On September 11, 2001, Al-Qaeda attacked the United States with shocking results. Like most Americans, I can remember exactly where I was when the news came. In the weeks that followed, our nation was caught up in patriotic fervor and crying out for revenge. October 7, 2001, America struck back, attacking Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, marking the beginning of America’s longest war.
At the time, I was 30 years old and had been attending a Mennonite church for less than one year. After spending the prior six years in Protestant churches, I was still learning about the distinctives of the Anabaptist approach to the Christian walk. I was excited about what I was learning, but I had not yet grappled with the idea of nonresistance. The Baptist church I had recently left would not only be supportive of the government’s military intervention but encourage participation in it.
Anabaptists seemed to have two primary perspectives: Progressive Mennonites were not only opposed to participating in the war but protested the government’s military intervention. More traditional Mennonites did not oppose the government’s military intervention, but they would never participate in the taking of human life. The time had come for me to take a serious look at what the Bible teaches on the subject and determine what I believe.
This process took well over a year, and I do not believe I have ever wrestled so deeply with a doctrine of the Bible. There are two reasons for this: 1) I found the disparity between progressive and traditional Mennonites ideas confusing 2) The concept is so strongly opposed by my human nature. But I have come to believe that nonresistance, as held by most traditional Anabaptist churches is the position that is taught by the New Testament, and should, therefore, be the position of Jesus’ followers. Nonresistance is not based on a few proof texts, but is consistent with scripture and flows out of the entire context of God’s plan of salvation for His people. It is a way of life that takes the teaching and example of Jesus and the apostles seriously. If the Church of Jesus were to embrace this doctrine consistently, the Kingdom of God would be advanced beyond what we can imagine.
The historical Anabaptist position should not be confused with most modern expressions of pacifism. Pacifists are not only opposed to war and violence, but also reject the government’s right to bear arms. They believe the use of violence by anyone is inherently wrong and actively promote that the pacifist philosophy should be adopted by the world at large. I found the exegetical gymnastics required to square this philosophy with scripture unconvincing. Pacifism blurs the boundaries between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of the World and is forced to make excuses for the God-sanctioned violence found in the Old Testament.
The word “nonresistance” is taken from Matthew 5:39, “do not resist him who is evil.” It is strictly a New Testament (NT) doctrine, intended for the followers of Jesus, with a specific purpose during this NT church age. When we submitted ourselves to Jesus as Lord, we became citizens of the Kingdom of God, and accept the commands of the NT and the example of Christ as our rule for living. The NT forbids the Christian from retaliation and revenge but instead charges us to pray, bless, and do good to those who would harm us. We suffer the spoiling of our possessions for Christ’s sake joyfully. We preach the Good News of the Gospel, which is a message of peace—reconciliation is possible between God and man. Jesus came not to resist and judge evil humanity, nor to set up an earthly government, but to willingly and peacefully lay down His life for His enemies. As followers of Christ, we are to follow His example so that our life becomes a living sermon, pointing to the life and works of Jesus. This is the purpose of non-resistance. Therefore, it is not a way of life to be foisted on those who are not the disciples of Jesus, because it is for the Church, a heavenly institution, established by God’s redeeming grace. Nor do we expect it of the state, which is a worldly institution, functioning under God’s conserving grace. The country is presently ordained by the sovereign God to carry the sword to keep order and execute the wrath of God, but nowhere in the NT are the Disciples of Jesus given a part in this service.
We are called to walk as Jesus walked and to go into the nations, making disciples, teaching them his commands, and trusting in God for our protection. The state and the Church are two separate institutions, differing in their purpose, character, and destiny.
