Jared Neusch—Christian Pacifism

Video unavailable (video not checked).

Download/Subscribe
Program Transcript +

Join us this month as we welcome back our guest, Dr. Jared Neusch, for a special bonus episode. Jared is a research assistant and project manager for the McDonald Agape Nicaea Project at St. Mellitus College. He earned a PhD in New Testament at King’s College in London. His research interests include apocalyptic readings of Paul, hermeneutics, and Christian pacifism. Although American, Jared now lives in England with his wife and three children.

Show Notes

Books Jared mentions:

  • Crucifixion of the Warrior God by Greg Boyd
  • Cross Vision: How the Crucifixion of Jesus Makes Sense of Old Testament Violence by Greg Boyd
  • Flood and Fury by Matthew Lynch
  • The Moral Vision of the New Testament by Richard Hays

 

If you get a chance to rate and review the show, that helps a lot. And invite your fellow preachers and Bible lovers to join us!

Follow us on Spotify and Apple Podcast.

Program Transcript

Jared Neusch—Christian Pacifism

Welcome to the Gospel Reverb podcast. Gospel Reverb is an audio gathering for preachers, teachers, and Bible thrill seekers. Each month, our host, Anthony Mullins, will interview a new guest to gain insights and preaching nuggets mined from select passages of Scripture in that month’s Revised Common Lectionary.

The podcast’s passion is to proclaim and boast in Jesus Christ, the One who reveals the heart of God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And now onto the episode.

Anthony: Hello, friends, and welcome to the Gospel Reverb podcast. This is a bonus episode covering a topic and material, which is a deviation from our normal episodes. As always, Gospel Reverb is a podcast devoted to bringing you insights and commentary from a Christ-centered and trinitarian view.

I’m your host, Anthony Mullins, and it’s my delight to welcome our guest, Dr. Jared Neusch. Jared is a research assistant and project manager for the McDonald Agape Nicaea Project at St. Mellitus College. He earned a PhD in New Testament at King’s College in London, England. The topic of this bonus episode is Christian passivism.

Maybe said another way, we’re asking ourselves, does God reveal himself in the person and work of Jesus Christ to be a nonviolent God? And if so, what are the implications for followers of Christ? Let me say from the start, I know this is a controversial topic, which Christians have disagreed about and will continue to be in disagreement about — sometimes vehemently. You may find yourself pushing back on the content of this discussion, and that’s okay.

But let’s grapple with it together. I believe it’s important for mature Christians to listen and reason with theological impulse of those who embrace nonviolence as a way of God.

Grace Communion International is the denominational sponsor of the Gospel Reverb podcast. And by hosting this conversation, GCI is not endorsing Christian passivism. Full stop. And yet, as your host, I’m grateful to be a part of a denominational home willing to have challenging conversations like this one.

Now that we have that introduction behind us, let’s welcome our guest. Jared is joining Gospel Reverb podcast for the second time. So, welcome back, and I so thoroughly enjoyed our first conversation.

So, Jared, how are you doing these days?

[00:02:33] Jared: Oh, thanks so much for having me back. I really enjoyed our first conversation, so I was excited to get an invitation to come and talk a bit more. Yeah, thank you. It’s been a cold, cloudy England as you might expect. But the days are beginning to get a bit longer.

So, joy and hope are on the up and up here.

[00:02:53] Anthony: Joy and hope it is. And I hope you had a wonderful holiday season. This episode is going to come out in the first quarter of the year. And this is an important conversation for us to have.

And you and I, offline, talked a little bit about labels, and Christian pacifism can be a label.

So, I think it’s important when we define something as to say, okay, what is it? But also, what is it not? And Jared, what are some of the common misconceptions about Christian pacifism?

[00:03:23] Jared: Yeah. So, I guess just to start, it’s important to clarify that this is Christian pacifism. There is just pacifism, and it could just be a general abstinence from violence.

And this is not that. This is a view that is an attempt to follow Jesus, to follow his ways and his teaching. And then as a result, you wind up being nonviolent. So, it’s a devotion to Christ that then as a byproduct ends up being a pacifist.

That’s a bit of an early clarification in terms of what we mean by Christian pacifist. There are definitely many varieties and expressions of this, as there are with most views and stances.

The term pacifist comes from the Latin pax, which is “peace” and the second word, “doing.” So, it originally meant “peace doing,” which is an active concept. And that speaks to probably one of the biggest misconceptions about pacifism. It unfortunately sounds a bit like “passive,” although it’s spelled differently.

So, this is a common misconception that passivism means being passive. It means “doing.” And sure, there may be some pacifists who are passive, but I would argue that’s not a fair representation of Christian pacifism in as much as we think Christ was passive. To address that thought that if you’re not violent, you’re passive, it’s quite a revealing notion. It shows that our imaginations can be a bit limited when we think, well, if we’re not violent, we’re doing nothing. And that’s certainly not the case.

So, just to say what it is, I would say it’s a brave and active lifestyle. It is active in the sense that it resists evil. It resists the sword. It pursues justice. It loves the friend and the enemy. And in doing all of the above, it actively lays down its life.

So, I like to think of the image of the good Samaritan, sometimes to help make sense of pacifism. Some imagine Christian pacifist as the Levite and the priest who passed the injured person on the road and in their moral purity, they’re unable to get their hands dirty with blood.

So, if that person that’s injured represents a violent conflict, it’s like we can’t do that. So, we avoid conflict because we have this ethical standard that keeps us from doing that. So, we skirt to the side of the road when other people have to get the real stuff done.

But rather I would say that the Christian pacifist is the one who stops gets down with the injured party. Puts their own life at risk and their resources by doing so. In short, I’d say it’s an attempt to engage with and to overcome evil without attempting to achieve it via the sword.

[00:07:01] Anthony: Well said. So, I’m curious how and where from the New Testament, does one draw a nonviolent ethic?

[00:07:12] Jared: Wow. Well for me, I guess once you’re open to the possibility that this is a natural result of following Christ, it’s been my experience that you then can’t unsee it dominating the New Testament.

I’ve found that the question can be a bit more easily flipped on its head. Rather than: what New Testament evidence is there for not killing your enemies? You could almost more easily ask, what New Testament evidence is there for killing your enemies? But it’s still a very good question.

So, let’s do look at what evidence there is for nonviolence. As I said, there’s a lot so I won’t go on and on, in case Anthony is afraid he’s going to read Matthew 1 through the end of Revelation. But just to flag a few.

Predictably, it’s probably a great place to start in one of the most famous pieces of text, Matthew 5 to 7 the Sermon on the Mount. So, he begins his sermon on the kingdom with a list of types of people who are blessed. So, in a conflict, going through this list of “blessed are this person, this person,” when you think in terms of a conflict, it’s really no mystery on which side of the sword Jesus envisions his community.

So, he sees them as the peacemakers, those who are mourning, those who are merciful, those who are meek, those who are persecuted. So, you see, okay, he’s anticipating the people in the kingdom are going to be intense situations where there’s conflict. And he lists those who are blessed and it’s all those who are persecuted and those who are mourning and those who are meek and those who were merciful.

So, it starts off with a real bang there. And then when you get deeper into chapter 5 — very famous — verses 38 and 39, “You’ve heard it said an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, but I say, do not resist an evildoer.” That’s a big line.

And then he goes on. “But if anyone strikes you in the right cheek, turn the other also.” And he gives some subversive examples that we can sink our teeth into. He then says a bit later, “You have heard it said, you shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy, but I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven.”

And he says some powerful stuff there, which I won’t get into now, but basically, he says, this is what God does, and you can look at the weather, the rain, and the sunshine and how it doesn’t really favor anyone. This is how he loves his enemies. So, if you want to look like God, you do this too. You love everyone. So, that’s really powerful at the end of chapter 5.

Matthew 26, in a heroic effort to save Jesus from arrest, Peter jumps in and swings his sword and cuts off the ear of the high priest’s slave. And after telling him to put away his sword, Jesus issues a really powerful proverb on violence.

And he says, first of all, “Put that away.” And then he says, “All who take the sword will die by the sword or who live by it, will die by it,” depending on your translation. So, that’s a real key moment in the gospel in terms of one of the main moments of conflict and power meeting power. And Jesus utters that statement about the sword.

John 18:36, as Jesus stood before Pilate, he’s questioned on being handed over and called King of the Jews. And he says something really enlightening about his followers. He says, “hey, my kingdom doesn’t belong to this world. If it did, if my kingdom did belong to this world, my followers would be fighting to keep me from being handed over. But as it is, my kingdom isn’t from here. So, we don’t organize and grab swords and fight in this way to protect our king. Because my kingdom isn’t from this place, we do things differently.” [paraphrased]

Lastly, I’ll just turn to Paul — as I’m a Pauline guy, I’ve got touch on Paul here. So, for Paul, he spends time reflecting on his past, and in a couple of places in his letters, he specifically reflects on being a violent man in his past. And then, of course, in this apocalyptic event, he meets Jesus.

And what I’ve always found interesting is rather than keeping the sword but now fighting for Jesus and saying, “Oh, I was pointed in the wrong direction, but I’m turning this way and now let’s rally the troops and fight for the slain Lamb,” instead of doing that, he immediately becomes a nonviolent martyr, begins to boast in his sufferings, and he boasts in his weakness.

So, he takes on the cruciformity of his leader. So, we really see that tangible shift in the testimony and in the life of Paul.

So, there’s so much New Testament textual data, I think, to support the idea of peaceful, enemy love. One of the ways I’ve started asking this, when I’ve discussed it with people, is if we’re to wipe the slate clean and pretend Jesus didn’t really say or teach or do anything, what would Jesus have to do or say to communicate that we aren’t supposed to kill our enemies, if we needed to just think, “what would he need to do and say?” And I think you end up realizing he did command it, and then he demonstrated it. And then we see his followers, directly after him, doing the same thing.

So, I’d say there’s a lot of reasons to find it in the New Testament.

[00:13:38] Anthony: And thinking that through, Jesus often said, ‘Well, you’ve heard it’s been said, or it’s been told, and, but I tell you, the truth …”

This is going to help frame what I’m going to ask you next, because for somebody that maybe takes a different posture on this topic, they’re going, okay, Jared, you got some New Testament reference. Good job. But what about all the violence in the Old Testament? Or you’ve got to teach the whole Bible, right?

So, I know that is a common pushback. So, what say you about that violence? What we might label as “divine violence” of the Old Testament.

[00:14:18] Jared: Yes, yes. I mean, this is a question we should be asking. It’s a very important one, and I think if we don’t notice a tension here between the message on divine violence in the Old Testament and then what we see in the New, if we don’t notice a tension here, in my view, I don’t think we’re being completely honest with ourselves. Not to say that if you don’t see a tension, you’re being dishonest. But I think when you read the New Testament, and you read the Sermon on the Mount, and you follow the life of Jesus, and then you read some of these Old Testament stories, I think you just do sense some real tension there.

So, this is a question, I think, a lot of us came to. Whether it was in a course in our undergrad or in sermons in church or just reading the Bible on our own, I think many of us do come across this. So, I’ll give obviously a very short answer because this is not a 10-hour podcast. I know. I think we would lose everyone.

But I mean, just to say, there’s so much here that I’m going to acknowledge from the go that my — I won’t even say “answer” — my next statements will be unsatisfactory because I taught a course in Germany on this, and it was like 15 lectures.

And even then, it was just broad overviews of different views and things, so there’s really so much that could be explored here. But I’ll just say a few general things.

Now, I won’t repeat all the content I went through when you had me on the podcast to talk about Hebrews but to link those two at the beginning of Hebrews and John, both of those biblical authors tell us some pretty massive things about Jesus and how to understand him.

So, these authors basically say that God has spoken to us through various mediums over time, but now he speaks to us most clearly and most definitively through his son, Jesus Christ who was close to his heart and has made him known. The New Testament is pretty explicit about Jesus being the definitive self-revelation of the Father.

Yes, there have been revelations. There have been words and prophecies, and these are all valuable. And they aren’t rendered null at all. However, there’s a bit of a mic drop in the Incarnation when the Father reveals himself through the Son by the Spirit.

This is meant to be the ultimate revelation of himself, and so most people would say, yes and amen. But the obvious byproduct of this is that other revelations then must be deemed less definitive. If you have one that is the definitive one, then others have to be less definitive. And one way I like to say it is that Jesus is the highest resolution image of God that we have.

