The Aftermath of a Roman Census

I haven't updated this blog in over a year, as blogging is something that I rarely have time to do, but Below is a Christmas skit that I composed for a Christmas banquet that we're holding at my church this year, with some additional background information about the significance of the census in Luke for anyone who is interested. It brings to focus an under-appreciated detail in the Christmas story, and also seeks to make some poignant connections with political climate in the United States, as we discern how to respond to terrorism.

 The Aftermath of a Roman Census

A Christmas Skit by Brian Bither

Luke 2:1-5, “In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This was the first registration and was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. All went to their own towns to be registered. Joseph also went from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to the city of David called Bethlehem, because he was descended from the house and family of David. He went to be registered with Mary, to whom he was engaged and who was expecting a child."

Context: This skit follows Quirinius, the governor of Syria, one year after the census was issued that brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem.

Quirinius:       [Sitting at a desk looking at census papers.] Oh this is much harder than I thought. Here I thought Caesar was bestowing an honor upon me, but I had no idea how complicated governing Judea would be.

Centurion:      [Arriving] Governor Quirinius, you called for me, sir?

Quirinius:       Yes. What news do you have about that Jewish terrorist group? Have we captured their leader yet?

Centurion:      Not yet, but we’re closing in on him. We know that Judas and his followers are hiding in the mountains. We don’t have their exact location at this time, but sooner or later, someone will be show up on our radar, and then we’ll have them.

Quirinius:       Oh, I just want this to be over. But at least we’ve driven them out of the cities. Are their any more reports of violence against our soldiers in Jerusalem?

Centurion:      Unfortunately, that hasn’t stopped yet. It seems that Judas inspired a lot of people, who are now calling themselves “Zealots.” The problem is, they are religious extremists who don’t have a central leadership structure. So even if we take out Judas and his sons, there is nothing to stop a radicalized Jew from taking it upon himself to commit some act of terror against some of our soldiers.

 Quirinius:      That’s so crazy. Why are they even doing this? What have we ever done to them?

Centurion:      From the best I can tell, it all goes back to when you first became governor of Syria, and Caesar had you issue that census...

Quirinius:       I know that, but it doesn’t make any sense! Why would anyone object to a census being taken? Why do the Jews hate us Romans?

Centurion:      Well, to be fair, their Scriptures say that the Jewish God punished one of their own kings for taking a census, so I think that this is a little more complex than Jews hating Romans.

Quirinius:       Excuse me, are you defending them? Surely you don’t think these Zealots have any right to kill Romans!

Centurion:      Of course not, sir. Their actions are heinous, fruitless, and inexcusable. I just think it’s advantageous to try to understand their motivation.

Quirinius:       Ok then, so what’s the motivation? Why would the Jewish God be upset with a government for taking a census? We have to have documentation, records of citizenship, and walls in order to keep people safe and preserve the peace of Rome.

Centurion:      Sir, I am not an expert on these matters. But I had a conversation with a moderate Jewish priest who showed me the text in their chronicles when King David issued a census and was punished for it. According to him, God was rebuking this king because he tried to take matters into his own hands. Apparently, their Scriptures are insistent that the Jewish people must depend on God alone for security. By issuing a census, David seemed to be depending on the might of his military rather than the faithfulness of their God to get them through a national crisis.

Quirinius:       So let me get this straight: the Zealots are shouting the slogan, “God Alone is our King” and then they’re trying to prove it by fighting us with their own strength? Doesn’t that seem to contradict their point?

Centurion:      I certainly think so, and actually, so did the priest I was talking to.

Quirinius:       He did, huh? Well, I guess it’s good to know there are some reasonable Jews out there. What is his name? Is he pro-Roman?

Centurion:      His name is Zechariah, and he’s an intriguing person, but I wouldn’t call him pro-Roman. When I pressed him on the issue, he agreed with the zealots that we were wrong to issue a census. However, he didn’t agree with the way the Zealots were responding to the census. In his view, all that could come out of the zealot revolt was more violence. He foresees the Romans continually suppressing the Zealots, and the Zealots responding by continually terrorizing the Romans, and he fears that this cycle of violence could eventually lead to a full-scale rebellion, resulting in their temple being destroyed again. So, from his perspective, both we and the zealots are agents of violence.

Quirinius:       We are agents of violence? Are you kidding me? We’re the ones trying to stop the violence. You can’t have peace if you don’t stop the bad guys. What better solution does this Zechariah person have?

Centurion:      I don’t know; he wasn’t making a lot of sense at this point. He said something about God showing up right in the midst of violence and proclaiming peace. He said that peace wouldn’t come either from politicians or military leaders, but it would emerge from among the poor and the oppressed. He said something about a Messiah who would do things differently, he would conquer hate with love and overcome evil with good. He said that this Messiah would be able to turn the world inside out, so that even evil things – like the census that you issued – could be used for the glory of God.

Quirinius:       That's ridiculous. I’ll believe that when I hear it announced by angels.

This skit has no copyright, is free and is available for public use.

Additional Historical Information

This skit is what you might call a “historical fiction.” Of course, the actual conversation never happened, but the basic plot – in which Governor Quirinius had to deal with the zealot rebellion led by Judas the Galilean – is historical. (The primary source for this event is the Jewish Antiquities, Book XVIII, Chapter 1, by Josephus, which you can read online at http://sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-18.htm. If you read this translation, note that Cyrenius = Quirinius.) Of course, the language the skit uses of “terrorism” and “documentation” is anachronistic, but it is used to highlight parallels between a crisis the Romans faced in the first century and one that U.S. government faces in the twenty-first century. I also tried to draw other themes and characters from the gospel of Luke for the sake of consistency.

