.m.nation. Just because the evangelist thinks this doesn't mean the person they're confronting thinks this, and the lack of shared presuppositions makes the encounter odd at best. The situation is no different from, say, a Muslim telling a non-Muslim stranger who happens to be eating pork that he deserves to go to h.e.l.l because the Koran forbids eating pork. Why should the non-Muslim care what the Koran says?

The people that Old Testament prophets and watchmen held accountable were those who could be expected to accept the terms of accountability. As Jews, they knew they were supposed to obey the revealed law and knew that the job of prophets and watchmen was to help them do this. But this is precisely what is missing in America-and precisely what the "one nation under G.o.d" mindset causes some to overlook. When Christians confront people on the basis of presuppositions not shared by the people they confront, they come across as rude (hence unloving, 1 Cor. 13:45) and usually render the gospel less credible to the people they confront.9 What is not generally communicated to the people being evangelized is the one thing we are called to communicate: namely, sacrificial, Calvary-quality love modeled after Jesus. What is not generally communicated to the people being evangelized is the one thing we are called to communicate: namely, sacrificial, Calvary-quality love modeled after Jesus.

PAUL'S MODEL OF NON-JEWISH EVANGELISM It's significant to note that while Paul preached from the Jewish Scriptures when evangelizing Jews (as in Acts 17:2), he did not appeal to the Old Testament when evangelizing Gentiles. Rather than making his case on what he, as a Jew, believed, he made his case on the basis of what his Gentile audience believed.

The clearest example of this approach is found in Acts 17. While discussing Christ "in the marketplace," Paul encountered some Stoic and Epicurean philosophers who took him to the Areopagus to share his views with fellow philosophers (v. 19). Paul began his speech not by "confronting their sin," but by commending them for being "extremely religious." Remarkably, he based his commendation on the fact that these folks had so many idolatrous objects of worship (vv. 2223)! Now, had these philosophers been Jewish, Paul's approach may have been quite different, for Jews of this time were expected to know and honor the Old Testament's prohibition on idols. But these were Gentiles, so holding them accountable for things they didn't themselves believe would have been unwise, arrogant, and rude. Though their idols deeply offended Paul as a Jew (v. 16), he complimented them for their sincerity. This was a loving approach to take, for love believes the best, looks for the best, and hopes for the best in everyone (1 Cor. 13:7).

Paul then noted that one of their "objects of...worship" contained an inscription, "To an unknown G.o.d." This acknowledged ignorance on the part of the philosophers provided Paul with an opening to present the gospel. "What...you worship as unknown," Paul said, "this I proclaim to you" (v. 23). This too was a Christlike, loving approach. Rather than shooting at what one believes is wrong in another's life or way of thinking, love looks for the best, looks for truth, and then builds on it. A loving approach to evangelism finds an area of expressed need, uncertainty, or longing and then seeks to meet it as Christ would.

What is amazing, however, is that when Paul presents the gospel to these people, he doesn't do so on the basis of Scripture as he did earlier with Jews (vv. 12). Rather, he quotes pagan philosophers (v. 28), for these are the sources that have credibility to these folks, not Scripture. Paul builds his case on truths he finds in what the Epicureans and Stoics already believe. He presents Christ as the fulfillment of their own beliefs and the goal of the innate longing G.o.d has placed in all people at all times (vv. 2627). While some "scoffed" at his claims, others were intrigued enough to want to consider it further (v. 32).

When evangelizing people who do not share one's own presuppositions, this is the loving and wise approach to take. Unfortunately, Christians who take the "one nation under G.o.d" mindset too seriously are lulled into thinking that Americans generally share kingdom presuppositions. Being duped by the quasi-Christian civil religion, they treat average American citizens almost as if they were Christians who simply weren't living up to their calling. They thus think they're doing people a favor by holding them accountable to things that are, in fact, foreign to them. As we've said, the result is that they come across as odd, arrogant, and rude, rather than loving.

Instead of respecting the integrity of people's beliefs, building on what is true about them, we simply point out what we think is wrong. Rather than looking for the best, believing the best, and hoping for the best, we zero in on what we believe is the worst. Rather than serving people by taking the time to understand their worldview from the inside and looking for an opening within this worldview, we a.s.sume they think like us and speak to them from within our own worldview. Consequently, we unwittingly undermine the credibility of the gospel and do not communicate the central thing we are called to communicate-Calvary-quality love.