Therefore, other images in comparison to Jesus are going to, by nature, have varying levels of blurriness to them. So, I think it’s our hermeneutical responsibility, as followers of Jesus, to then make sure that we base our notions of God in his self-revelation in Christ.

So, once we have the character and heart of God now solidified in Christ, the cement has dried on “here’s what God is like,” then and only then, are we free (and I’d say safe) to begin to read other revelations of God and read the Old Testament stories once we know for sure with certainty that Jesus shows us what he’s like. Because it’s a critical piece. We can’t then read Jesus, read the Sermon on the Mount, read the cross, read these letters, and then doubt that because of what we read in Genesis or Exodus or Leviticus and say, “Sure, Jesus commands this, but Exodus says this and this.”

There is a necessary order in terms of interpretation, and Jesus shows us that. It doesn’t cancel out the other revelations at all, but it does set the record straight of what to do when there appear to be opposing ideas. There is a hermeneutical order and a method to it.

[00:19:18] Anthony: Well said.

[00:19:19] Jared: Yeah, so. I won’t get very specific, but when it comes to Old Testament divine violence, there are some really great interpretive theories out there. I haven’t developed any original ones of my own. I’m just eating off of everyone else’s table. But we can go back to Origen, if we want the church father and in light of the revelation of Christ, he reads some of the extreme violence in the Old Testament, and he reads those as allegory. He says, “Now that I’ve seen Jesus, I read Joshua.” And he spiritualizes the stories to draw principles for the Christian life now.

And he wasn’t really concerned with, Oh, no, but does that mean this happened exactly this way? The historicity questions are more of a modern thing. And he was just more focused on, all right, well, Jesus has shown us this; so, how can I still read this scripture and get value from stories where there’s intense violence?

There are other contemporary views and readings I can think of one like Greg Boyd. He sees these stories as cruciform images where he points to the cross and says, hey, on the cross, God was willing to take on our ugliness. And he was willing to appear as a criminal for our sakes. And this wasn’t just a onetime moment. This was what God has always been willing to do, and he has always done. So, he’s been willing to take on our ugliness through stories throughout history, to look criminal, to look violent, to look these ways to accommodate and to love and to be with us in this journey. [paraphrased]

So, there’s Boyd, which many people don’t like that. Many people do like it, but it’s just an example that there are lots of views on how to best understand the Old Testament. But the key is the guiding principle, which is you need to keep your feet firmly planted on what on God’s self-revelation in Christ And from that point, if you have question marks, you don’t place them on stories of Jesus. If you have question marks, you place them in the other stories, because we have certainty about what God is like through his self-revelation in Christ.

[00:21:49] Anthony: I’m just curious, and I know this is off the hand, but if people were looking for resources, books to read that further their study on how to rightly interpret hermeneutically the Old Testament in light of Jesus, do you have any? One or two recommendations, Jared, that people could dive into.

[00:22:12] Jared: Yeah. Let me think. So, one of the things I’ve done in a course was I pit two different contemporary views on Old Testament violence against each other. And these guys have talked on a podcast before, and they’ve had some great discussions. And it’s all friendly.

And I have [the students] read these two opposing views, and that’s a great mental exercise, I think. So, the Boyd one I referenced. There’s either the big two-volume version, if you’re really committed. It’s called Crucifixion of the Warrior God. And again, that’s two volumes. It’s quite a big read.

He has then come out with a popular level book, I think called Cross Vision, again by Greg Boyd, that I think is a nutshell of the two-volume book.

But on the other side of things, someone who is skeptical of Boyd’s view but is also a serious biblical scholar, is a book by Matthew Lynch called Flood and Fury. And he tries to reread the most violent pieces, which is the flood and then, some of the pieces from the Canaanite genocide, and then says, how do we read these in light of what we know to be true about a loving God?

So, those are two books that I think could be useful if you wanted to have a bit of a spectrum there.

[00:23:50] Anthony: Yeah, that’s excellent. Thank you for that. We’ll put those two works or three works, if you will, including the double set in the show notes.

And I want to go back. You mentioned you’re a Pauline guy. So, let’s go back to Paul for a moment. What would you say about a pericope like Romans 13:1-7? And if you’ll accommodate me for just a moment. I want to read it, so our listeners have the context of what it says. It says,

Everyone must submit to governing authorities. For all authority comes from God, and those in positions of authority have been placed there by God. 2 So anyone who rebels against authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and they will be punished. 3 For the authorities do not strike fear in people who are doing right, but in those who are doing wrong. Would you like to live without fear of the authorities? Do what is right, and they will honor you. 4 The authorities are God’s servants, sent for your good. But if you are doing wrong, of course you should be afraid, for they have the power to punish you. They are God’s servants, sent for the very purpose of punishing those who do what is wrong. 5 So you must submit to them, not only to avoid punishment, but also to keep a clear conscience.

6 Pay your taxes, too, for these same reasons. For government workers need to be paid. They are serving God in what they do. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: Pay your taxes and government fees to those who collect them, and give respect and honor to those who are in authority.

In light of that, what would you say about this passage?

[00:25:21] Jared: Well, I wish Paul hadn’t written that last bit about taxes.

[00:25:28] Anthony: That’s one we get all agreement on. Well done. Universal agreement from the audience.

[00:25:33] Jared: Yeah. No, I’m really glad you’ve raised this text because if there is a text that is most commonly used for just war theory in the New Testament, it’s this one. And “just war theory” is, in short, people setting up a set of criteria for what makes war just. And the idea is that war obviously isn’t good inherently, and it shouldn’t happen; there are certain things that ultimately would make it the just choice.

So, this is a text that’s used quite commonly for that one. This text has been used by nations across the world for years and years. It’s an interesting fact that both the Nazis and the Allies used Romans 13 to get their nation’s support for the war.

Now some of the issues with people citing Romans 13:1–7, as an argument for why national war violence is justified is that they don’t read in Romans the eight preceding verses. So, Romans 12:14–21, Paul says starting in verse 14:

14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. 15 Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. 16 Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited.

17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19 Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. 20 On the contrary:

“If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”

And the final verse before you get to chapter 13 is

21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

And it’s not funny, but there is some irony that when this pericope is cited there. No one’s ever going to cite the seven verses prior because it doesn’t tend to strengthen your argument for national violence, but even though it is a …

[00:28:23] Anthony: It is a letter with continuous thought, right? Paul doesn’t just stop at a chapter heading to rethink it. No, it’s a continuous thought

[00:28:33] Jared: Exactly and so, the thought would be that in chapter 12 in 14–21, he tells the church, he tells kingdom people how they’re supposed to respond to enemies.

So, bless your persecutors, live in harmony with people, do not repay anyone evil for evil. Live peaceably with all, never avenge yourself, feed your enemies if they’re hungry. Give your enemies something to drink if they’re thirsty; do not respond to evil with evil but overcome it with good. This is how the community of Jesus overcomes evil. It’s with good.

And then when you get into chapter 13, it’s all right, the state will overcome evil with the sword.

Now there are a couple of words to draw out here. Paul uses the Greek word tasso which is often translated as established, ordained, or instituted. Right. So, it says there’s no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been “tassoed” by God. They’ve been put in place. And you can almost imagine with that word, world leaders standing before God and God lays his sword on their shoulder and appoints them. But this raises issues.

I won’t even start listing infamous world leaders of the past who we don’t like to imagine God appointing or putting in place. But some have helpfully pointed out that this term can have the connotation of filing something, like books. So, the view here would be that God isn’t creating governments to be violent; it’s more so that he finds them to be violent. Governments are going to do what governments are going to do.

But Paul is saying, God is at work in these governments as best he can to bring about order and to help curb sin, et cetera. So, God isn’t using the sword, but as this is something that governments will use. It may be that God will steer it in the direction of justice at times.

So, in the same way, God delivered his Son (and he was in the Son) the Son was delivered over to the powers of darkness and baited death in the grave into swallowing Jesus and being destroyed from the inside out, God is still working to bring about good from evil in the world. So, evil will continue to do its thing.

Nations will continue to use the sword. I mean, they must in a world like this. So, God’s going to organize things for the best good to come out of evil. So, that’s, I think, a key word there, tasso.

And if I could maybe just unpack one more word. “Let every person be — and it’s hupotasso, which is to be subject to the governing authorities — for there was no authority except from God.” And the idea when people read this word, “let everyone be subject” is like, hey, if my government says you’ve got to go do this, well, Paul tells me in Romans 13, I must be subject to them.

So, there’s this idea of absolute obedience there. The trick is there are many Greek words out there that Paul has for obedience. And he doesn’t use them here. Something that a good friend of mine — he’s a political theologian, Stephen Backhouse, he says about Romans 13. He wrote an article on it in conversation with J.H. Yoder and others, he says, “Paul’s command is not for Christians to obey but to humbly submit to the authorities. The one who refuses to fight for Caesar but who still allows Caesar to punish him has been disobedient but has remained subordinate.”

So, rather than obeying every whim of an evil empire, submission means that Christians will be at odds with their nation, but they can peaceably accept persecution there. This is a way of them not revolting and fighting back. But we mirror the path of Christ and his response to Rome.

[00:33:16] Anthony: As I’m listening to you, Jared — and by the way, just the generosity of which you speak is appealing to me. And I’m wishing it was a 10-hour podcast so we could go further because it feels like we’re just barely scratching the itch and there’s so much more to get to. But that’s well said.

And as we’ve already alluded to, the label Christian pacifism, a nonviolent ethic, those can be fighting words (pun intended) for Christians. So, I’m curious, what would you say to Christ followers who are currently in the military or police, where violent acts can not only be a way of life, or the potential of violence be right around the corner? To those who love God but are actively serving in these capacities? What would you say to them?

[00:34:15] Jared: Yeah, great question, Anthony. To begin, I wouldn’t ever want to issue a statement in broad generalities. Here’s what I’ll say to every soldier and every police officer because everyone’s story and everyone’s journey and everyone’s intentions and everyone’s process is very unique.

There just simply are corrupt people who do great evils in the military and the police force. And then there are kind-hearted, lovely, merciful peacemakers who are followers of Jesus in the military and the police force. And that’s just a fact. I do know of people in the force who are on the journey.

And I’ve had some lovely interactions online with a few of them. Just honestly, some people who’ve really impacted me with anecdotes they’ve sent me of being on the force but dabbling in this idea of Christian pacifism and loving their enemies. They’ve been so kind to let me into their process. They’ve been exploring what it looks like to follow the way of Christ and serve in these capacities. And they’ve fed me a couple of cruciform anecdotes of how they can, creatively de-escalate situations, stopping violence from occurring and things like that.

And again, my view would just be that wherever someone is, whether they’re considering military or police, or whether they’re already in it or whether on the outside of it, I just think we need to be looking at Jesus and trying to be more like him. So, always moving in that direction and just going, whatever line of work I’m in — I mean, goodness, if you’re someone who rejects violence, but you’re working for a corporation that’s destroying the planet?

Few people can point fingers at others because of the issues in the world and systemic sin and we’re all interconnected in the various fields, in the ways we consume things and harm others around the world that we don’t even know. So just to say, I think all of us just have the responsibility to try and take steps to move closer and closer to the way of Christ. And if that means constantly, creatively looking for ways to reduce violence, then I tip my hat and say, well done; that’s great.

So, I think that’s the general approach I would take to people.

[00:37:05] Anthony: Yeah. That’s well said. And it made me think of a statement I read from Martin Luther King, and this was a while back, so I’m just going to loosely paraphrase it, but he talked about how there is the external physical violence. And we want to as much as possible avoid that, but there’s also the internal violence of the spirit So, we can refuse to shoot a man, but are we refusing to hate that man?

And just like you alluded to, whether it’s corporations doing harm and violence to the planets or other ways in which violence is perpetrated, this is where we all have to check ourselves internally. What are we about and how far does this ethic take us to look at what’s going on within us?

So, I’m curious, and I’m sure you get asked this a lot with the fact that you’re public about promoting Christian pacifism or a nonviolent God. Are there any circumstances that could arise where physical violence, in your mind, is justified and necessary?

[00:38:13] Jared: Again, a good question.