When Biblical scholars analyze Luke 2:1-5, most of the discussion usually revolves around the historicity (or lack thereof) of the census. However, the mention of the census issued under Quirinius serves a greater purpose that just to assign a general date for Jesus’ birth. Instead, Luke is drawing a connection between Jesus’ birth and the zealot movement, describing them as parallel movements that went in slightly different directions. The census under Quirinius marked the beginning of the zealot movement, as well as the beginning of Jesus’ ministry. These parallel movements continue to intersect and diverge throughout the rest of Luke and even into Acts.

In Luke 4, the crowds with whom Jesus spoke were supportive of Jesus when his words indicated that he would bring healing to Israel, but they turned on him when he indicated that Gentiles would be saved. This indicates that the crowds who followed Jesus had zealot leanings. In Luke 6, when Jesus calls his twelve apostles, they include “Simon who was called the Zealot” and “Judas Iscariot.” Simon was clearly affiliated with the Zealot movement, and it’s quite likely that “Iscariot” indicates that Judas was affiliated with the Sicarii, a particularly violent offshoot of the Zealot movement. In Luke 23, when Jesus is brought before Herod, he is presented to them as another Zealot agitator: the chief priests say that Jesus was perverting the nation, forbidding the people to pay taxes, and describing himself as a king, which were all things that Judas the Galilean did. And even after Jesus had risen from the dead, in Acts 5 (which was also written by Luke), the high priest Gamaliel reflected on how to respond to his movement by explicitly comparing it to the zealot movement, noting, “Judas the Galilean rose up at the time of the census and got the people to follow him.” These connections can’t be coincidental.

By putting these two movements in parallel, Luke was able both to compare and contrast them. Yes, Jesus wanted to invoke the year of the Lord’s favor in Luke 4, but he also wanted to include Gentiles. Yes, he included zealots among his disciples in Luke 6, but he taught them to love their enemies in that same chapter. Yes, he was the Messiah, as mentioned in Luke 9, but he would be turned over to the Gentiles. He foresaw the destruction of Jerusalem in Luke 21, the result of the zealot movement, but he noted that this would not mark the end. Unlike the zealot movement, which would fizzle out and die after 70 C.E., his would last to the end of the age.

Ex-Cons May Finally Have a Real Shot at Jobs in Indy

I know, I know... I fell off of the blogging wagon. I was 2 parts into a 7-part series on pacifism, and then - wham! - life hit hard (in a good way) and my blog faded into the background. I feel like I'm starting to get my bearings so maybe I will pick that series up again shortly. In the meantime, I wanted to update all of my friends who live in Indianapolis - and especially those who have a felony on their records - about an important change in our city's policies that just happened tonight. Through the leadership of IndyCAN, Indianapolis has now joined several states in "banning the box" that keeps ex-felons from getting jobs.

Before I explain what this means, I want you to think back to the last time that you applied for a job. For some of you, it's probably been a while, but anyone who has had to do this in the past few years remembers how vulnerable and inadequate you feel whenever you fill out the application form. For me, one of the last jobs I've had was at a "fast food" restaurant where I was working just one year ago. Now, I had gotten my first job ever at a fast food restaurant when I was 17 years old and I had a decade of education and experience since then, so you would think that I would go into an interview like that with 100% confidence, but I didn't. Those applications have a way of making you doubt yourself. You're supposed to name your qualifications, list the schools where you've attended, describe your employment history, etc. You only have the space of a few lines to try to convince an employer (whom you may or may not have even seen in person) that you are worth hiring. That is hard enough in itself.

But for many people, there is one question that looms over all of the rest of them: "Have you EVER been convicted of a felony?" Now, imagine for a moment that you had convicted a felony. Perhaps it was something you did when you were 19, and now you're 45 - much older and wiser than during your teenage years. Well, even in that case, you would still have to check, "Yes." Or imagine that you were convicted of a felony more recently but, by the grace of God, came to see the error of your ways and decided to turn your life around. Since then, you have sought help and have dedicated yourself to never committing another crime again. Well, even in that case, you would still have to check, "Yes." And if you check yes, your chances of getting that job DRAMATICALLY reduce. 70% of employers admit that as soon as they see that question answered, "Yes," they throw the application in the trash without giving it a further thought. Of the remaining 30% of employers, studies show that the likelihood of a person getting hired who has a record drops by 50%. Any college grad can tell you how hard it is to get a job when you came straight out of the university and don't have any work experience. Just imagine how hard it is if you have a record!

In response to this problem (which is just one aspect of the greater problem of mass incarceration), an organization called PICO has spear-headed a movement to "Ban the Box" on applications like these in order to make it plausible for ex-offenders to successfully reintegrate into society. PICO's local chapter here in Indianapolis, an organization called IndyCAN, has been working to bring these kinds of reforms in our own city, and our City-County Council just voted to implement them tonight.

