Why Anarcho-Pacifism Is Incompatible With Christianity: A Response to Josh Dies of Showbread Musician and author Josh Porter (a.k.a.

Josh Dies) of Christian rock band, Showbread, posted a blog titled "Anarchy, Pacifism and the Theology of Captain America". It was a response to some comments I had made to his band's new found passion for anarchopacifism. The initial discussion began at a website forum where Showbread answers questions from anonymous fans. Each entry had a text-limit, so I had to use several entries in order to say everything I wanted to say. To conserve as much room as possible, I was to-the-point and did not mince words. Josh posted a lengthy response, which you can read here: http://joshdies.com/2011/07/13/anarchy-pacifiscm-and-thetheology-of-captain-america/. My comments are made in a spirit of unity, not of anger or bitterness. I assume the same from Josh. While we have disagreements we both confess the Triune God and want to conform to his Scriptures. This common ground allows us to speak honestly without becoming disrespectful. Thus, here is my response to Josh. Josh, I would like to make something clear from the get-go: I am not defending sinful actions of the U.S. federal government. I oppose aggressive wars, policing the world and nation-building. I am against these things for strictly Biblical reasons. Not being a pacifist doesn't mean I am a warmonger. There is a middle road. Anarchy is not our primary topic as I do not believe anarchy and pacifism always go hand in hand. Logicallyspeaking, pacifists must be anarchists (since all government uses force) but not all anarchists have to be pacifists. Since you affirm both, I will address both together as anarcho-pacifism. I suspect you and I agree more than we disagree. The difference is on how we approach the Scriptures. The Bible is a story. A true, historical story - but it is a story nonetheless. Like any story, it has its own themes, patterns, imagery and symbolism. God has arranged it this way because that's how he communicates. We mirror this form of storytelling since we are made in his image. As an author yourself, you should appreciate that you can't fully understand the depth of a story without paying attention to its own context. Being a student of Scripture means letting God tell his story the way he wrote it, in the order he compiled it. Each book of the Bible forms one coherent story from Genesis to Revelation. The same motifs and literary devices are repeated throughout, which serve as the foundation for understanding the theology within each passage. I'm not talking about a secret Bible-Code, I'm talking about how the Bible is written in plain sight. We shouldn't try to interpret it any different than we do other books. If we commit its context and imagery to our memory, the bigger picture is easier to see. As we'll see, the context of the New Testament is the Old. You can't hardly understand anything in the sequel if you don't know the original. Christ's sacrifice, his Lordship, and even his Sermon on the Mount can be severely misunderstood if separated from its overarching narrative. With this in mind, I will respond to each of your points. The Marvel Universe vs. the Actual Universe I'm glad you admit a superhero's defensive-violence against humans is sinful and not to be viewed as good. I think you are wrong, but you are at least being consistent with your position. Whether or not you actually feel that way when you watch superheroes get the bad guy is a different matter, but I take your word for it. Your underlying assumption is that Christian morality prohibits all violence against

humans but not of animals. You say, "It would be acceptable to use violent self-defense against an animal, but not a human." How do you justify this statement Biblically? In the Bible, animals always represent humans and are used to teach us about humanity. Adam knows that he needs a sexual counterpart after observing the animals (Genesis 2:18-20). Adam and Eve are clothed with animal skins after the Fall, symbolizing their trust in an animal - the serpent - instead of God (Genesis 3:21, Romans 1:22-23). The Israelites did not eat the tendon of an animal's hip because Jacob's hip was touched by God (Genesis 32:32). The animal used as a sacrifice always represented the worshiper (Leviticus 1:3-4). God gave numerous laws which held animals accountable for crimes and subject to the same punishments as humans, including the death penalty (Exodus 21-22). This is why Jesus refers to people in animal-terms ("Brood of vipers", Matthew 12:34). Jesus is a lion (Revelation 5:5) and a lamb (John 1:36). The Holy Spirit is a dove (Genesis 1:1, Luke 3:22). Humans are goats and sheep (Matthew 25:32-33). This type of language in the New Testament has its roots in the Old. Apostle Paul brings this full circle for us in 1 Corinthians 9:9-10 by explaining that the Old Testament laws for animals were to teach humans how to treat one another. The animal world is analogous to human life. This forms a significant relationship between God, man and animals throughout Scripture. With the Biblical evidence it would seem that for a Christian Pacifist "violent self-defense against an animal" would also be unacceptable. Of course, this denies everything the evidence teaches us. Defensive and judicial violence against rebellious animals is righteous, just as defensive and judicial violence against rebellious humans is righteous (Genesis 9:2-6). Biblically, the two are never separated. Furthermore, a Christian Pacifist should ask himself how he excuses fictional violence against fictional characters (aliens, robots, Norse Gods) in light of Galatians 5:22-23: "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control." According to your hermeneutic, a verse like this should rule out all violent demeanor whatsoever if you believe that "sin is always sin, even when fictional..." The fruit of the Spirit is relevant to all human experience, not just towards human-human interaction. The Biblical Case for Righteous Violence You are correct that some Christians in the first three centuries were pacifistic. Some were also gnostics, docetists and modalists, amongst other heresies. Some liked to baptize infants, teach predestination and pray to statues. The Bible is our standard, though, and it is clear that Jesus was not a pacifist. The point of the angels at the gate of the garden is not that they decapitated anyone. Although, it should be pointed out that angels are sent to kill (2 Chronicles 32:21, Revelation 9:15). The point is that God set them up at the gate to prevent sinful man from eating from the tree of life (Genesis 3:22-24). The use of force is specifically described: God drove man out of the garden and if man tried to enter he would be killed. This is consistent with God's punishments for approaching the sanctuary improperly (Leviticus 10:1-2, Numbers 18:7). This is relevant to humans because God gives the same judicial authority to humanity. Adam was to be the keeper and guard of the garden but he failed. The angels were sent to do what Adam didn't. Later on in Scripture, the elders at the gate of each city were the judges with authority to punish and execute (Deuteronomy 22:13-21, 25:5-10). There is a parallel to earthly rulers and heavenly rulers. To deny it is to ignore how the Bible is written. You are correct that many Christians want to impose the death penalty inconsistently.