And yeah, it is a pretty common one because it’s valid and it’s fair. I think there’s a distinction I would want to make here. There’s an important difference between the question, when would I, Jared Neusch, be violent? And then, where do I get biblical justification from Jesus to kill my enemies?

To the latter, I haven’t found any yet. So, I don’t have a situation that I could outline and say, from following Jesus and looking at his life, I feel confident killing my enemy in situation X.

But when we talk about me, what I would do. I think I don’t know that I would always have the courage to choose enemy love. I hope that I would, but I don’t know that I would.

And I think that the situation people like to bring in — not out of any sort of bad place but understandably — they say, “You’ve got kids, and you’ve got a wife,” and things like that. And how and when would you be violent?

And I think it’s a great question. And no one knows unless you’re in a tough part of the world where you do know what you’ll do in tough situations. But I think it’s important to remember that violence is not — how do I word this? It’s not a predictable, sure thing. Let’s just say, oh, to protect person X, that’s when I would choose to be violent.

Violence inherently spirals, and it builds, and it often leads to more violence. So, choosing violence is not the backstop safe choice to protect the people you love or something like that. Often violence begets violence. It’s not a sure thing. So, I don’t have that as a, okay, this is the cheat code that I would use in situation X.

To me, it’s as much, if not more, of a risk than loving your enemy. So, that would be a bit of an answer to that good question.

[00:40:53] Anthony: I think where we can settle is war is not the answer.

[00:40:58] Jared: Yeah.

[00:40:59] Anthony: It’s just not. I was recently watching a Ken Burns documentary on the Civil War here in the United States, and one on the Holocaust and — not exactly uplifting things to watch. But it just struck me again. It’s not like it was the first time, but it was just a powerful reminder. It’s not the answer.

And I know that people are in very violent places. And I think what you just said is a humble way of communicating it. We just don’t know what we would do in a circumstance. And if we’re facing it as a reality, we’re just thankful that the kingdom of God does not look like that. And it is the right side up kingdom, and the empires of this world stand in stark contrast to that. And I pray for people that are living in, with violence being a way of life. I just can’t imagine.

So, let’s get practical here, Jared, how does someone live out a nonviolent ethic as a follower of Jesus in the day to day? Like what does that look like to really, truly embrace this?

[00:42:16] Jared: Yeah. I do think about this, and I take this quite seriously that I am, just as you’ve alluded to, I’m public with this. And I am teaching this very radical message of Jesus, at least as I see it as his message.

And yet in that, I’m not someone who faces the risk of violence on a daily basis; it’s not lost on me that I’m in a comfortable position taking this view. So, that’s why I don’t communicate these principles to or at people in these tough violent situations. So, while I wouldn’t get online and post from the comfort of my home in cozy West Sussex that Ukraine shouldn’t defend themselves, and they should follow the way of Jesus. You’ll never see something like that from me, and I don’t think you should from anyone.

What I would do, and I do, is I criticize and hold to account the global superpower that I was born in. And should we be arming World leader X with more weapons? No. Should we be exercising capital punishment? No. Should we be arming our citizens with more and more guns to be safe against more and more guns? No, I don’t think so.

So, that tends to be where I point most of my energy is systems and people who are the oppressor and who are perpetuating violence rather than telling people on the receiving end, “You need to take up your cross and be more peaceful.”

You never want to be in that spot. So, I think living this out for me, one of the ways is speaking truth to major perpetuators of systems of violence in the world who also, and this is critical, who also claim to follow the way of Christ, saying, “We are Christians.” And then pushing forward war and supplying weapons and things like that. That’s a big problem. So, I really feel like that’s something I need to speak out against.

And then second, you mentioned practically. I think we just move more and more towards the ways of peacemaking and enemy love any time we can love people that are difficult to love. So, that is the smallest things. It can be buying a coffee for someone who’s having really bad temper in a store, or it can be just absolutely anything.

It doesn’t have to be that violence is involved, but what we’re trying to form in our heart is a love for all people and a love — it’s very easy to love your friends. Jesus tells us this. He says, I’m not impressed by that; even the tax collector and scribes, they do that. No big deal. What matters is, can you love your enemies?

That’s what sets us apart. Everyone can love their clique, their in group, their crowd. That’s no big deal. But what we want to be constantly trying to form in our heart is a love for all people, a love for our enemy. So, to me, it’s just looking for moments, whether it’s just internal or external, and you can practically do something trying to move towards love of these people.

Because it’s, it’s all the same currency when you’re loving someone. Some moments are pocket change of that currency, and you’re just doing something small. But in some moments, for some people, it may be paying in large bills, enemy love, and it’s costing your life or your job or something like that.

But I think just looking for moments, whether it’s with our words, our money, our actions to love those that are difficult to love, those who we don’t want to. So, that’s probably the most practical thing to try and foster on a day-to-day basis.

[00:46:46] Anthony: Jared, I live in Durham, North Carolina and Duke Divinity School is in my backyard. And we recently lost Richard Hays, a great New Testament scholar.

And I think I saw that you posted recently after his death that he was quite influential in your thought process about this subject. Is there a resource you could refer our audience to from Richard that might be beneficial to the reading?

[00:47:14] Jared: Oh, I’m so glad you asked. Yes. I don’t know if you can hear it in the audio, but I’m smiling as soon as you brought him up because wow, he is such an important figure. And it really made me sad to hear of his passing.

But there is a book that, if anyone doesn’t just like the Facebook comment thread debates on violence, but actually is in it for serious critical thinking discussions on Scripture, the way of Jesus and ethics, and wants to investigate: is this a message of the New Testament?

Is this a part of following Christ? There’s no book I can recommend more than Richard’s Hays book, The Moral Vision of the New Testament. I will warn listeners that on the spectrum of ultra popular level to really unapproachable academic work, it leans slightly more towards the academic side.

So, you really want to have your thinking cap on, and you want to be ready for some scholarly rigor. But he really goes through and shows you the moral vision of the New Testament and spoiler alert: it’s not violent. That’s not the only thing he uncovers, but it’s one of the main ones, and I found it to be a really helpful book.

[00:48:56] Anthony: Yeah, I have friends that studied under Richard Hays, and they just have such admiration, devotion, and his rigorous process of biblical scholarship is something they hold in high regard, so I think that’s going to be an excellent reference.

And one of the things I appreciate about you, Jared, as a New Testament scholar, you also tend to have a way of speaking that’s accessible to people and I think that’s really important. So, if someone’s listening to this podcast and thinks, man I really would like to dialogue a little bit more and maybe talk with Jared about this, would you be okay providing a way to get in contact with you, Jared?

[00:49:38] Jared: Yeah, of course. Probably one of the easiest ways is the way of social media right now. So, you can find me on Instagram just at Jared Neusch. And I try not to be on there too often because I want to have decent mental health. But it is a platform where people are talking and listening, so I do try and communicate on there at times.

So, that is one place you can find me, but also if you just Google me, you’ll see where I work, and I think it provides my work email as well. If you want to reach out like that, that’s totally fine. But I’m always up for good hearted conversation on this topic, I think it’s really important.

[00:50:34] Anthony: And for those of you that may not see his name in front of you, Jared’s first name is spelled J A R E D (D as in David), and his last name is spelled N (as in Nancy) E U S C H. And as he mentioned, you can find him on Insta or just Google his name.

And listeners, I wanted to leave you with food for thought from Charles Spurgeon, the great English preacher who said:

The Church of Christ is continually represented under the figure of an army; yet its Captain is the Prince of Peace; its object is the establishment of peace, and its soldiers are men of a peaceful disposition. The spirit of war is at the extremely opposite point to the spirit of the gospel.

Jared, I’m so grateful for you. Thank you for coming back. And I also want to thank our team of people who make this podcast possible, Reuel Enerio, Elizabeth Mullins, and Michelle Hartman. It’s so great to have a wonderful team of people to do this with.

Jared, thank you. Thank you. Thank you, sir. And it’s our custom to end with prayer. So, if you’re willing Jared, would you please pray for us?

[00:51:47] Jared: Sure. Well, first of all, thank you. It’s such a treat to be here and to have this conversation with you. But yeah, let me pray.

Jesus, thank you for this time to discuss the ways of how we overcome evil; how do we treat our enemies; what does it look like to follow the way of Jesus. I thank you for this crew that is doing this podcast for Anthony and the team and for all the good they’re doing. And I just pray for the team, myself, but also all the listeners just that your Spirit would continue to speak to us, to lead us, and ultimately form us into more mature disciples of you.

That’s the ultimate goal is to be formed by you, to look like you, and to follow you. So, I just ask this, and I thank you for this time. In your name, Amen.

[00:52:41] Anthony: Amen.

Thank you for being a guest of Gospel Reverb. If you like what you heard, give us a high rating, and review us on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcast content. Share this episode with a friend. It really does help us get the word out as we are just getting started. Join us next month for a new show and insights from the RCL. Until then, peace be with you!

Donate

 

Program Transcript

Jared Neusch—Christian Pacifism

Welcome to the Gospel Reverb podcast. Gospel Reverb is an audio gathering for preachers, teachers, and Bible thrill seekers. Each month, our host, Anthony Mullins, will interview a new guest to gain insights and preaching nuggets mined from select passages of Scripture in that month’s Revised Common Lectionary.

The podcast’s passion is to proclaim and boast in Jesus Christ, the One who reveals the heart of God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And now onto the episode.

Anthony: Hello, friends, and welcome to the Gospel Reverb podcast. This is a bonus episode covering a topic and material, which is a deviation from our normal episodes. As always, Gospel Reverb is a podcast devoted to bringing you insights and commentary from a Christ-centered and trinitarian view.

I’m your host, Anthony Mullins, and it’s my delight to welcome our guest, Dr. Jared Neusch. Jared is a research assistant and project manager for the McDonald Agape Nicaea Project at St. Mellitus College. He earned a PhD in New Testament at King’s College in London, England. The topic of this bonus episode is Christian passivism.

Maybe said another way, we’re asking ourselves, does God reveal himself in the person and work of Jesus Christ to be a nonviolent God? And if so, what are the implications for followers of Christ? Let me say from the start, I know this is a controversial topic, which Christians have disagreed about and will continue to be in disagreement about — sometimes vehemently. You may find yourself pushing back on the content of this discussion, and that’s okay.

But let’s grapple with it together. I believe it’s important for mature Christians to listen and reason with theological impulse of those who embrace nonviolence as a way of God.

Grace Communion International is the denominational sponsor of the Gospel Reverb podcast. And by hosting this conversation, GCI is not endorsing Christian passivism. Full stop. And yet, as your host, I’m grateful to be a part of a denominational home willing to have challenging conversations like this one.

Now that we have that introduction behind us, let’s welcome our guest. Jared is joining Gospel Reverb podcast for the second time. So, welcome back, and I so thoroughly enjoyed our first conversation.

So, Jared, how are you doing these days?

[00:02:33] Jared: Oh, thanks so much for having me back. I really enjoyed our first conversation, so I was excited to get an invitation to come and talk a bit more. Yeah, thank you. It’s been a cold, cloudy England as you might expect. But the days are beginning to get a bit longer.

So, joy and hope are on the up and up here.

[00:02:53] Anthony: Joy and hope it is. And I hope you had a wonderful holiday season. This episode is going to come out in the first quarter of the year. And this is an important conversation for us to have.

And you and I, offline, talked a little bit about labels, and Christian pacifism can be a label.

So, I think it’s important when we define something as to say, okay, what is it? But also, what is it not? And Jared, what are some of the common misconceptions about Christian pacifism?

[00:03:23] Jared: Yeah. So, I guess just to start, it’s important to clarify that this is Christian pacifism. There is just pacifism, and it could just be a general abstinence from violence.

And this is not that. This is a view that is an attempt to follow Jesus, to follow his ways and his teaching. And then as a result, you wind up being nonviolent. So, it’s a devotion to Christ that then as a byproduct ends up being a pacifist.

That’s a bit of an early clarification in terms of what we mean by Christian pacifist. There are definitely many varieties and expressions of this, as there are with most views and stances.

The term pacifist comes from the Latin pax, which is “peace” and the second word, “doing.” So, it originally meant “peace doing,” which is an active concept. And that speaks to probably one of the biggest misconceptions about pacifism. It unfortunately sounds a bit like “passive,” although it’s spelled differently.