This is what they decided to do. The City-County Council oversees all city-government organizations (Parks & Recreation, Waste Disposal, Indianapolis Power & Light, etc.), and they decided that they will no longer ask anyone applying for a job in one of those organizations whether they have committed a felony on their initial application. Note: these organizations can and most likely will still do a criminal background check later in the interview process, but they can only do that after they have decided whether or not they want to hire you first. If something turns up from your criminal background check, they can't just revoke the offer. Instead, they have to prove that it meets the following four criteria to revoke the offer: (1) that the crime was directly related to the kind of work you're applying to do, (2) that the crime was serious, (3) that the crime was recent (or that you have not shown signs of progress), or (4) that you were actually convicted and not just arrested or even tried for the crime. So, if you got in trouble for embezzlement last year (e.g. stealing money from a cash register), and you applied for a job where you have to handle a lot of money this year, then a red flag would pop up on their screen and they would have legitimate reason not to hire you. However, if you applied for a job that didn't involve handling money or if it happened 20 years prior, then the employer would still have to hire you, even though you have a felony on your record. And that is a HUGE improvement over the current situation. For those of you who find yourself in this situation, this new policy will start taking effect in 90 days. By June of 2014, you should have a much easier time finding a job.

However, I want to make one more clarification: This does not apply to every job in Indianapolis. If you're applying for jobs in the summer, you'll still find that most restaurants and factories ask the question, "Have you EVER been convicted of a felony?" on their applications. The City-County Council did not pass a law making this question illegal. Instead, they decided that they themselves would no longer ask this question. However, they did go one step further with it. They decided that they will only subcontract to companies that also refuse to ask this question, which includes a lot of business. So, for example, you may be a privately-owned construction company that the government decides to hire to build a new building. If you have the question, "Have you EVER been convicted of a felony?" on your applications, then the city government will no longer be able to work with you, starting in June.

What does this mean for my friends with felonies? You should apply for government jobs, and if you come across any company that asks about your record on its initial application, you should report it to the government. They're not doing anything illegal, so it won't get you the job and you can't sue them for it, but it may make them lose business, which will inspire more companies to drop that question from their applications in the future.

Why I Am a Pacifist: The Biblical Argument

This is the second part of a seven-part series. To start from the beginning, click here.

I have spent a lot of time this week thinking about how I could best present the Biblical case for pacifism. I considered writing an in-depth study of the "classic" pacifist passages, [E1] or arguing why the Bible verses that are cited in defense of Just War and self-defense are misinterpreted, [E2] or making a list of all of the verses that show how nonviolence is God’s way. [E3] However, rather than taking any of these approaches, I decided that the best way to make a case for pacifism is to tell the story of the Bible. I hope that the way I tell this story will illuminate why nonviolence is a key part of the Christian message. [E4]

Let’s start with Genesis. According to the first book of the Bible, evil began to take over the world when sin entered the human community. It’s important to note that the first sins were social in nature. When Adam and Eve ate from the forbidden tree, they broke the bond of trust between themselves and God, which resulted in them feeling ashamed and covering up to protect their vulnerability. [E5] Once this trust had been broken, humans started relating to one another and to God in a fundamentally different way. There arose deception, jealousy, competition, and within the second generation of humans, the simple act of disobediently eating fruit had resulted in an act of murder. [E6]

Murder – or the threat of it – marks the ultimate inability to trust others, for murderers seek to resolve conflict by eliminating their opponents rather than reconciling with them. In addition to the harm that this does to murder victims and their families, this creates an environment in which people feel that they are not safe, and they in turn must hold the power of violence to ensure their own survival. But this only perpetuates the tension and violence, [E7] and thus, in the first eleven chapters of Genesis, we see the world spiral out of control until it gets to a point where it “was corrupt in the sight of God, and the earth was filled with violence.” [E8] Anyone born into this community would be immediately sucked into the vortex of violence, and so the only solution for eradicating violence seemed to be the destruction of the human race altogether. [E9]

Fortunately, God had another plan. God decided instead to create a community that was immune from these cycles because it lived by a different standard. [E10] Rather than trusting in their own might or power, they would put their faith in God, and this would eliminate the need for deception, competition, and violence. We find the beginnings of this vision in God’s call to Abraham. In their opening conversation, God tells him, “I will make you a great nation and I will bless you” in order that “all the families of the earth will be blessed through you.” [E11] Now this idea of making Abraham into a nation may not mean much to those of us who have embraced an individualistic version of Christianity, but it arises from the conviction that salvation had to include more than just individual conversions but an entire societal transformation.

And so Israel was called to be the space on earth where God was rightly worshiped and the people lived in harmony with one another. They were not supposed to dominate other nations, but their influence would spread based on their reputation of being a faithful community. [E12] Micah, for example, looked forward to a day when “Many nations will come and say, ‘Come and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord and to the house of Jacob, that He may teach us His ways and that we may walk in His paths,’” with the result that “they will hammer their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not lift up the sword against nation, and never again shall they train for war.” [E13] Being inspired by the way that Israel lived, these nations would choose trust in God instead of trust in force.

Of course, for Israel to become this kind of place, the people had to have tremendous faith in God themselves, which they were never able to do perfectly. They continually turned to other things for their protection and prosperity – whether that was the gods of other nations or their own political and military strength. [E14] And so God backed away from them, allowing them to suffer at the hands of enemy-nations, until they learned to trust God as their Savior. [E15] Amidst this back-and-forth, there was a growing hope for a Messianic leader who would usher in a new era, one in which Israel would become an independent nation that lived up to the character that God had always intended for it. In expectation of this Messiah, Zechariah says, “Lo, your king comes to you; triumphant and victorious is he... He will cut off the chariot from Ephraim [i.e. Israel] and the war-horse from Jerusalem [i.e. Judah]… and he shall command peace to the nations; his dominion shall be from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth.” [E16]

Over the centuries that followed, many people claimed to be that Messiah and tried to bring Israel into this golden era. However, one stands out as unusual: Jesus of Nazareth. Like the others, he claimed to be a political leader, who gathered followers that swore allegiance to him, raised funds with the promise to bring change, and promised that the “kingdom of God” was at hand [E17]. But there was something different about this political leader: he had a fundamentally different conception of power than all of the others. He told his followers “If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me” and that “whoever wishes to be great among you must be your servant.” [E18] You see, Jesus was planning to start a revolution but without using violence as a tool to bring it about. Instead, he offered relentless critiques of evil from the posture of a servant, he made bold promises that he trusted God to carry out, and he began making changes without seeking the establishment’s approval.