The Starting Point:
One reason Protestants and Anabaptists hold entirely differing views on this topic is because their starting point is completely different. The Protestant material I read or listened to, began with the Old Testament (OT), using this to build a case for war and violence, then moving briefly to the NT at the end of the presentation. I believe this is backwards. Scripture tells us that God has revealed His will for us at this time in Jesus, the incarnate Son (John 12:45-50; 14:7-10; Heb 1:1-2). It also tells us that the New Covenant takes precedence over the Old (Heb 8:1-13; 9:15-16). Paul explains in Romans and Galatians that the intent of the Old Covenant was to point us toward Christ. Jesus is the mediator of the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31 and instituted by our Lord in Matthew 26:28. One commentator put it this way: “He set aside the Old Covenant and brought in the New Covenant. Jesus did not destroy the Law by fighting it; He destroyed it by fulfilling it!” He then uses the following illustration: “If I have an acorn, I can destroy it one of two ways. I can put it on a rock and smash it to bits with a hammer. Or, I can plant it in the ground and let it fulfill itself by becoming an oak tree.”
There is a profound unity between the OT and the NT, but there are also profound differences. He has not only fulfilled the law (Matt 5:17), but He has changed it (Heb. 7:12). God does not change, but with the institution of the New Covenant, God is revealing Himself in a new way, and asking new things of His children. The NT saint will not look exactly like the OT saint. Therefore, we must look first to the direct and clear teaching of Jesus and His apostles. If we love Him, we will keep the commandments of Jesus. (John 14:15, 21, 23; I John 2:3-5)
To be a Christian is more than accepting a doctrine that Jesus has made atonement for our sin and that through faith we are reconciled to God. Jesus calls us to be his disciple, one who learns from him and accepts his teaching as authoritative; Jesus is our teacher, who interprets scripture for us. He has become our Lord and our example. We are to deny ourselves and walk as Jesus walked (Matt 10:38; Rom 6:4; IJn 2:6;) and to have the same mind as Christ (Rom 15:5; Php 2:1-2). This transformation is only made possible by surrender to Him, and regeneration by the Holy Spirit, and it will result in a life radically different from the world.
As disciples of Jesus, we turn first to the teachings and example of our Lord and His apostles. As participants in the new covenant, we should start with the NT and interpret the OT in the light of the NT. Then we conform our lives to this instruction, without trying to use the OT or inferences from less clear passages in the NT to evade the difficult teachings and lifestyle of the Christian way.
The teaching and example of Jesus
So, what is the teaching of Christ in relation to the concept of non-resistance? In Matthew 5:3-16, Jesus reveals what priorities and attitudes of the heart will bring us “blessedness” or divine joy. Here begins His revelation of a disciple who is called to trust God with all and to be an example of what Christ will suffer for our sake. Jesus then takes six crucial Old Testament Laws in Matt 5:21-48 and shows how the beatitudes are worked out in daily life. Jesus instructs us not to resist him who is evil, and when slapped, to turn the other cheek to be struck as well.
We are to give more than is required, even when we are treated unjustly (Matt 5:38-41). We are called to love our enemies, do good to them, bless them and pray for them. These are not suggestions but requisites for the child of God (Matt 5:43-45; Luke 6:27-29, 35).
Some Protestant writers have tried to reduce the demands of Jesus, asserting that the Sermon on the Mount is the “inner qualities of piety; ways to respond to our neighbors when they become sources of irritation.” This does not hold up under scrutiny--there is no hint that these principles are to be lived out with some people, some of the time. All through the NT, we see Jesus and the apostles demonstrating a sacrificial love for people of every nation, to those who were not merely irritations, but had murderous intent. They lived out these principles not only with their neighbor but also in the relationships of community, state, and the world.
We see the principles of the Sermon on the Mount lived out by the example and redemptive work of Jesus. He tells us in Matt 10:16-23, 38, 39 that we are to be harmless as lambs, innocent as doves in a wolf-like society. We are to expect persecution and suffering, and we are to continue His work without fighting back, walking the same road Jesus walked. All through the gospels, Jesus helped people, not by taking up the sword for them, but by meeting their spiritual and physical needs and defeating the works of Satan. We are called to the same service and must be willing to lay down our lives for others as he did, for both the defenseless and the powerful. This does not include taking up arms to defend others or ourselves.