So, this is a common misconception that passivism means being passive. It means “doing.” And sure, there may be some pacifists who are passive, but I would argue that’s not a fair representation of Christian pacifism in as much as we think Christ was passive. To address that thought that if you’re not violent, you’re passive, it’s quite a revealing notion. It shows that our imaginations can be a bit limited when we think, well, if we’re not violent, we’re doing nothing. And that’s certainly not the case.

So, just to say what it is, I would say it’s a brave and active lifestyle. It is active in the sense that it resists evil. It resists the sword. It pursues justice. It loves the friend and the enemy. And in doing all of the above, it actively lays down its life.

So, I like to think of the image of the good Samaritan, sometimes to help make sense of pacifism. Some imagine Christian pacifist as the Levite and the priest who passed the injured person on the road and in their moral purity, they’re unable to get their hands dirty with blood.

So, if that person that’s injured represents a violent conflict, it’s like we can’t do that. So, we avoid conflict because we have this ethical standard that keeps us from doing that. So, we skirt to the side of the road when other people have to get the real stuff done.

But rather I would say that the Christian pacifist is the one who stops gets down with the injured party. Puts their own life at risk and their resources by doing so. In short, I’d say it’s an attempt to engage with and to overcome evil without attempting to achieve it via the sword.

[00:07:01] Anthony: Well said. So, I’m curious how and where from the New Testament, does one draw a nonviolent ethic?

[00:07:12] Jared: Wow. Well for me, I guess once you’re open to the possibility that this is a natural result of following Christ, it’s been my experience that you then can’t unsee it dominating the New Testament.

I’ve found that the question can be a bit more easily flipped on its head. Rather than: what New Testament evidence is there for not killing your enemies? You could almost more easily ask, what New Testament evidence is there for killing your enemies? But it’s still a very good question.

So, let’s do look at what evidence there is for nonviolence. As I said, there’s a lot so I won’t go on and on, in case Anthony is afraid he’s going to read Matthew 1 through the end of Revelation. But just to flag a few.

Predictably, it’s probably a great place to start in one of the most famous pieces of text, Matthew 5 to 7 the Sermon on the Mount. So, he begins his sermon on the kingdom with a list of types of people who are blessed. So, in a conflict, going through this list of “blessed are this person, this person,” when you think in terms of a conflict, it’s really no mystery on which side of the sword Jesus envisions his community.

So, he sees them as the peacemakers, those who are mourning, those who are merciful, those who are meek, those who are persecuted. So, you see, okay, he’s anticipating the people in the kingdom are going to be intense situations where there’s conflict. And he lists those who are blessed and it’s all those who are persecuted and those who are mourning and those who are meek and those who were merciful.

So, it starts off with a real bang there. And then when you get deeper into chapter 5 — very famous — verses 38 and 39, “You’ve heard it said an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, but I say, do not resist an evildoer.” That’s a big line.

And then he goes on. “But if anyone strikes you in the right cheek, turn the other also.” And he gives some subversive examples that we can sink our teeth into. He then says a bit later, “You have heard it said, you shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy, but I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven.”

And he says some powerful stuff there, which I won’t get into now, but basically, he says, this is what God does, and you can look at the weather, the rain, and the sunshine and how it doesn’t really favor anyone. This is how he loves his enemies. So, if you want to look like God, you do this too. You love everyone. So, that’s really powerful at the end of chapter 5.

Matthew 26, in a heroic effort to save Jesus from arrest, Peter jumps in and swings his sword and cuts off the ear of the high priest’s slave. And after telling him to put away his sword, Jesus issues a really powerful proverb on violence.

And he says, first of all, “Put that away.” And then he says, “All who take the sword will die by the sword or who live by it, will die by it,” depending on your translation. So, that’s a real key moment in the gospel in terms of one of the main moments of conflict and power meeting power. And Jesus utters that statement about the sword.

John 18:36, as Jesus stood before Pilate, he’s questioned on being handed over and called King of the Jews. And he says something really enlightening about his followers. He says, “hey, my kingdom doesn’t belong to this world. If it did, if my kingdom did belong to this world, my followers would be fighting to keep me from being handed over. But as it is, my kingdom isn’t from here. So, we don’t organize and grab swords and fight in this way to protect our king. Because my kingdom isn’t from this place, we do things differently.” [paraphrased]

Lastly, I’ll just turn to Paul — as I’m a Pauline guy, I’ve got touch on Paul here. So, for Paul, he spends time reflecting on his past, and in a couple of places in his letters, he specifically reflects on being a violent man in his past. And then, of course, in this apocalyptic event, he meets Jesus.

And what I’ve always found interesting is rather than keeping the sword but now fighting for Jesus and saying, “Oh, I was pointed in the wrong direction, but I’m turning this way and now let’s rally the troops and fight for the slain Lamb,” instead of doing that, he immediately becomes a nonviolent martyr, begins to boast in his sufferings, and he boasts in his weakness.

So, he takes on the cruciformity of his leader. So, we really see that tangible shift in the testimony and in the life of Paul.

So, there’s so much New Testament textual data, I think, to support the idea of peaceful, enemy love. One of the ways I’ve started asking this, when I’ve discussed it with people, is if we’re to wipe the slate clean and pretend Jesus didn’t really say or teach or do anything, what would Jesus have to do or say to communicate that we aren’t supposed to kill our enemies, if we needed to just think, “what would he need to do and say?” And I think you end up realizing he did command it, and then he demonstrated it. And then we see his followers, directly after him, doing the same thing.

So, I’d say there’s a lot of reasons to find it in the New Testament.

[00:13:38] Anthony: And thinking that through, Jesus often said, ‘Well, you’ve heard it’s been said, or it’s been told, and, but I tell you, the truth …”

This is going to help frame what I’m going to ask you next, because for somebody that maybe takes a different posture on this topic, they’re going, okay, Jared, you got some New Testament reference. Good job. But what about all the violence in the Old Testament? Or you’ve got to teach the whole Bible, right?

So, I know that is a common pushback. So, what say you about that violence? What we might label as “divine violence” of the Old Testament.

[00:14:18] Jared: Yes, yes. I mean, this is a question we should be asking. It’s a very important one, and I think if we don’t notice a tension here between the message on divine violence in the Old Testament and then what we see in the New, if we don’t notice a tension here, in my view, I don’t think we’re being completely honest with ourselves. Not to say that if you don’t see a tension, you’re being dishonest. But I think when you read the New Testament, and you read the Sermon on the Mount, and you follow the life of Jesus, and then you read some of these Old Testament stories, I think you just do sense some real tension there.

So, this is a question, I think, a lot of us came to. Whether it was in a course in our undergrad or in sermons in church or just reading the Bible on our own, I think many of us do come across this. So, I’ll give obviously a very short answer because this is not a 10-hour podcast. I know. I think we would lose everyone.

But I mean, just to say, there’s so much here that I’m going to acknowledge from the go that my — I won’t even say “answer” — my next statements will be unsatisfactory because I taught a course in Germany on this, and it was like 15 lectures.

And even then, it was just broad overviews of different views and things, so there’s really so much that could be explored here. But I’ll just say a few general things.

Now, I won’t repeat all the content I went through when you had me on the podcast to talk about Hebrews but to link those two at the beginning of Hebrews and John, both of those biblical authors tell us some pretty massive things about Jesus and how to understand him.

So, these authors basically say that God has spoken to us through various mediums over time, but now he speaks to us most clearly and most definitively through his son, Jesus Christ who was close to his heart and has made him known. The New Testament is pretty explicit about Jesus being the definitive self-revelation of the Father.

Yes, there have been revelations. There have been words and prophecies, and these are all valuable. And they aren’t rendered null at all. However, there’s a bit of a mic drop in the Incarnation when the Father reveals himself through the Son by the Spirit.

This is meant to be the ultimate revelation of himself, and so most people would say, yes and amen. But the obvious byproduct of this is that other revelations then must be deemed less definitive. If you have one that is the definitive one, then others have to be less definitive. And one way I like to say it is that Jesus is the highest resolution image of God that we have.

Therefore, other images in comparison to Jesus are going to, by nature, have varying levels of blurriness to them. So, I think it’s our hermeneutical responsibility, as followers of Jesus, to then make sure that we base our notions of God in his self-revelation in Christ.

So, once we have the character and heart of God now solidified in Christ, the cement has dried on “here’s what God is like,” then and only then, are we free (and I’d say safe) to begin to read other revelations of God and read the Old Testament stories once we know for sure with certainty that Jesus shows us what he’s like. Because it’s a critical piece. We can’t then read Jesus, read the Sermon on the Mount, read the cross, read these letters, and then doubt that because of what we read in Genesis or Exodus or Leviticus and say, “Sure, Jesus commands this, but Exodus says this and this.”

There is a necessary order in terms of interpretation, and Jesus shows us that. It doesn’t cancel out the other revelations at all, but it does set the record straight of what to do when there appear to be opposing ideas. There is a hermeneutical order and a method to it.

[00:19:18] Anthony: Well said.

[00:19:19] Jared: Yeah, so. I won’t get very specific, but when it comes to Old Testament divine violence, there are some really great interpretive theories out there. I haven’t developed any original ones of my own. I’m just eating off of everyone else’s table. But we can go back to Origen, if we want the church father and in light of the revelation of Christ, he reads some of the extreme violence in the Old Testament, and he reads those as allegory. He says, “Now that I’ve seen Jesus, I read Joshua.” And he spiritualizes the stories to draw principles for the Christian life now.

And he wasn’t really concerned with, Oh, no, but does that mean this happened exactly this way? The historicity questions are more of a modern thing. And he was just more focused on, all right, well, Jesus has shown us this; so, how can I still read this scripture and get value from stories where there’s intense violence?

There are other contemporary views and readings I can think of one like Greg Boyd. He sees these stories as cruciform images where he points to the cross and says, hey, on the cross, God was willing to take on our ugliness. And he was willing to appear as a criminal for our sakes. And this wasn’t just a onetime moment. This was what God has always been willing to do, and he has always done. So, he’s been willing to take on our ugliness through stories throughout history, to look criminal, to look violent, to look these ways to accommodate and to love and to be with us in this journey. [paraphrased]

So, there’s Boyd, which many people don’t like that. Many people do like it, but it’s just an example that there are lots of views on how to best understand the Old Testament. But the key is the guiding principle, which is you need to keep your feet firmly planted on what on God’s self-revelation in Christ And from that point, if you have question marks, you don’t place them on stories of Jesus. If you have question marks, you place them in the other stories, because we have certainty about what God is like through his self-revelation in Christ.

[00:21:49] Anthony: I’m just curious, and I know this is off the hand, but if people were looking for resources, books to read that further their study on how to rightly interpret hermeneutically the Old Testament in light of Jesus, do you have any? One or two recommendations, Jared, that people could dive into.

[00:22:12] Jared: Yeah. Let me think. So, one of the things I’ve done in a course was I pit two different contemporary views on Old Testament violence against each other. And these guys have talked on a podcast before, and they’ve had some great discussions. And it’s all friendly.

And I have [the students] read these two opposing views, and that’s a great mental exercise, I think. So, the Boyd one I referenced. There’s either the big two-volume version, if you’re really committed. It’s called Crucifixion of the Warrior God. And again, that’s two volumes. It’s quite a big read.

He has then come out with a popular level book, I think called Cross Vision, again by Greg Boyd, that I think is a nutshell of the two-volume book.

But on the other side of things, someone who is skeptical of Boyd’s view but is also a serious biblical scholar, is a book by Matthew Lynch called Flood and Fury. And he tries to reread the most violent pieces, which is the flood and then, some of the pieces from the Canaanite genocide, and then says, how do we read these in light of what we know to be true about a loving God?

So, those are two books that I think could be useful if you wanted to have a bit of a spectrum there.

[00:23:50] Anthony: Yeah, that’s excellent. Thank you for that. We’ll put those two works or three works, if you will, including the double set in the show notes.

And I want to go back. You mentioned you’re a Pauline guy. So, let’s go back to Paul for a moment. What would you say about a pericope like Romans 13:1-7? And if you’ll accommodate me for just a moment. I want to read it, so our listeners have the context of what it says. It says,

Everyone must submit to governing authorities. For all authority comes from God, and those in positions of authority have been placed there by God. 2 So anyone who rebels against authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and they will be punished. 3 For the authorities do not strike fear in people who are doing right, but in those who are doing wrong. Would you like to live without fear of the authorities? Do what is right, and they will honor you. 4 The authorities are God’s servants, sent for your good. But if you are doing wrong, of course you should be afraid, for they have the power to punish you. They are God’s servants, sent for the very purpose of punishing those who do what is wrong. 5 So you must submit to them, not only to avoid punishment, but also to keep a clear conscience.