Of course, the powers that Jesus was opposing didn’t play by these same rules.  They captured him, tried him, and tortured him, and when he still wouldn’t waiver in his convictions, they used their ultimate weapon against him: death. But Jesus held fast even then and proved that not even death could stop him. He rose from the dead, demonstrating that all of their weapons against him were impotent, and having defeated Death itself, he sent his disciples into the nations to invite them to participate in a kingdom that could not be shaken, even by the threat of death itself. [E19]

This kingdom has not been fully established. Jesus promised to return, armed solely with the Word of God, to banish the forces of evil forever and create a space of everlasting peace. [E20] But in the meantime, he has established his own community – the Church – to carry out Israel’s mission as the holy nation that God had designed for the salvation of the world. [E21] The Church is called to be a community that is free from deception, that eliminates equality, and where anyone can be safe because there is no hint of violence. [E22] To do this, the community is called to imitate Christ in his absolute refusal to use violence as a weapon for any and every cause.

Perhaps my boldest claim of all is that “the Church” has done this. Obviously, there are many Christians in the world who not only approve of violence but who have led the world into war. But at the same time, there has always been a remnant that has remained nonviolent [E23] – from the persecuted church of the first three centuries to the monastic communities that stood fast throughout the Middle Ages to the Anabaptists and Quakers that split off from the established churches in the Modern Era to the Catholic Worker movement and Red Letter Christians who are promoting “Just Peace” in the world today. The people of God are still called to live by God’s vision for Israel, to create a space on earth that models love, justice, and peace, and that invites others into it. The only way that I know how to be faithful to this vision is as a pacifist.

End Notes

[E1] I'm looking at you, Matthew 5:38-48. Fortunately, Richard Hays has already done this in his chapter, “Violence in Defense of Justice,” in The Moral Vision of the New Testament (New York: HarperCollins, 1996), p. 319-329. 

[E2] Hays also addresses several of the texts that are cited against pacifism in this chapter, on pages 332-336.

[E3] Many such lists already exist. Here is one example, which does a pretty good job of listing the New Testament texts (although it still misses a few important ones, such as Luke 19:41-42 and Ephesians 2:14-18), but fails to look at any of the Old Testament passages that point toward pacifism. Despite these weaknesses, I would encourage you to look at it, as it gives a good sense of how big of a theme this is in the New Testament by the sheer number of verses it cites.

[E4] Of course, I recognize the dangers of this approach. When you paint the Bible in broad strokes and select verses that fit your agenda, you risk shaping the Biblical story into your own ideology rather than allowing it to shape you. Just because someone can string verses together in an impressive array doesn’t mean that their arrangement is true, and this applies to me just as much as anyone else.

However, at the end of the day, “the Bible” – to the extent that it can be called by that name – is a story whose power is not primarily in “inerrant” facts or “infallible” but in the way that it orients us to reality. If we take it to be an authority, then we must take the risk of telling its story as a whole, even if our own preferences and presuppositions get mixed in with that telling. The best way to avoid that is to share it with other Christians, as I am doing now, so that they can see our blind spots and together we can turn to the Holy Spirit for guidance. To refuse to tell the story out of the academic fear of “doing violence” to the text is to subject oneself to another narrative – only one that is not named and therefore which cannot be challenged.

[E5] Genesis 2:25 to 3:7. I do not personally believe that Adam and Eve were historical people, but I still believe that the Genesis story is divinely inspired because it teaches us correct theological truths about God, evil, human nature, sin, etc. However, just in case you’re wondering, I do believe that Jesus was a historical person (God in the flesh) and that his death and resurrection were historical events. I say this for the sake of transparency. This is not the place to discuss historicity and its relation to Biblical reliability or authority.

[E6] Here, I am referring to the story of Cain and Abel, which can be found in Genesis 4:1-16.

[E7] Several passages of Scripture talk about the cyclical nature of violence: cf. Genesis 9:6, Proverbs 19:19, Matthew 26:52.

[E8] Genesis 6:11

[E9] See Genesis 6:13.

[E10] “You are to be holy to me because I, the Lord, am holy, and I have set you apart from the nations to be my own.” Leviticus 20:26.

[E11] Genesis 12:2-3

[E12] See Isaiah 42:6, 49:6, 60:3, and Jeremiah 13:10-11.

[E13] Micah 4:3; echoed in Isaiah 2:4 and to a lesser extent, Zechariah 8:20-23

[E14] For examples, see Jeremiah 2:11 and 1 Samuel 8:4-9.

[E15] For example, see Psalm 106.

[E16] Zechariah 9:9-10

[E17] It’s impossible to document everything political that Jesus says and does in the gospels, but here’s a small sampling: Matthew 21:6-11, Mark 1:15, Luke 4:16-21, John 4:25-26.

[E18] Luke 9:23, Mark 10:43.

[E19] This sentence alludes to Colossians 2:14b-15, 1 Corinthians 15:54-56, Hebrews 12:28-29, and Romans 8:38-39.