The silence of Jesus is also instructive. Although he lived in politically tumultuous times, under a tyrannical government, Jesus largely ignored it and certainly did not agitate against it. In Luke 13:1-3, people bring to the attention of Jesus a civic atrocity by anyone’s standards. Apparently, Pilate killed some Galileans and mixed their blood with their sacrifices. But rather than denouncing this act of tyranny, Jesus continues to point people toward spiritual truths.
From the very beginning of his ministry, Jesus taught that there are only two kingdoms on earth, the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of the World. His message was “Repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand.” Jesus prayed for His disciples in John 17, teaching us that we are not of this world, even as He was not. As Christians, our fight is spiritual, and we do not fight with physical weapons in this world, at this time (John 18:36).
As we approach the crucifixion, we continue to see the non-resistance of Jesus. He peacefully goes with His enemies, telling Peter to put away his sword (Matt 26:52). Peter’s instinct is to defend himself and Jesus against the aggressors, but Jesus rebuked him and healed the damage done. Jesus was fighting a spiritual battle, not a physical one, and his focus remained on the Kingdom of God and the will of the Father. While on the cross, Jesus modeled forgiveness and prayer for enemies. After His resurrection, He commissions the disciples to do the same works He has done, to live the same life He has modeled, stating, “Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you” (John 20:21). He returned to His glory with the Father, and for the time, left us in a hostile world to carry on His work (John 17:14-18). Now we, his disciples, are called to point the way to Jesus by the preaching of repentance and reaching out to those in need--by loving and laying down our lives for our enemies. He preached, fed, healed, blessed, offered forgiveness and trusted God with all. It was a message of spiritual transformation, resulting in a sincere lifestyle change.
The teachings and example of the Apostles
The apostles understood and remained consistent to the teachings of Jesus, explaining that Christ is our example in love and suffering for our enemies (IPe 2:21-25). Retaliation is forbidden (Rom 12:14-21; ITh 5:15; IPe 3:9); we are to do good to those who persecute us and pray for those who use us despitefully. We see this modeled in the life of the apostles, as they endured stoning, imprisonment, and martyrdom for the sake of Christ. In both the teaching of Jesus and the apostles we see an emphasis on extending to all people the forgiveness and mercy we have received from God and to trust Him for the outcome.
We are to conduct ourselves as citizens of the Kingdom of God, with a different agenda from earthly kingdoms. We do not fight physical wars as the world does, but we fight a spiritual war using only spiritual weapons (IICo 10:3-5; Eph 6:12). Nowhere are we permitted to take up arms and destroy life. Not for our possessions, which are nothing to the believer (Heb 10:34), nor even in defense of others or at the direction of the state, because it is contrary to the teaching of Jesus and the apostles. We can intervene in a peaceful way, even to the cost of our own life. Above all, we trust in a sovereign God who can protect us, but realizing He may allow injury or death according to His will and purpose. Regardless of how difficult or impractical the situation appears, the disciple of Jesus will remain faithful and obedient to the teaching and example of his King.
The non-resistance taught in the New Testament scripture is meant to expresses what Christ did on the cross and to communicate His offer of saving grace to the world. When God’s people live this way, it is a physical manifestation of the resurrected Christ in the world. The Christian is commanded to follow the example of Christ, laying down his life willingly, but never is he commanded to destroy life. Nowhere does scripture say, “As He died to make men Holy, let us kill to make men free” (C. G. Rutenberg of Eastern Baptist Seminary).
The Creation of the Church
Using the example of Israel in an attempt to justify the Christian's use of the sword is inadequate. As already noted, there are distinct differences between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant, resulting in important differences between the nation of Israel and the Church. The Church is a new creation, parallel to, but not the same as Israel. Israel was God's chosen people, first a physical family, then a nation continued through genetic bloodlines. Each physical birth in one of the 12 tribes of Israel added a new citizen to the nation. Some of these citizens lived by faith, and some did not, but all were part of the nation of Israel.