6 Pay your taxes, too, for these same reasons. For government workers need to be paid. They are serving God in what they do. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: Pay your taxes and government fees to those who collect them, and give respect and honor to those who are in authority.

In light of that, what would you say about this passage?

[00:25:21] Jared: Well, I wish Paul hadn’t written that last bit about taxes.

[00:25:28] Anthony: That’s one we get all agreement on. Well done. Universal agreement from the audience.

[00:25:33] Jared: Yeah. No, I’m really glad you’ve raised this text because if there is a text that is most commonly used for just war theory in the New Testament, it’s this one. And “just war theory” is, in short, people setting up a set of criteria for what makes war just. And the idea is that war obviously isn’t good inherently, and it shouldn’t happen; there are certain things that ultimately would make it the just choice.

So, this is a text that’s used quite commonly for that one. This text has been used by nations across the world for years and years. It’s an interesting fact that both the Nazis and the Allies used Romans 13 to get their nation’s support for the war.

Now some of the issues with people citing Romans 13:1–7, as an argument for why national war violence is justified is that they don’t read in Romans the eight preceding verses. So, Romans 12:14–21, Paul says starting in verse 14:

14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. 15 Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. 16 Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited.

17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19 Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. 20 On the contrary:

“If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”

And the final verse before you get to chapter 13 is

21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

And it’s not funny, but there is some irony that when this pericope is cited there. No one’s ever going to cite the seven verses prior because it doesn’t tend to strengthen your argument for national violence, but even though it is a …

[00:28:23] Anthony: It is a letter with continuous thought, right? Paul doesn’t just stop at a chapter heading to rethink it. No, it’s a continuous thought

[00:28:33] Jared: Exactly and so, the thought would be that in chapter 12 in 14–21, he tells the church, he tells kingdom people how they’re supposed to respond to enemies.

So, bless your persecutors, live in harmony with people, do not repay anyone evil for evil. Live peaceably with all, never avenge yourself, feed your enemies if they’re hungry. Give your enemies something to drink if they’re thirsty; do not respond to evil with evil but overcome it with good. This is how the community of Jesus overcomes evil. It’s with good.

And then when you get into chapter 13, it’s all right, the state will overcome evil with the sword.

Now there are a couple of words to draw out here. Paul uses the Greek word tasso which is often translated as established, ordained, or instituted. Right. So, it says there’s no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been “tassoed” by God. They’ve been put in place. And you can almost imagine with that word, world leaders standing before God and God lays his sword on their shoulder and appoints them. But this raises issues.

I won’t even start listing infamous world leaders of the past who we don’t like to imagine God appointing or putting in place. But some have helpfully pointed out that this term can have the connotation of filing something, like books. So, the view here would be that God isn’t creating governments to be violent; it’s more so that he finds them to be violent. Governments are going to do what governments are going to do.

But Paul is saying, God is at work in these governments as best he can to bring about order and to help curb sin, et cetera. So, God isn’t using the sword, but as this is something that governments will use. It may be that God will steer it in the direction of justice at times.

So, in the same way, God delivered his Son (and he was in the Son) the Son was delivered over to the powers of darkness and baited death in the grave into swallowing Jesus and being destroyed from the inside out, God is still working to bring about good from evil in the world. So, evil will continue to do its thing.

Nations will continue to use the sword. I mean, they must in a world like this. So, God’s going to organize things for the best good to come out of evil. So, that’s, I think, a key word there, tasso.

And if I could maybe just unpack one more word. “Let every person be — and it’s hupotasso, which is to be subject to the governing authorities — for there was no authority except from God.” And the idea when people read this word, “let everyone be subject” is like, hey, if my government says you’ve got to go do this, well, Paul tells me in Romans 13, I must be subject to them.

So, there’s this idea of absolute obedience there. The trick is there are many Greek words out there that Paul has for obedience. And he doesn’t use them here. Something that a good friend of mine — he’s a political theologian, Stephen Backhouse, he says about Romans 13. He wrote an article on it in conversation with J.H. Yoder and others, he says, “Paul’s command is not for Christians to obey but to humbly submit to the authorities. The one who refuses to fight for Caesar but who still allows Caesar to punish him has been disobedient but has remained subordinate.”

So, rather than obeying every whim of an evil empire, submission means that Christians will be at odds with their nation, but they can peaceably accept persecution there. This is a way of them not revolting and fighting back. But we mirror the path of Christ and his response to Rome.

[00:33:16] Anthony: As I’m listening to you, Jared — and by the way, just the generosity of which you speak is appealing to me. And I’m wishing it was a 10-hour podcast so we could go further because it feels like we’re just barely scratching the itch and there’s so much more to get to. But that’s well said.

And as we’ve already alluded to, the label Christian pacifism, a nonviolent ethic, those can be fighting words (pun intended) for Christians. So, I’m curious, what would you say to Christ followers who are currently in the military or police, where violent acts can not only be a way of life, or the potential of violence be right around the corner? To those who love God but are actively serving in these capacities? What would you say to them?

[00:34:15] Jared: Yeah, great question, Anthony. To begin, I wouldn’t ever want to issue a statement in broad generalities. Here’s what I’ll say to every soldier and every police officer because everyone’s story and everyone’s journey and everyone’s intentions and everyone’s process is very unique.

There just simply are corrupt people who do great evils in the military and the police force. And then there are kind-hearted, lovely, merciful peacemakers who are followers of Jesus in the military and the police force. And that’s just a fact. I do know of people in the force who are on the journey.

And I’ve had some lovely interactions online with a few of them. Just honestly, some people who’ve really impacted me with anecdotes they’ve sent me of being on the force but dabbling in this idea of Christian pacifism and loving their enemies. They’ve been so kind to let me into their process. They’ve been exploring what it looks like to follow the way of Christ and serve in these capacities. And they’ve fed me a couple of cruciform anecdotes of how they can, creatively de-escalate situations, stopping violence from occurring and things like that.

And again, my view would just be that wherever someone is, whether they’re considering military or police, or whether they’re already in it or whether on the outside of it, I just think we need to be looking at Jesus and trying to be more like him. So, always moving in that direction and just going, whatever line of work I’m in — I mean, goodness, if you’re someone who rejects violence, but you’re working for a corporation that’s destroying the planet?

Few people can point fingers at others because of the issues in the world and systemic sin and we’re all interconnected in the various fields, in the ways we consume things and harm others around the world that we don’t even know. So just to say, I think all of us just have the responsibility to try and take steps to move closer and closer to the way of Christ. And if that means constantly, creatively looking for ways to reduce violence, then I tip my hat and say, well done; that’s great.

So, I think that’s the general approach I would take to people.

[00:37:05] Anthony: Yeah. That’s well said. And it made me think of a statement I read from Martin Luther King, and this was a while back, so I’m just going to loosely paraphrase it, but he talked about how there is the external physical violence. And we want to as much as possible avoid that, but there’s also the internal violence of the spirit So, we can refuse to shoot a man, but are we refusing to hate that man?

And just like you alluded to, whether it’s corporations doing harm and violence to the planets or other ways in which violence is perpetrated, this is where we all have to check ourselves internally. What are we about and how far does this ethic take us to look at what’s going on within us?

So, I’m curious, and I’m sure you get asked this a lot with the fact that you’re public about promoting Christian pacifism or a nonviolent God. Are there any circumstances that could arise where physical violence, in your mind, is justified and necessary?

[00:38:13] Jared: Again, a good question.

And yeah, it is a pretty common one because it’s valid and it’s fair. I think there’s a distinction I would want to make here. There’s an important difference between the question, when would I, Jared Neusch, be violent? And then, where do I get biblical justification from Jesus to kill my enemies?

To the latter, I haven’t found any yet. So, I don’t have a situation that I could outline and say, from following Jesus and looking at his life, I feel confident killing my enemy in situation X.

But when we talk about me, what I would do. I think I don’t know that I would always have the courage to choose enemy love. I hope that I would, but I don’t know that I would.

And I think that the situation people like to bring in — not out of any sort of bad place but understandably — they say, “You’ve got kids, and you’ve got a wife,” and things like that. And how and when would you be violent?

And I think it’s a great question. And no one knows unless you’re in a tough part of the world where you do know what you’ll do in tough situations. But I think it’s important to remember that violence is not — how do I word this? It’s not a predictable, sure thing. Let’s just say, oh, to protect person X, that’s when I would choose to be violent.

Violence inherently spirals, and it builds, and it often leads to more violence. So, choosing violence is not the backstop safe choice to protect the people you love or something like that. Often violence begets violence. It’s not a sure thing. So, I don’t have that as a, okay, this is the cheat code that I would use in situation X.

To me, it’s as much, if not more, of a risk than loving your enemy. So, that would be a bit of an answer to that good question.

[00:40:53] Anthony: I think where we can settle is war is not the answer.

[00:40:58] Jared: Yeah.

[00:40:59] Anthony: It’s just not. I was recently watching a Ken Burns documentary on the Civil War here in the United States, and one on the Holocaust and — not exactly uplifting things to watch. But it just struck me again. It’s not like it was the first time, but it was just a powerful reminder. It’s not the answer.

And I know that people are in very violent places. And I think what you just said is a humble way of communicating it. We just don’t know what we would do in a circumstance. And if we’re facing it as a reality, we’re just thankful that the kingdom of God does not look like that. And it is the right side up kingdom, and the empires of this world stand in stark contrast to that. And I pray for people that are living in, with violence being a way of life. I just can’t imagine.

So, let’s get practical here, Jared, how does someone live out a nonviolent ethic as a follower of Jesus in the day to day? Like what does that look like to really, truly embrace this?

[00:42:16] Jared: Yeah. I do think about this, and I take this quite seriously that I am, just as you’ve alluded to, I’m public with this. And I am teaching this very radical message of Jesus, at least as I see it as his message.

And yet in that, I’m not someone who faces the risk of violence on a daily basis; it’s not lost on me that I’m in a comfortable position taking this view. So, that’s why I don’t communicate these principles to or at people in these tough violent situations. So, while I wouldn’t get online and post from the comfort of my home in cozy West Sussex that Ukraine shouldn’t defend themselves, and they should follow the way of Jesus. You’ll never see something like that from me, and I don’t think you should from anyone.

What I would do, and I do, is I criticize and hold to account the global superpower that I was born in. And should we be arming World leader X with more weapons? No. Should we be exercising capital punishment? No. Should we be arming our citizens with more and more guns to be safe against more and more guns? No, I don’t think so.

So, that tends to be where I point most of my energy is systems and people who are the oppressor and who are perpetuating violence rather than telling people on the receiving end, “You need to take up your cross and be more peaceful.”

You never want to be in that spot. So, I think living this out for me, one of the ways is speaking truth to major perpetuators of systems of violence in the world who also, and this is critical, who also claim to follow the way of Christ, saying, “We are Christians.” And then pushing forward war and supplying weapons and things like that. That’s a big problem. So, I really feel like that’s something I need to speak out against.

And then second, you mentioned practically. I think we just move more and more towards the ways of peacemaking and enemy love any time we can love people that are difficult to love. So, that is the smallest things. It can be buying a coffee for someone who’s having really bad temper in a store, or it can be just absolutely anything.

It doesn’t have to be that violence is involved, but what we’re trying to form in our heart is a love for all people and a love — it’s very easy to love your friends. Jesus tells us this. He says, I’m not impressed by that; even the tax collector and scribes, they do that. No big deal. What matters is, can you love your enemies?

That’s what sets us apart. Everyone can love their clique, their in group, their crowd. That’s no big deal. But what we want to be constantly trying to form in our heart is a love for all people, a love for our enemy. So, to me, it’s just looking for moments, whether it’s just internal or external, and you can practically do something trying to move towards love of these people.

Because it’s, it’s all the same currency when you’re loving someone. Some moments are pocket change of that currency, and you’re just doing something small. But in some moments, for some people, it may be paying in large bills, enemy love, and it’s costing your life or your job or something like that.