Our approach will be more like Paul's if we can wake up and see the radical disparity between the civil religion of America-expressed in the "one nation under G.o.d" slogan-and the authentic kingdom of G.o.d. People who are merely shaped by the civil religion of America are no closer to the kingdom of G.o.d than people shaped by the civil religion of Buddhism, Islam, or Hinduism. It's nothing more than the civil religious veneer of the culture. When we understand this, we see that our job is to serve our fellow Americans by building bridges that connect us with them and entering into their unique worldview, just as we would if we were in, say, Indonesia, Tanzania, Bangladesh, or any other "non-Christian" country-and just as Paul did with his Gentile audience.

CHAPTER 9.

CHRISTIANS AND VIOLENCE:.

CONFRONTING TOUGH QUESTIONS.

Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword."

MATTHEW 26:52.

THROUGHOUT THIS BOOK I'VE ATTEMPTED TO HELP KINGDOM PEOPLE wake up to the radical difference between the kingdom of the sword and the kingdom of the cross as a means of motivating us to live out the unique call of G.o.d's kingdom more authentically and more consistently. To accomplish this, I've admittedly painted with broad, contrasting strokes. If we resolve that the kingdom always looks like Jesus, and if we therefore commit to living in love as Christ loves us on a moment-by-moment basis, it will usually be clear what a kingdom individual or community should do in a particular situation-usually, but not always. For in the ambiguous war zone in which we live, the lines between exercising "power over" and "power under" are sometimes fuzzy, giving rise to an a.s.sortment of ethical questions. Not only this, but it is not always clear how our absolute allegiance to the "power under" kingdom affects our partic.i.p.ation in the "power over" kingdom.

Now, the particular way we might answer these sorts of questions is less important than whether or not we approach such questions in a distinctly kingdom fashion. We will always have to wrestle with ambiguity in this life. The ultimate question is, do we wrestle with this ambiguity from a distinctly kingdom-of-G.o.d perspective, or do we allow ourselves to be pulled into a kingdom-of-the-world perspective as we seek to answer them? The goal of this book has not been to provide the "right" answer to ambiguous ethical questions but to help kingdom people appreciate the urgency of preserving the unique kingdom-of-G.o.d perspective on all questions and on life as a whole.

Still, I believe it may be helpful to some readers to address a few of these difficult issues. What follows is my own wrestling with five of the questions I have most frequently been asked whenever I've publicly presented the perspective articulated in this book.

1. WHAT ABOUT SELF-DEFENSE?.

You argue that a central aspect of the kingdom of G.o.d is the refusal to return evil with evil by using violence. Are you saying that if an enemy threatened to kill you, your wife, or your children, you wouldn't use violence to protect yourself or them?

The New Testament commands us never to "repay anyone evil for evil," but instead to "overcome evil with good" (Rom. 12:17, 21; cf. 1 Thess. 5:15; 1 Peter 3:9). Jesus said, "Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also" (Matt. 5:39). He also said, "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you" (Luke 6:2728). The teaching seems pretty straightforward, yet this very straightforwardness presents us with a dilemma.

On the one hand, we who confess Jesus as Lord don't want to say that Jesus and other New Testament authors are simply off their rockers in telling us not to resist evildoers, to repay evil with good, to love our enemies, and to pray for and bless people who mistreat us. If our confession of faith means anything, it means we have to take this teaching seriously. On the other hand, we have to admit that it's hard to take this teaching seriously when it comes to extreme situations such as having to protect ourselves and our family from an intruder. Not only would most of us resist an evildoer in this situation, killing him if necessary, but most of us would see it as immoral if we didn't didn't use violence to resist such an evildoer. How can refusing to protect your family by any means be considered moral? Isn't it more loving, and thus more ethical, to protect your family at all costs? use violence to resist such an evildoer. How can refusing to protect your family by any means be considered moral? Isn't it more loving, and thus more ethical, to protect your family at all costs?