[E20] See Mark 13:24-27, Acts 1:11, Revelation 19:11-16.

The Revelation passage is one that many have used as an argument against pacifism, since it uses strong war imagery. Somehow, despite the clearly metaphorical nature of Revelation, many people fail to interpret this passage metaphorically. I, for one, do not believe that the “sharp sword that comes out of his mouth” is a literal weapon that he holds in his teeth, but is instead the Word of God, which is “sharper than any two-edged sword, and [pierces] as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and [is] able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.” (Hebrews 4:12)

[E21] Unfortunately, most American Christians have completely lost the corporate aspect of salvation. It is not enough for God to save each of us individually; God wants to save all of us together, as a community. See especially John 17:20-23, 1 Corinthians 12:12-26, and Ephesians 2:11-22.

To see how the Church carries on the task to be the holy community, first consult Exodus 19:5-6, then see 1 Peter 2:9-10 and Revelation 1:5b-6.

[E22] There are high moral standards given to Christians throughout the New Testament due to the importance of preserving a holy community. For one powerful example, read Ephesians 4:25-5:5. For the issue of violence specifically, see 1 Peter 3:8-15.

[E23] By using the term “the remnant” here, I do not intend to imply that pacifists are the only “true” Christians or that they alone will be saved. I know many advocates of Just War theory and believers who have fought in wars, whom I assume will inherit the kingdom of God. To get a better handle on my understanding of salvation, see my post, “Heaven and Hell Reconsidered.” However, I am claiming that it is only by the grace of God that the pacifist witness has survived all of the centuries of kings and emperors who sought to snuff it out, often times with the help of the established churches.

Why I Am a Pacifist: Introduction (1 of 7)

For most people, pacifism is such an unrealistic position that they only talk about it in order to mock it. One particular joke comes to mind: “How do you win an argument with a pacifist? When he tells you that it’s wrong to use violence, punch him. After he gets up, see if he still maintains that violence is always wrong. If so, punch him again. Repeat as necessary until he fights back or concedes your point.” [E1] The reason that some find this funny is because it supposedly exposes the ridiculousness of the pacifist position. Pacifism may sound nice in theory, but it doesn’t work in the real world. Once you start hitting the pacifist, it demonstrates that all of his ideals are powerless to stop the blow of your fist, right? [E2] He will have no choice but to admit that you are right or to fight back. Clearly, there are no other options available to him, such as blocking your punches, getting away from the situation, or silently taking the beating until it becomes clear that you can’t change his mind with blows…

I would like to suggest that the reason most people think that pacifism is ridiculous is because they have never actually taken the time to evaluate it. Have you ever genuinely considered the arguments for pacifism? Well, here’s your chance. In the next seven posts, I am going to make a case for a position that I too thought was ridiculous, but which I have since found to be profoundly insightful, ethical, and powerful. So go ahead and “hit me” with your best questions and criticisms as we go. [E3]

But first, I need to say a word to my friends in the military. The main concern that has prevented me from promoting this view until now has been my fear of shaming those who have served, are serving, or who have loved ones who serve in the military by highlighting the sinfulness of violence. Now, I cannot deny that I am unequivocally opposed to war and therefore would discourage most people from participating in the military. [E4] However, this does not mean that I look down on those who decide to join against my advice. On the contrary, I recognize that people often join the military for noble reasons, and I admire the discipline, courage, and sacrifice that it cultivates in them. Moreover, I respect anyone who is willing to risk their life for what they believe, regardless of whether or not I agree with them. [E5] So I can honestly say that even though I am opposed to the military profession, I still have a great deal of respect for many soldiers. [E6] In fact, I have often discovered that soldiers make the best allies for peace, because they have a more accurate understanding of the cost of war than any civilian can and therefore are more inclined to oppose it. [E7]

Finally, before I make any actually arguments, I need to start with a few clarifications:

– There are many, many versions of pacifism. In one of his books, John Howard Yoder identifies 25 different types of pacifism and indicates that there are several more that he couldn’t cover. [E8] Consequently, you can’t assume that what I write in these blog posts represents all pacifists.

– The type of pacifism that I subscribe to is Christocentric, by which I mean that I am a pacifist because I believe that nonviolence is a part of the gospel revealed by Jesus Christ. I have learned a lot from non-Christian pacifists, such as Mahatma Gandhi and Gene Sharp, but my reasoning is ultimately different from theirs.

– The type of pacifism that I subscribe to is also not passive. It calls people to "fight" for what is right, which you can do without using violence. Being a pacifist doesn’t mean cowering in the face of threats, getting nauseated whenever you see violence, or letting people walk all over you. On the contrary, I believe that it is often essential to stand up for justice, to express anger, to devise strategies about protecting people, to look evil in the face, and to risk one’s life for the greater good.

– I personally still have a long way to go in becoming nonviolent in my own life. As Stanley Hauerwas has famously said, the reason that he believes that nonviolence is God’s way is preciously because he’s “such a violent son of a b****.” I can certainly say that’s true for me. When I hear about innocent people getting attacked or abused, my initial reaction is to want to hurt the perpetrators. I still get in arguments that escalate into yelling, and if you hit me, my instinct would be to hit you back. Pacifism is not just an abstract belief, it’s a way of life – a way of thinking and talking and acting – which requires many years of discipline and which I have yet to achieve. But I have come to see the truth in it, and I aspire toward it, trusting that the One who began a good work in me will carry it on to completion.