But I think just looking for moments, whether it’s with our words, our money, our actions to love those that are difficult to love, those who we don’t want to. So, that’s probably the most practical thing to try and foster on a day-to-day basis.

[00:46:46] Anthony: Jared, I live in Durham, North Carolina and Duke Divinity School is in my backyard. And we recently lost Richard Hays, a great New Testament scholar.

And I think I saw that you posted recently after his death that he was quite influential in your thought process about this subject. Is there a resource you could refer our audience to from Richard that might be beneficial to the reading?

[00:47:14] Jared: Oh, I’m so glad you asked. Yes. I don’t know if you can hear it in the audio, but I’m smiling as soon as you brought him up because wow, he is such an important figure. And it really made me sad to hear of his passing.

But there is a book that, if anyone doesn’t just like the Facebook comment thread debates on violence, but actually is in it for serious critical thinking discussions on Scripture, the way of Jesus and ethics, and wants to investigate: is this a message of the New Testament?

Is this a part of following Christ? There’s no book I can recommend more than Richard’s Hays book, The Moral Vision of the New Testament. I will warn listeners that on the spectrum of ultra popular level to really unapproachable academic work, it leans slightly more towards the academic side.

So, you really want to have your thinking cap on, and you want to be ready for some scholarly rigor. But he really goes through and shows you the moral vision of the New Testament and spoiler alert: it’s not violent. That’s not the only thing he uncovers, but it’s one of the main ones, and I found it to be a really helpful book.

[00:48:56] Anthony: Yeah, I have friends that studied under Richard Hays, and they just have such admiration, devotion, and his rigorous process of biblical scholarship is something they hold in high regard, so I think that’s going to be an excellent reference.

And one of the things I appreciate about you, Jared, as a New Testament scholar, you also tend to have a way of speaking that’s accessible to people and I think that’s really important. So, if someone’s listening to this podcast and thinks, man I really would like to dialogue a little bit more and maybe talk with Jared about this, would you be okay providing a way to get in contact with you, Jared?

[00:49:38] Jared: Yeah, of course. Probably one of the easiest ways is the way of social media right now. So, you can find me on Instagram just at Jared Neusch. And I try not to be on there too often because I want to have decent mental health. But it is a platform where people are talking and listening, so I do try and communicate on there at times.

So, that is one place you can find me, but also if you just Google me, you’ll see where I work, and I think it provides my work email as well. If you want to reach out like that, that’s totally fine. But I’m always up for good hearted conversation on this topic, I think it’s really important.

[00:50:34] Anthony: And for those of you that may not see his name in front of you, Jared’s first name is spelled J A R E D (D as in David), and his last name is spelled N (as in Nancy) E U S C H. And as he mentioned, you can find him on Insta or just Google his name.

And listeners, I wanted to leave you with food for thought from Charles Spurgeon, the great English preacher who said:

The Church of Christ is continually represented under the figure of an army; yet its Captain is the Prince of Peace; its object is the establishment of peace, and its soldiers are men of a peaceful disposition. The spirit of war is at the extremely opposite point to the spirit of the gospel.

Jared, I’m so grateful for you. Thank you for coming back. And I also want to thank our team of people who make this podcast possible, Reuel Enerio, Elizabeth Mullins, and Michelle Hartman. It’s so great to have a wonderful team of people to do this with.

Jared, thank you. Thank you. Thank you, sir. And it’s our custom to end with prayer. So, if you’re willing Jared, would you please pray for us?

[00:51:47] Jared: Sure. Well, first of all, thank you. It’s such a treat to be here and to have this conversation with you. But yeah, let me pray.

Jesus, thank you for this time to discuss the ways of how we overcome evil; how do we treat our enemies; what does it look like to follow the way of Jesus. I thank you for this crew that is doing this podcast for Anthony and the team and for all the good they’re doing. And I just pray for the team, myself, but also all the listeners just that your Spirit would continue to speak to us, to lead us, and ultimately form us into more mature disciples of you.

That’s the ultimate goal is to be formed by you, to look like you, and to follow you. So, I just ask this, and I thank you for this time. In your name, Amen.

[00:52:41] Anthony: Amen.

Thank you for being a guest of Gospel Reverb. If you like what you heard, give us a high rating, and review us on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcast content. Share this episode with a friend. It really does help us get the word out as we are just getting started. Join us next month for a new show and insights from the RCL. Until then, peace be with you!

Program Transcript

Jared Neusch—Christian Pacifism Welcome to the Gospel Reverb podcast. Gospel Reverb is an audio gathering for preachers, teachers, and Bible thrill seekers. Each month, our host, Anthony Mullins, will interview a new guest to gain insights and preaching nuggets mined from select passages of Scripture in that month's Revised Common Lectionary. The podcast’s passion is to proclaim and boast in Jesus Christ, the One who reveals the heart of God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And now onto the episode.
Anthony: Hello, friends, and welcome to the Gospel Reverb podcast. This is a bonus episode covering a topic and material, which is a deviation from our normal episodes. As always, Gospel Reverb is a podcast devoted to bringing you insights and commentary from a Christ-centered and trinitarian view. I'm your host, Anthony Mullins, and it's my delight to welcome our guest, Dr. Jared Neusch. Jared is a research assistant and project manager for the McDonald Agape Nicaea Project at St. Mellitus College. He earned a PhD in New Testament at King's College in London, England. The topic of this bonus episode is Christian passivism. Maybe said another way, we're asking ourselves, does God reveal himself in the person and work of Jesus Christ to be a nonviolent God? And if so, what are the implications for followers of Christ? Let me say from the start, I know this is a controversial topic, which Christians have disagreed about and will continue to be in disagreement about — sometimes vehemently. You may find yourself pushing back on the content of this discussion, and that's okay. But let's grapple with it together. I believe it's important for mature Christians to listen and reason with theological impulse of those who embrace nonviolence as a way of God. Grace Communion International is the denominational sponsor of the Gospel Reverb podcast. And by hosting this conversation, GCI is not endorsing Christian passivism. Full stop. And yet, as your host, I'm grateful to be a part of a denominational home willing to have challenging conversations like this one. Now that we have that introduction behind us, let's welcome our guest. Jared is joining Gospel Reverb podcast for the second time. So, welcome back, and I so thoroughly enjoyed our first conversation. So, Jared, how are you doing these days? [00:02:33] Jared: Oh, thanks so much for having me back. I really enjoyed our first conversation, so I was excited to get an invitation to come and talk a bit more. Yeah, thank you. It's been a cold, cloudy England as you might expect. But the days are beginning to get a bit longer. So, joy and hope are on the up and up here. [00:02:53] Anthony: Joy and hope it is. And I hope you had a wonderful holiday season. This episode is going to come out in the first quarter of the year. And this is an important conversation for us to have. And you and I, offline, talked a little bit about labels, and Christian pacifism can be a label. So, I think it's important when we define something as to say, okay, what is it? But also, what is it not? And Jared, what are some of the common misconceptions about Christian pacifism? [00:03:23] Jared: Yeah. So, I guess just to start, it's important to clarify that this is Christian pacifism. There is just pacifism, and it could just be a general abstinence from violence. And this is not that. This is a view that is an attempt to follow Jesus, to follow his ways and his teaching. And then as a result, you wind up being nonviolent. So, it's a devotion to Christ that then as a byproduct ends up being a pacifist. That's a bit of an early clarification in terms of what we mean by Christian pacifist. There are definitely many varieties and expressions of this, as there are with most views and stances. The term pacifist comes from the Latin pax, which is “peace” and the second word, “doing.” So, it originally meant “peace doing,” which is an active concept. And that speaks to probably one of the biggest misconceptions about pacifism. It unfortunately sounds a bit like “passive,” although it's spelled differently. So, this is a common misconception that passivism means being passive. It means “doing.” And sure, there may be some pacifists who are passive, but I would argue that's not a fair representation of Christian pacifism in as much as we think Christ was passive. To address that thought that if you're not violent, you're passive, it's quite a revealing notion. It shows that our imaginations can be a bit limited when we think, well, if we're not violent, we're doing nothing. And that's certainly not the case. So, just to say what it is, I would say it's a brave and active lifestyle. It is active in the sense that it resists evil. It resists the sword. It pursues justice. It loves the friend and the enemy. And in doing all of the above, it actively lays down its life. So, I like to think of the image of the good Samaritan, sometimes to help make sense of pacifism. Some imagine Christian pacifist as the Levite and the priest who passed the injured person on the road and in their moral purity, they're unable to get their hands dirty with blood. So, if that person that's injured represents a violent conflict, it's like we can't do that. So, we avoid conflict because we have this ethical standard that keeps us from doing that. So, we skirt to the side of the road when other people have to get the real stuff done. But rather I would say that the Christian pacifist is the one who stops gets down with the injured party. Puts their own life at risk and their resources by doing so. In short, I'd say it's an attempt to engage with and to overcome evil without attempting to achieve it via the sword. [00:07:01] Anthony: Well said. So, I'm curious how and where from the New Testament, does one draw a nonviolent ethic? [00:07:12] Jared: Wow. Well for me, I guess once you're open to the possibility that this is a natural result of following Christ, it's been my experience that you then can't unsee it dominating the New Testament. I've found that the question can be a bit more easily flipped on its head. Rather than: what New Testament evidence is there for not killing your enemies? You could almost more easily ask, what New Testament evidence is there for killing your enemies? But it's still a very good question. So, let's do look at what evidence there is for nonviolence. As I said, there's a lot so I won't go on and on, in case Anthony is afraid he's going to read Matthew 1 through the end of Revelation. But just to flag a few. Predictably, it's probably a great place to start in one of the most famous pieces of text, Matthew 5 to 7 the Sermon on the Mount. So, he begins his sermon on the kingdom with a list of types of people who are blessed. So, in a conflict, going through this list of “blessed are this person, this person,” when you think in terms of a conflict, it's really no mystery on which side of the sword Jesus envisions his community. So, he sees them as the peacemakers, those who are mourning, those who are merciful, those who are meek, those who are persecuted. So, you see, okay, he's anticipating the people in the kingdom are going to be intense situations where there's conflict. And he lists those who are blessed and it's all those who are persecuted and those who are mourning and those who are meek and those who were merciful. So, it starts off with a real bang there. And then when you get deeper into chapter 5 — very famous — verses 38 and 39, “You've heard it said an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, but I say, do not resist an evildoer.” That's a big line. And then he goes on. “But if anyone strikes you in the right cheek, turn the other also.” And he gives some subversive examples that we can sink our teeth into. He then says a bit later, “You have heard it said, you shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy, but I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven.” And he says some powerful stuff there, which I won't get into now, but basically, he says, this is what God does, and you can look at the weather, the rain, and the sunshine and how it doesn't really favor anyone. This is how he loves his enemies. So, if you want to look like God, you do this too. You love everyone. So, that's really powerful at the end of chapter 5. Matthew 26, in a heroic effort to save Jesus from arrest, Peter jumps in and swings his sword and cuts off the ear of the high priest’s slave. And after telling him to put away his sword, Jesus issues a really powerful proverb on violence. And he says, first of all, “Put that away.” And then he says, “All who take the sword will die by the sword or who live by it, will die by it,” depending on your translation. So, that's a real key moment in the gospel in terms of one of the main moments of conflict and power meeting power. And Jesus utters that statement about the sword. John 18:36, as Jesus stood before Pilate, he's questioned on being handed over and called King of the Jews. And he says something really enlightening about his followers. He says, “hey, my kingdom doesn't belong to this world. If it did, if my kingdom did belong to this world, my followers would be fighting to keep me from being handed over. But as it is, my kingdom isn't from here. So, we don't organize and grab swords and fight in this way to protect our king. Because my kingdom isn't from this place, we do things differently.” [paraphrased] Lastly, I'll just turn to Paul — as I'm a Pauline guy, I've got touch on Paul here. So, for Paul, he spends time reflecting on his past, and in a couple of places in his letters, he specifically reflects on being a violent man in his past. And then, of course, in this apocalyptic event, he meets Jesus. And what I've always found interesting is rather than keeping the sword but now fighting for Jesus and saying, “Oh, I was pointed in the wrong direction, but I'm turning this way and now let's rally the troops and fight for the slain Lamb,” instead of doing that, he immediately becomes a nonviolent martyr, begins to boast in his sufferings, and he boasts in his weakness. So, he takes on the cruciformity of his leader. So, we really see that tangible shift in the testimony and in the life of Paul. So, there's so much New Testament textual data, I think, to support the idea of peaceful, enemy love. One of the ways I've started asking this, when I've discussed it with people, is if we’re to wipe the slate clean and pretend Jesus didn't really say or teach or do anything, what would Jesus have to do or say to communicate that we aren't supposed to kill our enemies, if we needed to just think, “what would he need to do and say?” And I think you end up realizing he did command it, and then he demonstrated it. And then we see his followers, directly after him, doing the same thing. So, I'd say there's a lot of reasons to find it in the New Testament. [00:13:38] Anthony: And thinking that through, Jesus often said, ‘Well, you've heard it's been said, or it's been told, and, but I tell you, the truth …” This is going to help frame what I'm going to ask you next, because for somebody that maybe takes a different posture on this topic, they're going, okay, Jared, you got some New Testament reference. Good job. But what about all the violence in the Old Testament? Or you've got to teach the whole Bible, right? So, I know that is a common pushback. So, what say you about that violence? What we might label as “divine violence” of the Old Testament. [00:14:18] Jared: Yes, yes. I mean, this is a question we should be asking. It's a very important one, and I think if we don't notice a tension here between the message on divine violence in the Old Testament and then what we see in the New, if we don't notice a tension here, in my view, I don't think we're being completely honest with ourselves. Not to say that if you don't see a tension, you're being dishonest. But I think when you read the New Testament, and you read the Sermon on the Mount, and you follow the life of Jesus, and then you read some of these Old Testament stories, I think you just do sense some real tension there. So, this is a question, I think, a lot of us came to. Whether it was in a course in our undergrad or in sermons in church or just reading the Bible on our own, I think many of us do come across this. So, I'll give obviously a very short answer because this is not a 10-hour podcast. I know. I think we would lose everyone. But I mean, just to say, there's so much here that I'm going to acknowledge from the go that my — I won't even say “answer” — my next statements will be unsatisfactory because I taught a course in Germany on this, and it was like 15 lectures. And even then, it was just broad overviews of different views and things, so there's really so much that could be explored here. But I'll just say a few general things. Now, I won't repeat all the content I went through when you had me on the podcast to talk about Hebrews but to link those two at the beginning of Hebrews and John, both of those biblical authors tell us some pretty massive things about Jesus and how to understand him. So, these authors basically say that God has spoken to us through various mediums over time, but now he speaks to us most clearly and most definitively through his son, Jesus Christ who was close to his heart and has made him known. The New Testament is pretty explicit about Jesus being the definitive self-revelation of the Father. Yes, there have been revelations. There have been words and prophecies, and these are all valuable. And they aren't rendered null at all. However, there's a bit of a mic drop in the Incarnation when the Father reveals himself through the Son by the Spirit. This is meant to be the ultimate revelation of himself, and so most people would say, yes and amen. But the obvious byproduct of this is that other revelations then must be deemed less definitive. If you have one that is the definitive one, then others have to be less definitive. And one way I like to say it is that Jesus is the highest resolution image of God that we have. Therefore, other images in comparison to Jesus are going to, by nature, have varying levels of blurriness to them. So, I think it's our hermeneutical responsibility, as followers of Jesus, to then make sure that we base our notions of God in his self-revelation in Christ. So, once we have the character and heart of God now solidified in Christ, the cement has dried on “here's what God is like,” then and only then, are we free (and I'd say safe) to begin to read other revelations of God and read the Old Testament stories once we know for sure with certainty that Jesus shows us what he's like. Because it's a critical piece. We can't then read Jesus, read the Sermon on the Mount, read the cross, read these letters, and then doubt that because of what we read in Genesis or Exodus or Leviticus and say, “Sure, Jesus commands this, but Exodus says this and this.” There is a necessary order in terms of interpretation, and Jesus shows us that. It doesn't cancel out the other revelations at all, but it does set the record straight of what to do when there appear to be opposing ideas. There is a hermeneutical order and a method to it. [00:19:18] Anthony: Well said. [00:19:19] Jared: Yeah, so. I won't get very specific, but when it comes to Old Testament divine violence, there are some really great interpretive theories out there. I haven't developed any original ones of my own. I’m just eating off of everyone else's table. But we can go back to Origen, if we want the church father and in light of the revelation of Christ, he reads some of the extreme violence in the Old Testament, and he reads those as allegory. He says, “Now that I've seen Jesus, I read Joshua.” And he spiritualizes the stories to draw principles for the Christian life now. And he wasn't really concerned with, Oh, no, but does that mean this happened exactly this way? The historicity questions are more of a modern thing. And he was just more focused on, all right, well, Jesus has shown us this; so, how can I still read this scripture and get value from stories where there’s intense violence? There are other contemporary views and readings I can think of one like Greg Boyd. He sees these stories as cruciform images where he points to the cross and says, hey, on the cross, God was willing to take on our ugliness. And he was willing to appear as a criminal for our sakes. And this wasn't just a onetime moment. This was what God has always been willing to do, and he has always done. So, he's been willing to take on our ugliness through stories throughout history, to look criminal, to look violent, to look these ways to accommodate and to love and to be with us in this journey. [paraphrased] So, there's Boyd, which many people don't like that. Many people do like it, but it's just an example that there are lots of views on how to best understand the Old Testament. But the key is the guiding principle, which is you need to keep your feet firmly planted on what on God's self-revelation in Christ And from that point, if you have question marks, you don't place them on stories of Jesus. If you have question marks, you place them in the other stories, because we have certainty about what God is like through his self-revelation in Christ. [00:21:49] Anthony: I'm just curious, and I know this is off the hand, but if people were looking for resources, books to read that further their study on how to rightly interpret hermeneutically the Old Testament in light of Jesus, do you have any? One or two recommendations, Jared, that people could dive into. [00:22:12] Jared: Yeah. Let me think. So, one of the things I've done in a course was I pit two different contemporary views on Old Testament violence against each other. And these guys have talked on a podcast before, and they've had some great discussions. And it's all friendly. And I have [the students] read these two opposing views, and that's a great mental exercise, I think. So, the Boyd one I referenced. There's either the big two-volume version, if you're really committed. It's called Crucifixion of the Warrior God. And again, that's two volumes. It's quite a big read. He has then come out with a popular level book, I think called Cross Vision, again by Greg Boyd, that I think is a nutshell of the two-volume book. But on the other side of things, someone who is skeptical of Boyd's view but is also a serious biblical scholar, is a book by Matthew Lynch called Flood and Fury. And he tries to reread the most violent pieces, which is the flood and then, some of the pieces from the Canaanite genocide, and then says, how do we read these in light of what we know to be true about a loving God? So, those are two books that I think could be useful if you wanted to have a bit of a spectrum there. [00:23:50] Anthony: Yeah, that's excellent. Thank you for that. We'll put those two works or three works, if you will, including the double set in the show notes. And I want to go back. You mentioned you're a Pauline guy. So, let's go back to Paul for a moment. What would you say about a pericope like Romans 13:1-7? And if you'll accommodate me for just a moment. I want to read it, so our listeners have the context of what it says. It says,