How do we resolve this dilemma? It helps somewhat to remember that the word Jesus uses for "resist" (antistenai) doesn't imply pa.s.sively allowing something to take place. It rather connotes resisting a forceful action with a similar forceful action.1 Jesus is thus forbidding responding to violent action with Jesus is thus forbidding responding to violent action with similar similar violent action. He's teaching us not to take on the violence of the one who is acting violently toward us. He's teaching us to respond to evil in a way that is consistent with loving them. But he's not by any means saying violent action. He's teaching us not to take on the violence of the one who is acting violently toward us. He's teaching us to respond to evil in a way that is consistent with loving them. But he's not by any means saying do nothing do nothing. As Wink notes, "Jesus...abhors both pa.s.sivity and violence."2 Still, the teaching is problematic, for most of us would instinctively use violence, and feel justified using it, to protect our family from an intruder.

The most common way people resolve this dilemma is by convincing themselves that the "enemies" Jesus was referring to are not our our enemies-for example, people who attack our family (or our nation, our standard of living, and so on). Jesus must have been referring to "other kinds" of enemies, less serious enemies, or something of the sort. We tell ourselves that when violence is justified-as in "just war" ethics-Jesus' teachings do not apply. enemies-for example, people who attack our family (or our nation, our standard of living, and so on). Jesus must have been referring to "other kinds" of enemies, less serious enemies, or something of the sort. We tell ourselves that when violence is justified-as in "just war" ethics-Jesus' teachings do not apply.3 This approach allows us to feel justified, if not positively "Christian," killing intruders and bombing people who threaten our nation-so long as we are nice to our occasionally grumpy neighbors. Unfortunately, this common-sensical interpretation makes complete nonsense of Jesus' teaching. This approach allows us to feel justified, if not positively "Christian," killing intruders and bombing people who threaten our nation-so long as we are nice to our occasionally grumpy neighbors. Unfortunately, this common-sensical interpretation makes complete nonsense of Jesus' teaching.

The whole point of Jesus' teaching is to tell disciples that their att.i.tude toward "enemies" should be radically different radically different. "If you do good to those who do good to you," Jesus added, "what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same" (Luke 6:33). Everybody instinctively hates those who hate them and believes they are justified killing people who might kill them or their loved ones. Jesus is saying, "Be radically different." This is why Jesus (and Paul) didn't qualify the "enemies" or "evildoers" he taught us to love and not violently oppose. Jesus didn't say, "Love your enemies until they threaten you, until it seems justified to resort to violence, or until it seems impractical to do so." Enemies are enemies precisely because because they threaten us on some level, and it they threaten us on some level, and it always always seems justified and practically expedient to resist them, if not harm them when necessary. Jesus simply said, "Love your enemies" and "Don't resist evildoers." Note that some of the people he was speaking to would before long confront "enemies" who would feed them and their families to lions for amus.e.m.e.nt. seems justified and practically expedient to resist them, if not harm them when necessary. Jesus simply said, "Love your enemies" and "Don't resist evildoers." Note that some of the people he was speaking to would before long confront "enemies" who would feed them and their families to lions for amus.e.m.e.nt.

The teaching could not be more radical, and as kingdom people we have to take it seriously. At the same time, what do we do with the fact that most of us know we would not take it seriously, let alone obey it, in extreme situations such as our family coming under attack?

As with all of Jesus' teachings, it's important to place this teaching in the broader context of Jesus' kingdom ministry. Jesus' teachings aren't a set of pacifistic laws people are to merely obey, however unnatural and immoral they seem. Rather, his teachings are descriptions of what life in G.o.d's domain looks like and prescriptions for how we are to cultivate this alternative form of life. In other words, Jesus' isn't saying, "As much as you want to resist an evildoer and kill your enemy, and as unnatural and immoral as it seems, act act loving toward him." He's rather saying, "Cultivate the kind of life where loving your enemy becomes natural for you." He's not merely saying, " loving toward him." He's rather saying, "Cultivate the kind of life where loving your enemy becomes natural for you." He's not merely saying, "Act different from others"; he's saying, " different from others"; he's saying, "Be different from others." This is simply what it means to cultivate a life that looks like Jesus, dying on a cross for the people who crucified him. different from others." This is simply what it means to cultivate a life that looks like Jesus, dying on a cross for the people who crucified him.