So, here’s how the series will work:
(1) Introduction (This Post)
(2) The Biblical Argument
(3) The Greatest Force in the Universe
(4) It's More Practical Than Violence
(5) An Honest Look at History
(6) What I Would Do If a Violent Person Threatened my Loved Ones

(7) The Shocking Image of a Pacifist God

I hope that you will join me in this series, and I pray that the comments that follow will foster civil dialogue, lead to truth, and aim for reconciliation.

Endnotes

[E1] For a full version of the joke, click here.

[E2] Notice that the joke always assumes that the pacifist is a “he.” Somehow, it doesn’t work when you apply it to a female pacifist, because hitting women is not socially acceptable, whereas hitting men is. This is just a small sampling of a larger theme I’ve noticed about how arguments against pacifism are often inextricably bound with chauvinist assumptions. More on this later.

[E3] The only question I won’t answer in the comments is this one: “What would you do if a violent person threatened to harm one of your loved ones and you had to kill him to stop it from happening?” I’m not trying to avoid this question, but it is a very common and relatively complex one, so I am going to dedicate an entire blog post to addressing it.

[E4] I say “most people” because I am aware that the military has nonviolent functions and roles, and many of its members never see combat or fire a weapon. Consequently, I am open to the possibility that there may be ways to participate in military peacefully. However, this is more difficult than it sounds because the institution itself is intrinsically committed to violence, and even those who are not killing are generally endorsing or enabling the military to further its violent agenda.

[E5] Gandhi, one of the most influential advocates for nonviolence of all time, did not believe that the type of pacifism that he advocated was the opposite position of a soldier's. Instead, he believed the worst response to evil was inaction, the intermediate response was violent intervention, and the best response was nonviolent resistance, which he brilliantly renamed satyagraha. He went on to set up training camps that were similar to military training and made sure that his followers knew that they may have to die for the cause of peace. Now, I’m not sure if I agree that violent interventions are always better than inaction, but I certainly believe that soldiers who dedicate their lives to fighting for the good are just one step away from the kind of lifestyle that I would honor. 

[E6] Fortunately, the New Testament has provided a wonderful model of how one can oppose violence and yet honor soldiers. Although the New Testament’s opposition against violence is unequivocal (a point that I’ll argue upon in the next post), it nevertheless highlights several individual soldiers as godly people of great faith. For example, in Matthew 8:5-13, Jesus claims that a centurion he encounters has more faith than everyone in Israel, and in Acts 10, we read the story of the Holy Spirit coming to a centurion named Cornelius, who was honored as the first Gentile to receive the Holy Spirit.

However, we should also point out that these passages carry a strong degree of irony in them because everyone in Israel would have assumed that these soldiers were “bad people” by virtue of their occupation – they were soldiers of the enemy army. Thus, it was scandalous for Jesus to say that a Roman soldier had more faith than an Israelite or for God to select a Gentile soldier as a recipient of the Holy Spirit. The point these texts make is that these people were good despite their military profession, not because of it. A comparable example in the Older Testament is the story of Naaman, the commander of the army of Aram (2 Kings 5). He too is scandalously healed by the God of Israel, but after this experience, he can’t just go back to business as usual. It changes his lifestyle and impacts his career (2 Kings 5:17-18).

[E7] One of the best institutions out there in this regard is Veterans for Peace, an organization made up of veterans who have come to oppose war. However, not everyone who opposes war is an out-and-out pacifist like me. If you have served or are currently serving in the military and are struggling ethically or psychologically with your experiences, let me offer you two resources. First, I would recommend that you contact Centurion’s Guild, an organization made up of veterans – not all of whom are pacifists – who are dedicated to helping you process your experiences based on your own values and make clear moral choices, whether that means affirming your past decisions or repenting of them, leaving the military or staying in it. Second, you can call the GI Hotline, at 1-877-447-4487, which is free and anonymous, and they can explain your rights and options if you are thinking about leaving or transferring to a different department or role.

[E8] Nevertheless: The Varieties and Shortcomings of Religious Pacifism by John Howard Yoder (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1971). In the third edition (1992), Yoder added three more, and these all fall within the scope of “religious” pacifism, most of which is Christian. 

Is it ok to be a little selfish?

Some of us – especially those of us from conservative religious backgrounds – have to deal with a high guilt complex. We have been taught throughout our childhoods to make “the right decisions,” and so with every decision we make, we are constantly worrying about whether we are being selfish. After all, a number of theologians identify selfishness as the root of all sin and unselfishness as the highest virtue. [E1] Consequently, we feel guilty every time we speak up about what we want, we second-guess our motives every time we get our way, and we chastise ourselves for every self-indulgence we take because we know that our resources could have gone to a better cause.  Perhaps I am exaggerating a bit, but many of us can relate to that nagging guilt that haunts our decisions. When we want something for ourselves and we can’t come up with any good justification for having it, we wonder, “Is it ok to be a little selfish?”

A number of folks have answered this question, “Yes, it’s perfectly ok to be selfish,” often times in direct opposition to the Christian traditions that promote unselfishness. For example, modern psychologists teach that humans ought to care for themselves. They affirm the importance of maintaining positive self-esteem, affirming one’s worth, and treating oneself from time to time. They see self-care and self-love as intrinsic values, to the point that some say that we need to care for ourselves before we can or should care for others.