Unlike Israel, the church is made up only of those spiritually born into the Kingdom of God and are living by faith. Our boundaries transcend earthly nations, and our first loyalty is to our Heavenly King. We are regenerated and given the gift of the indwelling Holy Spirit, something Israel did not have. We are called to live by the Christian ethic described in the New Testament and given the power to do so. All the citizens of this new Kingdom are considered priests with a direct relationship to God, called to a holy life separated from the world. These New Covenant priests also have a calling the Old Covenant priests did not have. They are commissioned to go into all the world, to be ministers of God's love; to explain His offer of reconciliation to all the peoples of the earth, whether friend or foe, neighbor or stranger, tyrant or victim.
The function of the church is to demonstrate to the world the saving power and intention of God in Christ. Nowhere is the church given a part in the execution of God's wrath (until the second coming). Our weapons, as mentioned earlier, are strictly spiritual. Our only means of discipline is the church ban or excommunication. God consistently tells us not to partake in vengeance but to leave it to Him. Presently, He reveals His wrath partially through the state, but He will do it completely at the second coming (Rev 19:11-15).
We are citizens of a heavenly Kingdom, saved by God's redeeming grace. The church is a heavenly institution, "in the world, but not of the world." It becomes apparent in scripture that God has chosen this new institute to be ministers of His love and sacrificial grace.
The role of the State
The God of the Old Testament is still the God of the New Testament—A God of mercy and love, but also a God of justice and righteousness. God has not changed, but how He reveals these attributes has. During this NT dispensation, the church is ordained by God to communicate His message of salvation and His attributes of love and mercy to the world. The state is ordained by God to manifest His justice and wrath, as it uses the sword to keep order and restrain evil (Rom 13; IPe 2:14). God is sovereign over both these institutions, and He uses both for His purpose.
The governments receive their authority from God, and He continues to use it much as He did in the Old Testament—as an instrument of punishment for individuals within the state, and war between nations as a means to punish corporate wickedness and work out His purposes on earth.
Some Protestants will site Romans 13:1-7 as justification for the Christian to take up the sword when the state requires it. But to interpret it in this manner would cause the Christian to live in disobedience to the verses immediately preceding this, where he is instructed to live at peace with all men, return good for evil, be kind to his enemy, and leave vengeance to God (Rom 12:14-21). A more consistent way to understand Romans 13 is to acknowledge that while the state has the right to use the sword, the disciples of Christ have a different calling and therefore are forbidden to participate in this.
The NT does not portray the Kingdom of God uniting with earthly governments. The outlook of the NT is unconcerned with politics, despite that the political injustice that surrounded them. Nowhere does Jesus or the apostles imply that the NT Kingdom of God is connected to the geopolitical scene. The state is not meant to be redeemed, and theologically, there is no such thing as a Christian government or Christian nation. A national government cannot operate on the values of the Christian, and it should not be asked to do so, but neither can the Christian take up the sword when it has been expressly forbidden by his Lord. A Christian who tries to serve in the state will at some point be required to violate the teachings of Jesus and the apostles. T.S. Elliot writes, "The Christian and the unbeliever do not and cannot behave very differently in the exercise of office; for it is the general ethos of the people they govern, not their own piety, that determines the behavior of politicians." He goes on to say that a skeptical or spiritually indifferent statesman, governing a large body of devout Christians will be more effective than the Christian statesman who is expected to conform to a secular framework. I would also add that the Christian and the unbeliever do not and cannot act much differently in war.
Christians are not called to join and reform government, although we can influence them by our lifestyle, council, and spiritual warfare. Christians make their contribution to society as a people committed to God's redeeming Grace and living this out consistently on earth. We fight in the spiritual realm and become an instrument used by God to transform the lives of others. If Christians choose to be an instrument of God's conserving grace, to help restrain evil by the sword, they abdicate their responsibility and position as a child of God.