How does this insight help address our dilemma? A person who lives with the "normal" t.i.t-for-tat kingdom-of-the-world mindset would instinctively resort to violence to protect himself and his family. Loving his attacker and doing good to them would be the furthest thing from his mind. As with the Jerusalem that Jesus wept over, the "things that make for peace" would be "hidden from [his] eyes" (Luke 19:4142). Indeed, from this kingdom-of-the-world perspective, Jesus' teaching seems positively absurd.

But how might a person who cultivated a nonviolent, kingdom-of-G.o.d mindset and lifestyle on a daily basis respond differently to an attacker? How might a person who consistently lived lived in Christlike love (Eph. 5:12) operate in this situation? in Christlike love (Eph. 5:12) operate in this situation?

For one thing, such a person would have cultivated a kind of character and wisdom that wouldn't automatically default to self-protective violence. Because he would genuinely love his enemy, he would have the desire to look for, and the wisdom to see, any nonviolent alternative to stopping his family's attacker if one was available. He would want want to do good to his attacker. This wouldn't be a matter of him trying to obey an irrational rule to "look for an alternative in extreme situations," for in extreme situations no one is thinking about obeying rules! Rather, it would be in the Christlike nature of this person to see nonviolent alternatives if they were present. This person's moment-by-moment discipleship in love would have given him a Christlike wisdom that a person whose mind was conformed to the pattern of the t.i.t-for-tat world would not have (Rom. 12:2). Perhaps they'd see that pleading with, startling, or distracting the attacker would be enough to save themselves and their family. Perhaps they'd discern a way to allow their family to escape harm by placing themselves in harm's way. to do good to his attacker. This wouldn't be a matter of him trying to obey an irrational rule to "look for an alternative in extreme situations," for in extreme situations no one is thinking about obeying rules! Rather, it would be in the Christlike nature of this person to see nonviolent alternatives if they were present. This person's moment-by-moment discipleship in love would have given him a Christlike wisdom that a person whose mind was conformed to the pattern of the t.i.t-for-tat world would not have (Rom. 12:2). Perhaps they'd see that pleading with, startling, or distracting the attacker would be enough to save themselves and their family. Perhaps they'd discern a way to allow their family to escape harm by placing themselves in harm's way.

Not only this, but this person's day-by-day surrender to G.o.d would have cultivated a sensitivity to G.o.d's Spirit that would enable him to discern G.o.d's leading in the moment, something the "normal" kingdom-of-the-world person would be oblivious to. This Christlike person might be divinely led to say something or do something that would disarm the attacker emotionally, spiritually, or even physically.

For example, I heard of a case in which a G.o.dly woman was about to be s.e.xually a.s.saulted. Just as she was being pinned to the ground with a knife to her throat, out of nowhere she said to her attacker, "Your mother forgives you." She had no conscious idea where the statement came from. What she didn't know was that her attacker's violent aggression toward women was rooted in a heinous thing he had done as a teenager to his now deceased mother. The statement shocked the man and quickly reduced him to a sobbing little boy.

The woman seized the opportunity to make an escape and call the police who quickly apprehended the man in the park where the attack took place. He was still there, sobbing. The man later credited the woman's inspired statement with being instrumental in him eventually turning his life over to Christ. The point is that, in any given situation, G.o.d may see possibilities for nonviolent solutions that we cannot see, and a person who has learned to "live by the Spirit" is open to being led by G.o.d in these directions (Gal. 5:16, 18).

Not only this, but a person who has cultivated a kingdom-of-G.o.d outlook on life would have developed the capacity to a.s.sess this situation from an eternal perspective. Having made Jesus her example on a moment-by-moment basis, she would know-not just as a rule, but as a heartfelt reality-the truth that living in love is more important than life itself. Her values would not be exhaustively defined by temporal expediency. Moreover, she would have cultivated a trust in G.o.d that would free her from defining winning and losing in terms of temporal outcomes. She would have confidence in the resurrection. As such, she would be free from the "preserve my interests at all costs" mindset of the world.