We cannot throw the baby out with the bathwater, however, which is what it sounds like you are doing. It is not an easy task to learn how to apply God's laws in our New Covenant situation. There is a lot of typology and theology going on in each law. Some laws were for Israel only. Some laws had symbolic purposes that are no longer binding in the New Covenant. Nevertheless, they are still applicable (2 Timothy 3:16-17). We have to understand them in their Old Covenant context before we can know how to apply them today. We shouldn't ignore them in an attempt to be simple or less complicated. Separating particular portions of Jesus' teaching from the rest is neither helpful nor credible. We wouldn't treat other stories that way. Jesus and the Apostles affirm the institution of civil government in the New Testament, which necessarily includes the use of force. This is why anarcho-pacifism is incompatible with Christianity. Here are a few principles of Biblical justice that are important to remember: 1) God has the authority to punish those who sin against him and he bestows the same authority to humanity since we are made in his image. God makes humanity stewards of creation to rule and reign. This is the foundational way we mirror God's sovereignty. Jesus is the Gardener, he makes us gardeners. Jesus is the Shepherd, he makes us shepherds. Jesus is the Judge, he makes us judges. The institution of civil government is set up by God to reflect his courtroom, his government. 2) God's law distinguishes between sins and crimes. For example, covetousness is a sin of the heart whereas theft is an act of aggression against another person (crime). The civil government cannot punish people for coveting but they can punish theft. This distinction is vital. 3) The purpose of civil government is to restore the victim and to rehabilitate the criminal back to an ethical lifestyle. There is no taxpayer-funded prison system in God's law because redemption and resurrection is always in view, not perpetual punishment or confinement. Instead, the criminal would pay restitution to the victim. If a thief stole, he would pay back double (Exodus 22:7). This restores the victim to a higher status than before and gives the criminal the chance to rehabilitate himself back to society. If he cannot pay back, then he could work for the victim in order to compensate (i.e. the Biblical view of slavery - Exodus 22:3). Taxpayer-funded prisons actually punish the victim, not the criminal. The criminal is rewarded with shelter, food, entertainment, education and sex at the expense of the victim. We are supposed to pity the offended, not the offender (Deuteronomy 19:21). Habitual criminals who refuse to reform are put to death (Deuteronomy 21:18-21). Murderers are put to death since the punishment must fit the crime (Deuteronomy 19:21). God's principle of restitution is the perfect system for protection, charity and true justice. It is not sinful nor does it contradict forgiveness and peace. 4) Retribution could only be enforced if the victim pressed charges and there were enough witnesses to convict. Just as God has the authority to either punish or have mercy, so do we. If a crime deserving of death was committed, the victim is allowed to demand death, a lesser penalty, or nothing at all. Hosea 3:1-3 is an example where the victim of a crime punishable by death does not press charges. Under the Old Covenant, Joseph decides to put Mary away quietly when he suspects her of adultery, yet he is called "just" (Matthew 1:19). The option to press charges or extend mercy belongs to the victim alone. The only crime that had to be punished was murder since the victim was no longer living to bring charges. Death is mandatory for the murderer since there is no way