Another group that has defended selfishness are philosophers. Some great thinkers have advocated for selfishness by arguing that unselfishness is impossible to achieve. [E2] Their reasoning goes like this: Human action is motivated by desire, and human desires are, by definition, aimed at pleasing the self. Thus, even the seemingly most selfless act, such as a stranger risking her life for another person, is ultimately motivated by the desire to be a good person or to appease one’s conscience or for the helper high that such a saving act creates. In other words, being selfish is a part of being human, so we might as well embrace it. Things go over more smoothly when everyone admits what their selfish motives are rather than trying to pretend that we don’t have ulterior motives.

A third group that has defended a kind of selfishness are social activists, especially feminists. [E3] These folks recognize that the world is not set up in a way that is just or fair. Some people have power while others don’t. Some people have access to good jobs with reasonable benefits, while others don’t. Some people inherit wealth, educational opportunities, and connections, while others inherit poverty, danger, and suspicion or opposition from the powerful. Many social activists believe that the only way that this will change is if the oppressed stand up for themselves: if they demand their rights, recognize their dignity, and practice self-empowerment. They see the Christian ideal of unselfishness as a tool of oppression, designed to get the oppressed to accept inferiority, and they urge the oppressed to reject this ideal.

All of these claims are insightful and important. But the question I’d like to ask here is, “Are they Biblical?” Many of us are suspicious of psychologists and philosophers and social activists precisely because they aren’t committed to the Lordship of Christ, they don’t recognize the authority of Scripture, and so we shouldn’t expect them to share our values. Although many of their comments resonate with our experiences, we can’t follow their advice unless it aligns with our higher commitments. And I can’t think of any places where the Bible encourages us to “treat ourselves” from time to time, or where it says that unselfishness is an impossible ideal, or where it teaches us to stand up for our rights. So does this mean that Christians are condemned to live as miserable martyrs [E4]?

I don’t think so. Although it is true that the Bible doesn’t talk about “healthy selfishness,” it never praises unselfishness either. Contrary to popular belief, the Bible never names “selfishness” as a sin or “unselfishness” as a virtue [E5]. In fact, the entire concepts of selfishness and unselfishness are relatively new. Let me explain what I mean.

When we talk about someone as being “selfish” in today’s language, we mean that they are putting their wants or needs above those of others. By contrast, a person who is “unselfish” puts the wants or needs of others above their own. This way of speaking reveals an assumption that we make about wants and needs: that they are always at odds with one another. If I get what I want, we assume that means that someone else doesn’t get what she wants. To offer a concrete example, let’s say that my wife expresses that she wants chicken for dinner but I am really in the mood for fish. I might feel that it is “selfish” for me to express this preference and so I remain silent about it. After all, if I were a good, i.e. “unselfish” person, then I would put her wants above mine and just eat the chicken.

The problem is that this is a very individualistic way of thinking. [E6] There is more at stake in this interaction than our respective cravings for chicken and fish. If I tell my wife that I want fish, even though I know that she wants chicken, I open myself up to her. I give her more insight into myself (even if it is seemingly trivial information), which gives her the opportunity to practice the discipline of listening. On the other hand, if I don’t tell my wife that I want fish but I keep thinking about how much I do, then I will likely become slightly resentful or distant from her, which makes a marginal but negative impact on our relationship. So it would be better for both of us if I at least expressed my desire for fish. Of course, this only works if she also feels free to express in response that she still wants chicken, so that she can open herself up to me and not feel resentful herself. We may have to come up with a creative solution to please both of us, or one of us may have to “compromise.” But a compromise can only make sense if it is seen as the best solution for the group as a whole, which in this case is my wife and I, and not as a sacrifice I had to make as an individual.

The reason that the Bible doesn’t hold unselfishness or self-empowerment as virtues is because it doesn’t think in these individualistic terms. It recognizes that we are interconnected. For example, when Paul talks about this body of Christ in 1 Corinthians 12, he says, “If one member suffers, all suffer together with it; if one member is honored, all rejoice together with it.” Notice: this is not a command but an observation. Paul is aware that something that is truly harmful for one person is truly harmful for the rest of us, and something that is beneficial for one person is beneficial for the rest of us. Thus, the moral question that the Bible asks is, “What would be best for the community?”

So, to put a Christian spin on the psychological argument, self-care is important because it allows us to care even better for others. [E7] This is why we should “take the plank out of our own eye” before removing the speck from our brother’s. [E8] To put a Christian spin on the philosophical argument, I suppose you could call our desire to please God or our desire to help others “selfish” to the extent that it brings us happiness, but then we must differentiate between godly desire and “sinful” desires that have distorted views of what is good for us as human beings. To put a Christian spin on the social activist argument, when a woman stands up for herself against an abusive husband, she is actually serving him too, for his abusiveness is a sin that leads to misery in this life and the one to come. So is it ok to be a little selfish? Well, if my selfishness will lead to more just, loving, and peaceful interactions between me and the people around me, then it’s not just ok: it’s a moral imperative to act that way.

Endnotes

[E1] One research project I would love to do some day is to figure out when Christians started seeing “selfishness” as a vice. For most of Christian history, “pride” was seen as the chief of the vices, but contemporary theologians ranging from Billy Graham to Reinhold Niebuhr have replaced this with selfishness. (Cf. Niebuhr’s Moral Man and Immoral Society (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1932), p. 257, where he says, “From the perspective of the individual, the highest [moral] ideal is unselfishness.”)  I suspect that this way of perceiving selfishness had something to do with Kant, although it may go back as far as Abelard. I’d be interested if anyone has any thoughts on this.