During this church age, God wants His children to walk as the incarnate Christ walked; sacrificially serving others to meet spiritual and physical needs. We are called to respect the authorities, be a productive working people, pay our taxes, pray and intercede for them. Sometimes we will reap the benefits of a peaceful government, and sometimes they will persecute us. We can follow Paul's example and appeal to our rights as citizens of the state, but ultimately, we must recognize that Jesus is our King and we cannot live in any way that contradicts what He has commanded us. Jesus and the apostles taught submission to all authorities, the just and the unjust, but only so far as it did not contradict the will of God for them (Acts 5:28-29). Even then, their disobedience to civic authorities was humble and non-violent. God is sovereign over the state and the church; He is the giver of life and possessions, and as citizens of His Kingdom we look to him for our direction, and we trust Him for our protection.
The Old Testament and non-resistance
The doctrine of non-resistance looks so different from the events of the Old Testament, how do we reconcile the two? First, we must keep in mind that we are looking at the OT in the light of the New Testament. Just because something was permissible, or even commanded under the Old Covenant, does not mean that it continues to be this way under the New Covenant. There is much violence to observe in the OT. Some of it is the wickedness of men, but some of it is commanded by God. God does use war and violence to punish sin and execute His judgment. Therefore, I must conclude that neither war nor the death penalty is necessarily immoral or un-Godly. But having started with the teachings and life of Jesus and the apostles, I am not willing to use the examples of the OT to convince me to live in a way contrary to the teaching of the NT. The OT foretells of the New Covenant and a new way of life for believers.
In the OT we see some shadows of the non-resistant NT believer. After the Levites were dedicated as priests, they were forbidden from participating in war--now the disciples of Christ are a Kingdom of priests. We also see in Ephesians 2:20-22 and I Peter 2:5 that the temple was a type of the church. David was not allowed to build the Temple because he was a man of war (IKi 5:3-5; ICh 28:3). We know that as individuals and as the Church corporate, we are now the Temple of God. It was Solomon, who built the temple during his reign of peace. This does not mean God was displeased with the warfare of David, only that God was pointing toward the future when he would deal with humanity in a new way.
Israel became a nation because God fought for them, not because they fought for themselves. (Ex 14: 13-14; 15: 1-3). God is a warrior, who will fight for His people. He demonstrated this when He delivered them from the Egyptians. It is also seen in the emphasis placed on Israel fighting the enemy in small numbers, such as when Gideon went up against the enemy with a few hundred men, torches, and pots. It was God who fought and won the battle for them. But when Israel was not obeying God's Word and failed to heed His warnings to repent, they found God "waging war" against them. He used the wicked nations around them to chastise them.
After they are taken away into captivity, we see the non-resistant lifestyle of a people in exile, as described in Daniel 1-6. Israel lived at peace in this foreign land and expected that God would deliver them as promised. Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were obedient to the state, as long as it did not violate the Law of God for them. When forced to choose between God and the state, they chose God. With quiet obedience, they trusted Him and were willing to suffer if it was His will.
We must also consider the prophecies of peace in Isaiah 2:2-4, Micah 4:1-3, and Isaiah 32:15-19. While these prophecies will not be completely fulfilled until the second coming of Jesus, His Church is to be a witness to these future things, the first fruits of what God is doing in history (Rom 8:19-23; James 1:18). The peaceful non-resistance of the Church not only points back to the work of Christ on the cross, but it points forward to the peaceful reign of Christ.
Words of the Church Fathers
For the first 300 years after the birth of the church, leaders were largely unified in the doctrine of non-resistance. Some proponents of Christian participation in warfare make the argument that it was not the killing these writers opposed, but the idolatry present in the Roman army. The words of these early church fathers however do not seem to support this.
Justin Martyr, 176 AD: “We who formerly murdered one another now refrain from making war even upon our enemies.”