Of course it's possible that, despite a person's loving wisdom and openness to G.o.d, a man whose family was attacked might see no way to save himself and his family except to harm the attacker or even to take his life. What would such a person do in this case? I think it is clear from Jesus' teachings, life, and especially his death that Jesus Jesus would choose nonviolence. So, it seems to me that a person who was totally conformed to the image of Jesus Christ, who had thoroughly cultivated a kingdom mind and heart, would do the same. would choose nonviolence. So, it seems to me that a person who was totally conformed to the image of Jesus Christ, who had thoroughly cultivated a kingdom mind and heart, would do the same.

At the same time, I have to confess that I'm not sure this is what I'd I'd do. I honestly admit that, like most people, I don't yet quite see how it would be moral to do what I believe Jesus would do. Yet I have to a.s.sume that my disagreement with Jesus is due to my not having sufficiently cultivated a kingdom heart and mind. If I felt I had to harm or take the life of another to prevent what clearly seemed to be a greater evil, I could not feel righteous or even justified about it. Like Bonhoeffer who, despite his pacifism, plotted to a.s.sa.s.sinate Hitler, I could only plead for G.o.d's mercy. do. I honestly admit that, like most people, I don't yet quite see how it would be moral to do what I believe Jesus would do. Yet I have to a.s.sume that my disagreement with Jesus is due to my not having sufficiently cultivated a kingdom heart and mind. If I felt I had to harm or take the life of another to prevent what clearly seemed to be a greater evil, I could not feel righteous or even justified about it. Like Bonhoeffer who, despite his pacifism, plotted to a.s.sa.s.sinate Hitler, I could only plead for G.o.d's mercy.

What we must never do, however, is acquiesce to our worldly condition by rationalizing away Jesus' clear kingdom prescriptions. We must rather strive every moment of our life to cultivate the kind of mind and heart that increasingly sees the rightness and beauty of Jesus' teachings and thus would naturally respond to an extreme, threatening situation in a loving, nonviolent manner.

2. WHAT ABOUT CHRISTIANS IN THE MILITARY?.

Do you think Jesus' teaching about not resisting evildoers implies that Christians should never serve in the military?

Some soldiers responded to the preaching of John the Baptist by asking him what they should do. John gave them some ethical instruction, but interestingly enough, he didn't tell them to leave the army (Luke 3:14). Likewise, Jesus praised the faith of a centurion and healed his servant while not saying a word about the centurion's occupation (Matt. 8:513; Luke 7:110). Another centurion acknowledged Christ as the Son of G.o.d at the cross (Mark 15:39) without any negative comment being made about his military involvement. And the first Gentile to receive the good news of the gospel was a centurion described as a G.o.d-fearing man (Acts 10:22, 3435). Clearly none of these texts endorse military involvement. But just as clearly, neither do they condemn it. For these and other reasons, most American Christians accept that the New Testament does not forbid serving in the military.

While I respect that people will have differing convictions about this, I must confess that I find it impossible to reconcile Jesus' teaching (and the teaching of the whole New Testament) concerning our call to love our enemies and never return evil with evil with the choice to serve (or not resist being drafted) in the armed forces in a capacity that might require killing someone.4 The texts cited above show that the gospel can reach people who serve in the military. They also reveal that John the Baptist, Jesus, and the earliest Christians gave military personnel "s.p.a.ce," as it were, to work out the implications of their faith vis-a-vis their service. But I don't see that they warrant making military service, as a matter of principle, an exception to the New Testament's teaching that kingdom people are to never return evil with evil. The texts cited above show that the gospel can reach people who serve in the military. They also reveal that John the Baptist, Jesus, and the earliest Christians gave military personnel "s.p.a.ce," as it were, to work out the implications of their faith vis-a-vis their service. But I don't see that they warrant making military service, as a matter of principle, an exception to the New Testament's teaching that kingdom people are to never return evil with evil.