[E2] Of course, not all “philosophers” maintain that selfishness is inevitable, and there is a lot of room for debate regarding who counts as a philosopher. In any case, Arthur Schopenhauer is perhaps the person most closely associated with the determinist argument, which says that everything we do is necessarily selfish. Friedrich Nietzsche, a student of Schopenhauer’s, was one of the first to then embrace selfishness as a virtue, and it’s likely that Schopenhauer’s determinism looms in the background of his ethics. Ayn Rand would be another person who spoke directly about “The Virtue of Selfishness,” and even some theologians – like Reinhold Niebuhr – have used this philosophical assessment as a basis for their theological work.

[E3] One of the most famous essays that have been written along these lines is, “For God So Loved the World?” by Joanne Carlson Brown and Rebecca Parker, in Christianity, Patriarchy, and Abuse, 1989. Here is a link to their article: http://faculty.plts.edu/gpence/2490/html/forgodso.htm. Although the target of their essay is atonement theories, they certainly implicate the virtue of unselfishness in the process. Another theorist who comes to mind is Carol Gilligan, whose theory of moral development combines elements of psychology and social activism. Many others could be named whom I don’t have the time to list here.

[E4] Martyrdom, in common usage, refers to a person who embraces misery for the sake of their religious or ethical commitments. This is not what the Bible means when it mentions “martyrs” (a Greek word which is usually translated as “witnesses”), nor is it a fair description of the martyrs of the early church. In the Bible and early church history, martyrs were people of joy, not people of misery, who believed they were “gaining a reward” for their work. Modern thinking would call these people, “selfish,” but as this essay explains, that is a faulty category.

[E5] When people turn to the Bible to look for proof-texts that name “selfishness” as a sin, they usually come up with two: Mark 8:34 (and parallels) and Philippians 2:3-4. So, I thought I’d go ahead and address each of these texts.

In Mark 8:34, Jesus says, ““If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me.” This text certainly advocates self-denial, and many assume that this is the same thing as unselfishness. But the context makes it clear that the self-denial Jesus is referring to is the rejection of power. Rather than trying to grasp power to get ahead, Jesus’ followers must deny themselves these privilege and instead embrace the more difficult path that is symbolized by the cross. See Mark 10:42-45 to verify this interpretation.

However, this self-denial is not aiming toward unselfishness. On the contrary, Jesus teaches his followers that they will be better off if they embrace this path. Verse 35 says, “For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake, and for the sake of the gospel, will save it.” Notice, Jesus is trying to motivate his followers to take this path by saying they will save their lives by doing it. This is an awkward point for the unselfishness interpretation, for you get in a dilemma where you try to do the “unselfish” thing for selfish reasons.

In Philippians 2:3-4, Paul gives these instructions, “Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility regard others as better than yourselves. Let each of you look not to your own interests, but to the interests of others.” Let me break down each part.

Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. The word “selfish” here is not in the original Greek. It was added by modern translators, presumably to clarify that it is “selfish ambition” that Paul was opposing, and not all ambition – for that would too radically challenge our capitalist assumptions. This is again not an instruction against seeking one’s wants but against power-grabbing.

But in humility regard others as better than yourselves. Notice, this doesn’t tell us to put others before yourself but to regard others as better than yourselves. As Paul notes, this is a practice in humility. If we take the perspective that other people have insights that we ourselves haven’t thought of or skills that we lack, we are much more inclined to take their advice and work alongside of them. This is a challenge to change our perspectives of others, not a call to give up our own wants or needs.

Let each of you look not to your own interests, but to the interests of others. Unfortunately, there is a textual discrepancy in this verse which makes a big difference in meaning. Some of the ancient manuscripts say, “look not to your own interests, but to the interests of others,” while others say, “look not to your own interests, but also to the interests of others.” While the former version seems to support the “unselfishness” perspective, the latter version seems to support the idea of mutuality that I am advocating here.

When you come to a textual crossroads like this, it’s best to look to the greater context for support. In Philippians 2:2, Paul advocates for “being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and of one mind.” I would say that this can only happen when we carry one another’s burdens (Galatians 6:2), confess our sins to each other and pray for one another (James 5:16), which implies that each person must give and receive. Reciprocity is in the air that Paul breathed, and so to impose our individualistic understanding of selfishness versus unselfishness on this passage is anachronistic.

[E6] One might wonder, “How is this way of thinking individualistic?” Whenever we talk about “wants and needs,” we are looking at the internal experiences of each person rather than the relational dynamics between persons and the systemic dynamics between persons and institutions and environments. We might also call it “materialistic,” because it focuses on the pains and pleasures rather than on virtues like character, companionship, and meaningful work, which may include both pain and pleasure. Once you broaden our way of thinking beyond “Will my action cause Person A pleasure or pain?” and start thinking about what is best for the relationship, for Person A’s character, for the systems that our actions participate in and reinforce (e.g. What kind of precedent does this set?), etc., then it usually becomes apparent that what is best for Person A is what is best for us as well.

[E7] This is particularly apparent with children. Children absorb attitudes and behaviors from the adults around them. Thus, treating ourselves with dignity and respect – but not overindulging – is the loving and responsible thing for people with children to do.

[E8] This verse is often used to tell people, “Don’t judge others,” but this misses the actual instructions in the passage. In Matthew 7:5, Jesus says, “You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.” Christians do have a responsibility to judge each other (Note: To judge each other, not people outside of our community, as 1 Corinthians 5:12-13 makes clear), but in a humble way that always assumes that “others are better than ourselves.” In other words, we should want to be corrected and challenged as much as or more than we want to correct and challenge others.