Everyone must submit to governing authorities. For all authority comes from God, and those in positions of authority have been placed there by God. 2 So anyone who rebels against authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and they will be punished. 3 For the authorities do not strike fear in people who are doing right, but in those who are doing wrong. Would you like to live without fear of the authorities? Do what is right, and they will honor you. 4 The authorities are God’s servants, sent for your good. But if you are doing wrong, of course you should be afraid, for they have the power to punish you. They are God’s servants, sent for the very purpose of punishing those who do what is wrong. 5 So you must submit to them, not only to avoid punishment, but also to keep a clear conscience.

6 Pay your taxes, too, for these same reasons. For government workers need to be paid. They are serving God in what they do. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: Pay your taxes and government fees to those who collect them, and give respect and honor to those who are in authority.

In light of that, what would you say about this passage? [00:25:21] Jared: Well, I wish Paul hadn't written that last bit about taxes. [00:25:28] Anthony: That's one we get all agreement on. Well done. Universal agreement from the audience. [00:25:33] Jared: Yeah. No, I'm really glad you've raised this text because if there is a text that is most commonly used for just war theory in the New Testament, it's this one. And “just war theory” is, in short, people setting up a set of criteria for what makes war just. And the idea is that war obviously isn't good inherently, and it shouldn't happen; there are certain things that ultimately would make it the just choice. So, this is a text that's used quite commonly for that one. This text has been used by nations across the world for years and years. It's an interesting fact that both the Nazis and the Allies used Romans 13 to get their nation's support for the war. Now some of the issues with people citing Romans 13:1–7, as an argument for why national war violence is justified is that they don't read in Romans the eight preceding verses. So, Romans 12:14–21, Paul says starting in verse 14:

14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. 15 Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. 16 Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited.

17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19 Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. 20 On the contrary:

“If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”