The traditional response to the tension between the New Testament's uniform teaching, on the one hand, and taking up arms to defend one's country, on the other, is to argue that fighting in the military is permissible if one's military is fighting a "just war." As time-honored as this traditional position is, I'm not at all convinced it is adequate.5 For one thing, why should kingdom people a.s.sume that considerations of whether violence is justified or not have any relevance to whether a kingdom person engages in violence? Jesus is our Lord, not a human-constructed notion of justice. And neither Jesus nor any other New Testament author ever qualified their prohibitions on the use of violence. As George Zabelka remarked, the "just war" theory is "something that Christ never taught or even hinted at."6 Indeed, as we saw above, Jesus goes out of his way to stress that his radical teaching on loving enemies sets his disciples apart precisely because it is Indeed, as we saw above, Jesus goes out of his way to stress that his radical teaching on loving enemies sets his disciples apart precisely because it is not not common-sensical (Luke 6:32). His disciples aren't to love and bless those who persecute them when it makes sense to do so and to fight back and perhaps kill them when it makes sense to do so (that is, when it's "just")-for, as a matter of fact, it common-sensical (Luke 6:32). His disciples aren't to love and bless those who persecute them when it makes sense to do so and to fight back and perhaps kill them when it makes sense to do so (that is, when it's "just")-for, as a matter of fact, it never never makes sense to love and bless a persecutor, and it makes sense to love and bless a persecutor, and it always always makes sense to fight back and kill them if you have to! makes sense to fight back and kill them if you have to!

No, however much we might wish it were otherwise, there is no plausible way to insert a "just war" exception clause into Jesus' teachings. We are not to resist evildoers or return evil with evil-period. We are to love our enemies, turn the other cheek, bless those who persecute us, pray for people who mistreat us, and return evil with good-period.

Now, many have argued that they found grounds for a "just war" exception to Jesus' teachings in Romans 13. Since Paul in this pa.s.sage grants that the authority of government ultimately comes from G.o.d and that G.o.d uses it to punish wrongdoers (Rom. 13:15), it seems permissible for Christians to partic.i.p.ate in this violent activity, they argue, at least when the Christian is sure it is "just." Unfortunately, this argument is strained in several ways.

First, while Paul encourages Christians to be subject to subject to whatever sword-wielding authorities they find themselves under, nothing in this pa.s.sage suggests the Christians should whatever sword-wielding authorities they find themselves under, nothing in this pa.s.sage suggests the Christians should partic.i.p.ate in partic.i.p.ate in the government's sword-wielding activity. Second, as John Yoder has noted, Romans 13 must be read as a continuation of Romans 12, in which Paul tells disciples to (among other things) "bless those who persecute you" (v. 14); "do not repay anyone evil for evil" (v. 17); and especially, "never avenge yourselves, but leave room for the wrath of G.o.d; for it is written, 'Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord'" (v. 19). Leaving vengeance to G.o.d, we are to instead feed our enemies when they are hungry and give them water when they are thirsty (v. 20). Instead of being "overcome by evil," we are to "overcome evil with good" (v. 21). the government's sword-wielding activity. Second, as John Yoder has noted, Romans 13 must be read as a continuation of Romans 12, in which Paul tells disciples to (among other things) "bless those who persecute you" (v. 14); "do not repay anyone evil for evil" (v. 17); and especially, "never avenge yourselves, but leave room for the wrath of G.o.d; for it is written, 'Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord'" (v. 19). Leaving vengeance to G.o.d, we are to instead feed our enemies when they are hungry and give them water when they are thirsty (v. 20). Instead of being "overcome by evil," we are to "overcome evil with good" (v. 21).

In the next several verses, Paul specifies that sword-wielding authorities are one means by which G.o.d executes vengeance (13:4). Since this is the very same vengeance disciples were just forbidden forbidden to exercise (12:19, to exercise (12:19, ekdikeo ekdikeo) it seems to follow, as Yoder argues, that the "vengeance" that is recognized as being within providential control when exercised by government is the same "vengeance" that Christians are told not not to exercise." to exercise."7 In other words, we may acknowledge that in certain circ.u.mstances authorities carry out a good function in wielding the sword against wrongdoers, but that doesn't mean people who are committed to following Jesus should In other words, we may acknowledge that in certain circ.u.mstances authorities carry out a good function in wielding the sword against wrongdoers, but that doesn't mean people who are committed to following Jesus should partic.i.p.ate partic.i.p.ate in it. Rather, it seems we are to leave such matters to G.o.d who uses sword-wielding authorities to carry out his will in society. in it. Rather, it seems we are to leave such matters to G.o.d who uses sword-wielding authorities to carry out his will in society.