Tertullian: “Shall it be held lawful to make an occupation of the sword, when the Lord proclaims that he who uses the sword shall perish by the sword? And shall the son of peace take part in the battle when it does not become him even to sue at law? And shall he apply the chain, and the prison, and the torture, and the punishment, who is not the avenger even of his own wrongs?” When a man is in the service of the military and becomes a Christian, he said, “there must be either an immediate abandonment” of military service “which has been the case with many,” or the individual must suffer martyrdom.
Hippolytus (AD 170-236): Is thought to have written “The Apostolic Tradition,” one of the earliest of ancient church orders. It contains the three following articles: 17) A soldier who is of inferior rank shall not kill anyone. If ordered to, he shall not carry out the order, nor shall he take the oath. If he does not accept this, let him be dismissed. 18) Anyone who has the power of the sword or the magistrate of a city who wears purple, let him give it up or be dismissed. 19) The catechumen or believers who wish to become soldiers shall be dismissed because they have despised God.
Irenaeus, 180 AD: These people (Christians) formed their swords and war-lances into plowshares…that is into instruments used for peaceful purposes. So now, they are unaccustomed to fighting. When they are struck, they also offer the other cheek.
Origen, 250 AD: “We have come in accordance with the counsels of Jesus to cut down our warlike and arrogant swords of argument into plowshares, and we convert into sickles the spears we formerly used in fighting. For we no longer take ‘sword against a nation,’ nor do we learn ‘ anymore to make war,’ having become sons of peace for the sake of Jesus, who is our leader.”
Clement of Alexandria, c190 AD: “Christ with his blood gathers the army that sheds no blood…We Christians are a peaceful people bred not for war but for peace.”
Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage: Christians “are not allowed to kill, but they must be ready to be put to death themselves,” and “it is not permitted the guiltless to put even the guilty to death.” (The implication is that the Christian could not be the state’s executioner).
Lactantius of Bithynia: “When God forbids us to kill, he not only prohibits us from open violence…but he warns us against the commission of those things which are esteemed lawful among men. Thus, it will be neither lawful for a just man to engage in warfare…”
Maximilian, AD 295: Is one example of many who refused military service to Rome. He is recorded as saying, “I cannot serve as a soldier; I cannot do evil; I am a Christian. You may cut off my head. I will not serve this world, but only my God”. He was put to death for his refusal to become part of the Roman military.
Note there is no mention of idolatry in these quotes--rather Christian participation in war and police action is condemned on the grounds that God forbids it for those who name Jesus Christ as Lord. While Christians are citizens of earthly nations, our first citizenship is in the Kingdom of God. When we are forced to choose between obedience to an earthly king, or King Jesus, we must choose the one who has purchased our souls with His own precious blood. Ultimately the NT alone is our authority and guide for living, but from these quotes, we learn that non-resistance is not some new, aberrant teaching that has sprung up in recent history, but was a consistent doctrine present in the early church.
Just War Theory Reconsidered
Some in the church have argued that it is the Christian’s responsibility to influence every area of life on earth, including war. This they believe can be done through the Just War Theory (JWT), but the principles of JWT are not found anywhere in scripture and are not a Christian doctrine. Furthermore, it is rightly called a “theory” because it is rarely (if ever) lived out practically and has been used to justify war on all sides of a conflict. From the perspective of the state, every war it chooses to participate in is a “just war.”
In Just War Theory, non-combatants are not to be killed, but modern weaponry has made this impossible, so the goal has become minimizing “collateral damage.” According to a study cited on Wikipedia, between 2004 and 2011 the US killed 2551 people in drone strikes with 80% of these being militants. This means 510 people were noncombatants, and they report more than 160 of these were children. At what point does the level of collateral damage become “UnChristian”? JWT also requires that military actions are proportionate, but if the tide has turned against them, we certainly would not. This was illustrated by America when they became the only country to use nuclear weapons on not one, but two cities. It was known that approximately 100,000 noncombatants would be killed, including women and children.