And the final verse before you get to chapter 13 is

21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

And it’s not funny, but there is some irony that when this pericope is cited there. No one's ever going to cite the seven verses prior because it doesn't tend to strengthen your argument for national violence, but even though it is a … [00:28:23] Anthony: It is a letter with continuous thought, right? Paul doesn't just stop at a chapter heading to rethink it. No, it's a continuous thought [00:28:33] Jared: Exactly and so, the thought would be that in chapter 12 in 14–21, he tells the church, he tells kingdom people how they're supposed to respond to enemies. So, bless your persecutors, live in harmony with people, do not repay anyone evil for evil. Live peaceably with all, never avenge yourself, feed your enemies if they're hungry. Give your enemies something to drink if they're thirsty; do not respond to evil with evil but overcome it with good. This is how the community of Jesus overcomes evil. It's with good. And then when you get into chapter 13, it's all right, the state will overcome evil with the sword. Now there are a couple of words to draw out here. Paul uses the Greek word tasso which is often translated as established, ordained, or instituted. Right. So, it says there's no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been “tassoed” by God. They've been put in place. And you can almost imagine with that word, world leaders standing before God and God lays his sword on their shoulder and appoints them. But this raises issues. I won't even start listing infamous world leaders of the past who we don't like to imagine God appointing or putting in place. But some have helpfully pointed out that this term can have the connotation of filing something, like books. So, the view here would be that God isn't creating governments to be violent; it's more so that he finds them to be violent. Governments are going to do what governments are going to do. But Paul is saying, God is at work in these governments as best he can to bring about order and to help curb sin, et cetera. So, God isn't using the sword, but as this is something that governments will use. It may be that God will steer it in the direction of justice at times. So, in the same way, God delivered his Son (and he was in the Son) the Son was delivered over to the powers of darkness and baited death in the grave into swallowing Jesus and being destroyed from the inside out, God is still working to bring about good from evil in the world. So, evil will continue to do its thing. Nations will continue to use the sword. I mean, they must in a world like this. So, God's going to organize things for the best good to come out of evil. So, that's, I think, a key word there, tasso. And if I could maybe just unpack one more word. “Let every person be — and it's hupotasso, which is to be subject to the governing authorities — for there was no authority except from God.” And the idea when people read this word, “let everyone be subject” is like, hey, if my government says you've got to go do this, well, Paul tells me in Romans 13, I must be subject to them. So, there's this idea of absolute obedience there. The trick is there are many Greek words out there that Paul has for obedience. And he doesn't use them here. Something that a good friend of mine — he's a political theologian, Stephen Backhouse, he says about Romans 13. He wrote an article on it in conversation with J.H. Yoder and others, he says, “Paul’s command is not for Christians to obey but to humbly submit to the authorities. The one who refuses to fight for Caesar but who still allows Caesar to punish him has been disobedient but has remained subordinate.” So, rather than obeying every whim of an evil empire, submission means that Christians will be at odds with their nation, but they can peaceably accept persecution there. This is a way of them not revolting and fighting back. But we mirror the path of Christ and his response to Rome. [00:33:16] Anthony: As I'm listening to you, Jared — and by the way, just the generosity of which you speak is appealing to me. And I'm wishing it was a 10-hour podcast so we could go further because it feels like we're just barely scratching the itch and there's so much more to get to. But that's well said. And as we've already alluded to, the label Christian pacifism, a nonviolent ethic, those can be fighting words (pun intended) for Christians. So, I'm curious, what would you say to Christ followers who are currently in the military or police, where violent acts can not only be a way of life, or the potential of violence be right around the corner? To those who love God but are actively serving in these capacities? What would you say to them? [00:34:15] Jared: Yeah, great question, Anthony. To begin, I wouldn't ever want to issue a statement in broad generalities. Here's what I'll say to every soldier and every police officer because everyone's story and everyone's journey and everyone's intentions and everyone's process is very unique. There just simply are corrupt people who do great evils in the military and the police force. And then there are kind-hearted, lovely, merciful peacemakers who are followers of Jesus in the military and the police force. And that's just a fact. I do know of people in the force who are on the journey. And I've had some lovely interactions online with a few of them. Just honestly, some people who've really impacted me with anecdotes they've sent me of being on the force but dabbling in this idea of Christian pacifism and loving their enemies. They've been so kind to let me into their process. They've been exploring what it looks like to follow the way of Christ and serve in these capacities. And they've fed me a couple of cruciform anecdotes of how they can, creatively de-escalate situations, stopping violence from occurring and things like that. And again, my view would just be that wherever someone is, whether they're considering military or police, or whether they're already in it or whether on the outside of it, I just think we need to be looking at Jesus and trying to be more like him. So, always moving in that direction and just going, whatever line of work I'm in — I mean, goodness, if you're someone who rejects violence, but you're working for a corporation that's destroying the planet? Few people can point fingers at others because of the issues in the world and systemic sin and we're all interconnected in the various fields, in the ways we consume things and harm others around the world that we don't even know. So just to say, I think all of us just have the responsibility to try and take steps to move closer and closer to the way of Christ. And if that means constantly, creatively looking for ways to reduce violence, then I tip my hat and say, well done; that's great. So, I think that's the general approach I would take to people. [00:37:05] Anthony: Yeah. That's well said. And it made me think of a statement I read from Martin Luther King, and this was a while back, so I'm just going to loosely paraphrase it, but he talked about how there is the external physical violence. And we want to as much as possible avoid that, but there's also the internal violence of the spirit So, we can refuse to shoot a man, but are we refusing to hate that man? And just like you alluded to, whether it's corporations doing harm and violence to the planets or other ways in which violence is perpetrated, this is where we all have to check ourselves internally. What are we about and how far does this ethic take us to look at what's going on within us? So, I'm curious, and I'm sure you get asked this a lot with the fact that you're public about promoting Christian pacifism or a nonviolent God. Are there any circumstances that could arise where physical violence, in your mind, is justified and necessary? [00:38:13] Jared: Again, a good question. And yeah, it is a pretty common one because it's valid and it's fair. I think there's a distinction I would want to make here. There's an important difference between the question, when would I, Jared Neusch, be violent? And then, where do I get biblical justification from Jesus to kill my enemies? To the latter, I haven't found any yet. So, I don't have a situation that I could outline and say, from following Jesus and looking at his life, I feel confident killing my enemy in situation X. But when we talk about me, what I would do. I think I don't know that I would always have the courage to choose enemy love. I hope that I would, but I don't know that I would. And I think that the situation people like to bring in — not out of any sort of bad place but understandably — they say, “You've got kids, and you've got a wife,” and things like that. And how and when would you be violent? And I think it's a great question. And no one knows unless you're in a tough part of the world where you do know what you'll do in tough situations. But I think it's important to remember that violence is not — how do I word this? It's not a predictable, sure thing. Let's just say, oh, to protect person X, that's when I would choose to be violent. Violence inherently spirals, and it builds, and it often leads to more violence. So, choosing violence is not the backstop safe choice to protect the people you love or something like that. Often violence begets violence. It's not a sure thing. So, I don't have that as a, okay, this is the cheat code that I would use in situation X. To me, it's as much, if not more, of a risk than loving your enemy. So, that would be a bit of an answer to that good question. [00:40:53] Anthony: I think where we can settle is war is not the answer. [00:40:58] Jared: Yeah. [00:40:59] Anthony: It's just not. I was recently watching a Ken Burns documentary on the Civil War here in the United States, and one on the Holocaust and — not exactly uplifting things to watch. But it just struck me again. It's not like it was the first time, but it was just a powerful reminder. It's not the answer. And I know that people are in very violent places. And I think what you just said is a humble way of communicating it. We just don't know what we would do in a circumstance. And if we’re facing it as a reality, we're just thankful that the kingdom of God does not look like that. And it is the right side up kingdom, and the empires of this world stand in stark contrast to that. And I pray for people that are living in, with violence being a way of life. I just can't imagine. So, let's get practical here, Jared, how does someone live out a nonviolent ethic as a follower of Jesus in the day to day? Like what does that look like to really, truly embrace this? [00:42:16] Jared: Yeah. I do think about this, and I take this quite seriously that I am, just as you've alluded to, I'm public with this. And I am teaching this very radical message of Jesus, at least as I see it as his message. And yet in that, I'm not someone who faces the risk of violence on a daily basis; it's not lost on me that I'm in a comfortable position taking this view. So, that's why I don't communicate these principles to or at people in these tough violent situations. So, while I wouldn't get online and post from the comfort of my home in cozy West Sussex that Ukraine shouldn't defend themselves, and they should follow the way of Jesus. You'll never see something like that from me, and I don't think you should from anyone. What I would do, and I do, is I criticize and hold to account the global superpower that I was born in. And should we be arming World leader X with more weapons? No. Should we be exercising capital punishment? No. Should we be arming our citizens with more and more guns to be safe against more and more guns? No, I don't think so. So, that tends to be where I point most of my energy is systems and people who are the oppressor and who are perpetuating violence rather than telling people on the receiving end, “You need to take up your cross and be more peaceful.” You never want to be in that spot. So, I think living this out for me, one of the ways is speaking truth to major perpetuators of systems of violence in the world who also, and this is critical, who also claim to follow the way of Christ, saying, “We are Christians.” And then pushing forward war and supplying weapons and things like that. That's a big problem. So, I really feel like that's something I need to speak out against. And then second, you mentioned practically. I think we just move more and more towards the ways of peacemaking and enemy love any time we can love people that are difficult to love. So, that is the smallest things. It can be buying a coffee for someone who's having really bad temper in a store, or it can be just absolutely anything. It doesn't have to be that violence is involved, but what we're trying to form in our heart is a love for all people and a love — it's very easy to love your friends. Jesus tells us this. He says, I'm not impressed by that; even the tax collector and scribes, they do that. No big deal. What matters is, can you love your enemies? That's what sets us apart. Everyone can love their clique, their in group, their crowd. That's no big deal. But what we want to be constantly trying to form in our heart is a love for all people, a love for our enemy. So, to me, it's just looking for moments, whether it's just internal or external, and you can practically do something trying to move towards love of these people. Because it's, it's all the same currency when you're loving someone. Some moments are pocket change of that currency, and you're just doing something small. But in some moments, for some people, it may be paying in large bills, enemy love, and it's costing your life or your job or something like that. But I think just looking for moments, whether it's with our words, our money, our actions to love those that are difficult to love, those who we don't want to. So, that's probably the most practical thing to try and foster on a day-to-day basis. [00:46:46] Anthony: Jared, I live in Durham, North Carolina and Duke Divinity School is in my backyard. And we recently lost Richard Hays, a great New Testament scholar. And I think I saw that you posted recently after his death that he was quite influential in your thought process about this subject. Is there a resource you could refer our audience to from Richard that might be beneficial to the reading? [00:47:14] Jared: Oh, I'm so glad you asked. Yes. I don't know if you can hear it in the audio, but I'm smiling as soon as you brought him up because wow, he is such an important figure. And it really made me sad to hear of his passing. But there is a book that, if anyone doesn't just like the Facebook comment thread debates on violence, but actually is in it for serious critical thinking discussions on Scripture, the way of Jesus and ethics, and wants to investigate: is this a message of the New Testament? Is this a part of following Christ? There's no book I can recommend more than Richard's Hays book, The Moral Vision of the New Testament. I will warn listeners that on the spectrum of ultra popular level to really unapproachable academic work, it leans slightly more towards the academic side. So, you really want to have your thinking cap on, and you want to be ready for some scholarly rigor. But he really goes through and shows you the moral vision of the New Testament and spoiler alert: it's not violent. That’s not the only thing he uncovers, but it's one of the main ones, and I found it to be a really helpful book. [00:48:56] Anthony: Yeah, I have friends that studied under Richard Hays, and they just have such admiration, devotion, and his rigorous process of biblical scholarship is something they hold in high regard, so I think that's going to be an excellent reference. And one of the things I appreciate about you, Jared, as a New Testament scholar, you also tend to have a way of speaking that's accessible to people and I think that's really important. So, if someone's listening to this podcast and thinks, man I really would like to dialogue a little bit more and maybe talk with Jared about this, would you be okay providing a way to get in contact with you, Jared? [00:49:38] Jared: Yeah, of course. Probably one of the easiest ways is the way of social media right now. So, you can find me on Instagram just at Jared Neusch. And I try not to be on there too often because I want to have decent mental health. But it is a platform where people are talking and listening, so I do try and communicate on there at times. So, that is one place you can find me, but also if you just Google me, you'll see where I work, and I think it provides my work email as well. If you want to reach out like that, that's totally fine. But I'm always up for good hearted conversation on this topic, I think it's really important. [00:50:34] Anthony: And for those of you that may not see his name in front of you, Jared's first name is spelled J A R E D (D as in David), and his last name is spelled N (as in Nancy) E U S C H. And as he mentioned, you can find him on Insta or just Google his name. And listeners, I wanted to leave you with food for thought from Charles Spurgeon, the great English preacher who said:

The Church of Christ is continually represented under the figure of an army; yet its Captain is the Prince of Peace; its object is the establishment of peace, and its soldiers are men of a peaceful disposition. The spirit of war is at the extremely opposite point to the spirit of the gospel.

Jared, I'm so grateful for you. Thank you for coming back. And I also want to thank our team of people who make this podcast possible, Reuel Enerio, Elizabeth Mullins, and Michelle Hartman. It's so great to have a wonderful team of people to do this with. Jared, thank you. Thank you. Thank you, sir. And it's our custom to end with prayer. So, if you're willing Jared, would you please pray for us? [00:51:47] Jared: Sure. Well, first of all, thank you. It’s such a treat to be here and to have this conversation with you. But yeah, let me pray. Jesus, thank you for this time to discuss the ways of how we overcome evil; how do we treat our enemies; what does it look like to follow the way of Jesus. I thank you for this crew that is doing this podcast for Anthony and the team and for all the good they're doing. And I just pray for the team, myself, but also all the listeners just that your Spirit would continue to speak to us, to lead us, and ultimately form us into more mature disciples of you. That's the ultimate goal is to be formed by you, to look like you, and to follow you. So, I just ask this, and I thank you for this time. In your name, Amen. [00:52:41] Anthony: Amen.
Thank you for being a guest of Gospel Reverb. If you like what you heard, give us a high rating, and review us on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcast content. Share this episode with a friend. It really does help us get the word out as we are just getting started. Join us next month for a new show and insights from the RCL. Until then, peace be with you!

Archive

Jared Neusch—Christian...
Listen
Chris Blumhofer—Year C Easter...
Revelation 5:11-14 ♦ Revelation 7:9-17 ♦ Revelation 21:1-6 ♦ Revelation 21:10, 22-2
Listen
Jenny Richards—A Faithful...
Listen
Catherine McNiel—Year C Easter...
Philippians 3:4b-14 ♦ Philippians 2:5-11 ♦ John 20:1-18 ♦ Revelation 1:4-8
Listen
Cathy Deddo—Year C...
2 Corinthians 3:12-4:2 ♦ Romans 10:8b-13 ♦ Philippians 3:17-4:1 ♦ 1 Corinthians 10:1-13 ♦ 2 Corinthians 5:16-21
Listen
Rick Shallenberger—Year C...
1 Corinthians 13:1-13 ♦ 1 Corinthians 15:1-11 ♦ 1 Corinthians 15:12-20 ♦ Luke 6:27-38
Listen
Cullen Rodgers-Gates—Year C...
Ephesians 1:3-14 ♦ Luke 3:15-17; 21-22 ♦ 1 Corinthians 12:1-11 ♦ 1 Corinthians 12:12-31a
Listen
Elizabeth Mullins—Year C...
Colossians 3:12-17
Listen
More
Top