Thirdly, even if one were to concede, for the sake of argument, that a follower of Jesus may partic.i.p.ate in violence if it is "just," we have to wonder how a kingdom person could confidently determine whether or not any particular war is in fact "just." Few wars have been fought in which both sides didn't believe their violence against the other side was justified. The reality is that the criteria one uses to determine what is and is not "just" is largely a function of where one is born and how one is raised. How much confidence should a kingdom-of-G.o.d citizen place in that that?

For example, unlike most other groups throughout history and even today, modern Americans tend to view personal and political freedom as an important criteria to help determine whether a war is "just." We kill and die for our freedom and the freedom of others. But why should a kingdom person think killing for this reason is a legitimate exception to the New Testament's command to love and bless enemies? Can they be certain G.o.d G.o.d holds this opinion? holds this opinion?

Of course it seems perfectly obvious to most Americans that killing to defend and promote freedom is justified, but fundamental aspects of one's culture always seem obvious to people embedded in the culture. This criterion of personal freedom certainly hasn't been obvious to most people throughout history, including most Christians throughout history. And it's "obviously" wrong wrong to many non-Americans-including many Christians-around the globe today. Even more importantly, it certainly isn't obvious in the teachings of Jesus or the whole of Scripture. In this light, kingdom people in all countries need to seriously examine the extent to which the ideal that leads them to think a war is or is not "just" is the result of their own cultural conditioning. to many non-Americans-including many Christians-around the globe today. Even more importantly, it certainly isn't obvious in the teachings of Jesus or the whole of Scripture. In this light, kingdom people in all countries need to seriously examine the extent to which the ideal that leads them to think a war is or is not "just" is the result of their own cultural conditioning.

a.s.sessing this is no easy matter. It helps to be mindful that the person you may end up killing in war probably believes, as strongly as you, that they are also fighting for a "just" cause. It also helps to consider the possibility that they are disciples of Jesus just like you, perhaps even mistakenly thinking their cause is a function of their discipleship just as some American soldiers believe. You have to believe that all of their their thinking is merely the result of their cultural conditioning-for you obviously believe thinking is merely the result of their cultural conditioning-for you obviously believe they're they're wrong to the point of being willing to kill them-while also being convinced that wrong to the point of being willing to kill them-while also being convinced that your own your own thinking is thinking is not not the result of cultural conditioning. Can you be absolutely sure of this? Your fidelity to the kingdom of G.o.d, your life, and the lives of others are all on the line. the result of cultural conditioning. Can you be absolutely sure of this? Your fidelity to the kingdom of G.o.d, your life, and the lives of others are all on the line.

But suppose, for the sake of argument, we grant not only that justified violence provides an exception to Jesus' teaching but also that political freedom (or any other particular ideal) is is a legitimate criteria for determining if violence is justified. This doesn't by any means yet settle the matter for a kingdom person contemplating enlisting in war (or not resisting being drafted into war). For one has to further appreciate that there are many a legitimate criteria for determining if violence is justified. This doesn't by any means yet settle the matter for a kingdom person contemplating enlisting in war (or not resisting being drafted into war). For one has to further appreciate that there are many other other variables alongside the central criterion of justice that affect whether a particular war is in fact "just." variables alongside the central criterion of justice that affect whether a particular war is in fact "just."