Not only do I question if the methods of modern warfare can be practically limited to the guidelines of the just war theory, but I question whether the motives of a country are truly just. When I first wrote this article, the U.S. was at war with Iraq, who was once supported by this government even when it was known that Saddam Hussein was killing his own people with chemical weapons. The state will always use its powers and ideologies to scheme and plot, trying to manipulate the geopolitical scene to its own advantage. I understand this happens among nations and in war, but should the Christian who is called to live a holy life take part in this? How does the Christian who is in the military pick and choose which commands he will obey? Can we really abdicate our own responsibility to New Testament principles when serving under the authority of the state? The nations will rage and roar, but we trust in a sovereign God who has called us to live out and proclaim the good news of the gospel.
Just war theory also creates the possibility that professing Christians will end up killing each other as combatants on the opposite sides of the war. History has born this out many times, including the period of the reformation when Catholics and Protestants took up arms against each other. In his book "Change of Allegiance," Dean Taylor tells the story of how a secret Christian assembly was found in Nagasaki Japan and granted freedom after 200 years of persecution. By 1917, they organized and built their first Cathedral, St. Mary’s. Just 28 years later, in 1945, American pilots dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, and we are told that this very Cathedral was one of the landmarks used to determine they were over their intended target. Certainly, there is nowhere in the New Testament where the believer is permitted to destroy the Body of Christ. According to just war theory, the Christian soldier is to kill with love in his heart, even for the person as he kills him. Is this the kind of “love” Jesus modeled for His enemies?
Admittedly, the real-life implications of this doctrine can be very difficult; and as I mentioned in my introduction, completely contradict human nature, or at least my nature. It means the Christian cannot be a politician, policeman or soldier. When challenging non-resistance, people will often ask “What if” questions.
“What if,” they ask, “a crazed gunman breaks into your home and threatens to kill you or your family and the only way to stop him is to kill him with your hunting rifle? Do you defend yourself or your family? Surely God does not want you to stand by and do nothing!” No, God instructs us to do good to those who despitefully use us. We can place ourselves between the attacker and the family, we can speak words of truth and kindness to him, and we pray to the One who holds the situation in His hand. There are examples of when an act of kindness has prevented death; but there are also examples that have ended in bloodshed. While it is impossible to say how one would react in a difficult hypothetical situation, I pray I would have the grace to resist the natural response of fighting violence with violence and the courage to lay down my life, not only for my family but for the perpetrator. More than anything, I want to be obedient to the One who laid down His life for me and trust in a Sovereign God Who can spare my family if He wishes or call my family into eternity if He wishes.
Just a few miles from where I am writing this article, we can look at a historical event where this type of scenario was lived out--It has become known as the Amish North Kill Massacre. In the middle of the night, on September 19, 1757, American Indians attacked the home of Jacob Hochstetler. The barking of the dog roused Jacob’s son from bed, and when he opened the door to investigate, he was shot in the leg. Realizing they were under attack, he shut and barred the door. Out the window the family could see a band of about 15 Indians standing in the darkness, conferring on what to do next. Reportedly, there were several rifles and sufficient ammunition in the home to put up an armed defense, which the sons were intent on doing. But their father, choosing to follow the example of Christ and the way of the cross, refused to allow the weapons to be used. By morning, the Indians forced the Hochstetler family from the house with fire and killed Jacob’s wife, a daughter, and son. Jacob and the two older sons were taken into captivity, but years later returned to colonial life. Both Jacob’s sons went on to join non-resistant churches, and one of them became a minister.
Some will say it was tragic for Jacob’s wife and two children to die, but as Christians, their death was not the end but the beginning of a wonderful eternity with their Savior. What if the Hochstetler family had used their guns against their enemies? It is possible the entire family may have been spared, but it is also possible the entire family would have been killed. Today, the testimony of Jacob Hostettler’s commitment to follow Christ still points people to the Savior, and it is estimated he has over 500,000 descendants.
Christians who are willing to take the life of another in defense of self or others must also answer some “what if” questions. What if your attempt to intervene violently results in more bloodshed then a non-resistant response? What if Jesus does want you to lay your life as a witness to His non-resistance and atoning work on the cross? What if Jesus really does want you to love your enemy, even at the expense of your own life?
Putting all this together, we have a coherent Christian worldview that rightly understands God’s love as expressed in His justice and redemption. Non-resistance is an essential Bible doctrine that takes seriously the example of Jesus, the commands of the New Testament, and the sovereignty of God. When it is consistently observed in the lives of Christians, they become a light to the world; testifying of a living faith; pointing to the atoning work of Christ on the cross, and the reality of the resurrection. This is a way God has chosen to communicate His gospel to the world.
Many theologians have recognized the tension between this doctrine and state service. Some reconcile this with a dualism that says Christians are expected to act one way under God’s redeeming grace (the Church), and another way under God’s conserving grace (the state). Others have tried to reconcile this by asking the State to conform to principles of non-resistance. As a people who have been saved out of the world into the Kingdom of God (Col. 1:13-14), it is a more Biblical and consistent witness for Christians to remember our primary citizenship and responsibility is to the Kingdom and our Lord Jesus. His claim on our life is absolute. Our calling is to be a separate, holy people, who strive to walk as Jesus walked and who are being transformed into the likeness of Jesus.
We live in a land filled with violence and fear. As people look for security, a culture war is waged between proponents of gun rights and proponents of gun restrictions. Let’s avoid getting drawn into this debate, as neither view is particularly relevant to the Christian. Rather take the opportunity to use the doctrine of non-resistance to point them to the cross and the true source of security, Jesus.
Barrett, Lois, The Way God Fights, Herald Press, Scottdale, PA 1987.
Bercot, David. A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, MA, 1998.
Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. The Cost of Discipleship, Touchstone, New York NY, 1959. (First published 1937).
Drescher, John M. Why I am a Conscientious Objector, Herald Press, Scottdale, PA, 1982
Driver, John. How Christians Made Peace with War, Herald Press, Scottdale, PA 1988.
Forry, John. “Pacifism: A Counterfeit to Biblical Nonresistance,” Sword and Trumpet, August 2003.
Gorman, Michael J. “Irreconcilable Differences,” Christianity Today, March 6, 2000.
Hoover, Peter. The Secret of the Strength, Benchmark Press, Shippensburg, PA, 1998.
Hartzler, Lloyd. The Christian and the State, Christian Light Publications, Harrisonburg, VA, 1992
Hershberger, Guy Franklin. War, Peace, and Nonresistance, Herald Press, Scottdale, PA, 1944.
Murray, Stuart. Biblical Interpretation in the Anabaptist Tradition, Pandora Press, Kitchener, Ontario, 2000.
Reed, Frank. “Patriotism: An Anabaptist Perspective,” Sword and Trumpet, August 2003.
Roth, John. Choosing Against War,
Shank, Aaron M. Studies in the Doctrine of Nonresistance, Eastern Mennonite Publications, Ephrata, PA, 1973.
Spurgeon, Charles Haddon. Citizenship in Heaven, A sermon delivered on Sunday Evening, Oct. 12, 1862,
At the Metropolitan Tabernacle, London, England.
Taylor, Dean. Change of Allegiance, Radical Reformation Books, Ephrata, PA. 2008
Verduin, Leonard. The Anatomy of a Hybrid, The Christian Hymnary Publishers, Sarasota, FL. 1976.
Wiersbe, Warren. Be Loyal, Victor Books, Wheaton, Ill. 1980.
Wenger, J.C. The Way of Peace, Herald Press, Scottdale, PA, 1979.
Yoder, John H. The Schleitheim Confession, Herald Press, Scottdale, PA. 1973