Do you know-can you know-the myriad of personal, social, political, and historical factors that have led to any particular conflict and that bear upon whether or not it is "justified"? For example, do you truly understand all the reasons your enemy gives for going to war against your nation, and are you certain they are altogether illegitimate? Are you certain your government has sought out all possible nonviolent means of resolving the conflict before deciding to take up arms? Are you certain the information you've been given about a war is complete, accurate, and objective? Do you know the you know-the myriad of personal, social, political, and historical factors that have led to any particular conflict and that bear upon whether or not it is "justified"? For example, do you truly understand all the reasons your enemy gives for going to war against your nation, and are you certain they are altogether illegitimate? Are you certain your government has sought out all possible nonviolent means of resolving the conflict before deciding to take up arms? Are you certain the information you've been given about a war is complete, accurate, and objective? Do you know the real real motivation of the leaders who will be commanding you to kill or be killed for "the cause," as opposed to the propaganda those leaders put out? Are you certain that the ultimate motivation isn't financial or political gain for certain people in high places? Are you certain that the war isn't in part motivated by personal grievances or done simply to support or advance the already extravagant lifestyle of most Americans? Given what we know about the corrupting influence of demonic powers in all nations, and given what we know about how the American government (like all other governments) has at times misled the public about what was really going on in the past (e.g., the Vietnam War), these questions must be wrestled with seriously. motivation of the leaders who will be commanding you to kill or be killed for "the cause," as opposed to the propaganda those leaders put out? Are you certain that the ultimate motivation isn't financial or political gain for certain people in high places? Are you certain that the war isn't in part motivated by personal grievances or done simply to support or advance the already extravagant lifestyle of most Americans? Given what we know about the corrupting influence of demonic powers in all nations, and given what we know about how the American government (like all other governments) has at times misled the public about what was really going on in the past (e.g., the Vietnam War), these questions must be wrestled with seriously.8 Fidelity to the kingdom, your life, and the lives of others are at stake. Fidelity to the kingdom, your life, and the lives of others are at stake.

Yet even these questions do not resolve the issue for a kingdom person, who must know not only that a war is justified but that each and every particular battle they fight, and each and every life they may snuff out, is justified. However justified a war may be, commanders often make poor decisions about particular battles they engage in that are not just and that gratuitously waste innocent lives. While militaries sometimes take actions against officers who have their troops engage in unnecessary violence, the possibility (and even inevitability) of such unjust activity is typically considered "acceptable risk" so long as the overall war is just. But on what grounds should a person who places loyalty to Jesus over their commander accept this reasoning?

The fact that a war is justified means nothing to the innocent lives that are wasted, and the question is, how can a kingdom person be certain in each each instance that they are not partic.i.p.ating in the unnecessary and unjust shedding of innocent blood? It's questionable enough that a follower of Jesus would kill their national enemy rather than bless them simply because it's in the interest of their nation for them to do so. But what are we to think of the possibility that a follower of Jesus would kill someone who is not an enemy simply because someone higher in rank told them to? instance that they are not partic.i.p.ating in the unnecessary and unjust shedding of innocent blood? It's questionable enough that a follower of Jesus would kill their national enemy rather than bless them simply because it's in the interest of their nation for them to do so. But what are we to think of the possibility that a follower of Jesus would kill someone who is not an enemy simply because someone higher in rank told them to?

The tragic reality is that most people contemplating entering the armed forces (or contemplating not refusing their draft), whether they be American or, say, Iraqi, North Korean, or Chinese, don't seriously ask these sorts of questions. Out of their cultural conditioning, most blindly a.s.sume a.s.sume their authorities are trustworthy, that their cause is justified, and that each person they are told to kill is a justified killing. their authorities are trustworthy, that their cause is justified, and that each person they are told to kill is a justified killing.9 They unquestioningly believe the propaganda and obey the commands they're given. Throughout history, soldiers have, for the most part, been the unquestioning p.a.w.ns of ambitious, egotistical rulers and obedient executors of their superior's commands. They were hired a.s.sa.s.sins who killed because someone told them to and their cultural conditioning made it "obvious" to them that it was a good and n.o.ble thing to do. So it has been for ages, and so it will be so long as the people and nations operate out of their self-interest. They unquestioningly believe the propaganda and obey the commands they're given. Throughout history, soldiers have, for the most part, been the unquestioning p.a.w.ns of ambitious, egotistical rulers and obedient executors of their superior's commands. They were hired a.s.sa.s.sins who killed because someone told them to and their cultural conditioning made it "obvious" to them that it was a good and n.o.ble thing to do. So it has been for ages, and so it will be so long as the people and nations operate out of their self-interest.

But there is an alternative to this ceaseless, b.l.o.o.d.y merry-go-round: it is the kingdom of G.o.d. To belong to this kingdom is to crucify the fleshly desire to live out of self-interest and tribal interest, and to thus crucify the fallen