to restore the victim, thus the criminal cannot be restored either (Deuteronomy 19:1013). Life for life is the only way to restore the victims honor. To do otherwise is to degrade the victim and essentially play God. Much more could be said, but these four principles are a great starting point. Romans 13 Treating my reference to Romans 13 as blind patriotism is a false assumption. Paul does not condone all actions of every government. For anyone to suggest such is ludicrous, although I've never met anyone who did. Paul knows that people abuse their civil authority. Tyrant dictators were a major theme in Israel's history, even during the time of Paul's writing. He tells us to pray for all those in authority for the specific purpose that they would not be oppressive (1 Timothy 2:1-2). The point of Romans 13 is that the institution of civil government is objectively good, contrary to anarcho-pacifism. Civil magistrates are "God's ministers" - God says so. But it's important we read Paul's words carefully. He says the minister wields the sword to punish evildoers, not those who do good. This presupposes a standard of civil order and morality (i.e. God's revealed laws). It does not mean that ministers cannot become corrupt. When the minister becomes a terror to good works instead of evil, he is acting contrary to his position and is in sin. It does not follow that the office itself is ungodly. There is rampant sin in church government. Does that mean the institution of the Church is against Jesus' teachings? Of course not! When ministers fall into sin - whether civil or ecclesiastical - they must be corrected. Paul never suggests to get rid of all institutional government whatsoever. Is Obama appointed as God's minister? What about Bush? Palin? Saddam? Herod and Pharaoh? Yes. They are given authority by Jesus himself (John 19:11). They are his ministers, who need to be faithful, obedient ministers (Jeremiah 1:7-11). An unfaithful husband is still a husband. We don't need to abolish the institution of marriage, we need to be better husbands. Revelation The book of Revelation is not a very hard book to understand if we read the Bible like it is written. Its very title denotes a revealing rather than concealing. John uses the exact same symbols and imagery that are used throughout the Old Testament and earlier portions of the New (even "666" is from the Old Testament). Revelation is primarily a worship service in Heaven. John ascends in Revelation 4 and witnesses saints and angels worshiping God. Turns out, worship includes warfare. God redeems the world through prayer and singing! There is no way to make Revelation merely allegorical since it parallels how God works through his people on earth (Joshua 6, Revelation 8). The point is that Revelation depicts violence. The violence is orchestrated by God, human saints and angels. As long as Jesus is a King with a kingdom and an army of warriors, anarcho-pacifism is an unbiblical position. The Adulterous Woman You bring up the story of the woman caught in adultery as evidence of Jesus refusing to follow the death penalty (John 8:2-11). Ironically, this story proves the exact opposite: Jesus is fully obeying his own law. The Pharisees bring a woman to Jesus to see if he would condone executing her. She is supposedly guilty of adultery (Deuteronomy 22:22), but there is no mention of the victim. Where's the husband? Only he has the authority to press charges (see point 4 above). The first thing Jesus does is write in the dirt. Sound familiar? God carved the Mosaic law into stone tablets (Exodus 31:18). The law came from God's hand. We don't know what Jesus wrote, but he is clearly alluding to himself

as Lawgiver. He then says for the one without sin to cast the first stone, in accord with Deuteronomy 17:7. Jesus must mean the particular sin of adultery rather than sin-ingeneral. Old Covenant saints were not sinless, yet God appointed them to impose penalties on criminals. Similarly, Jesus tells the woman to sin no more, but he doesn't make her sinless. In context, he's talking about the specific sin of adultery. The Pharisees left. They had no authority to accuse her and they knew false accusers would be put to death (Deuteronomy 19:16-19). Jesus then asks the woman, "Has no one condemned you?" God requires at least two witnesses before someone can be convicted of crime (Deuteronomy 17:6) yet everyone fled the scene. They tried to trap Jesus with God's law, but he trapped them with God's law! There were no legal grounds for the woman to be put to death: no victim and no witnesses. Sermon on the Mount Your anarcho-pacifism is heavily based on the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7). Again, this passage disproves your point. The first thing to notice is that Jesus specifically states that he is not changing or altering anything from the Old Covenant law (Matthew 5:17-18). In fact, he makes it clear that he is differentiating between God's law and the teachings of the Pharisees (Matthew 5:19-20). For example, the Old Testament teaches that we should love our neighbors as ourselves (Leviticus 19:18) and love our enemies (Exodus 23:4, Proverbs 25:21-22). It does not teach that we should hate our enemy (Matthew 5:43). So then, Jesus is contrasting true obedience to God's law and the corruption of God's laws by the Pharisees. This becomes blatant in chapters 6 and 7. Not once does Jesus deny the legitimacy of Old Testament law. Jesus is saying that crimes start in the heart. It's not enough that we obstain from murder, adultery, divorce or oath-breaking. We have to control our anger, our lust, our sexual impurity and our dishonesty because they are the source of the aforementioned crimes. Hypocrites like to maintain an outward appearance and legal status of righteousness while holding on to their secret sins. Jesus says that is childish law-keeping. He wants us to be mature lawkeepers like himself. In Matthew 5:38-39, Jesus never denies the principle of restitution ("eye for an eye"). Jesus affirms the principle of restitution elsewhere in the New Testament (Mark 8:38, Luke 9:26, 1 Corinthians 3:17, Hebrews 10:28). Instead, Jesus is addressing a perversion of restitution. Jesus uses the example of slapping the cheek, which is a form of insult (Lamentations 3:30, Job 16:10, Isaiah 50:6). Jesus is not denying self-defense or judicial penalties against aggressive crimes. He's warning against childish back-andforth insults that breed hatred. It is better for us to receive a second slap - which means we are sacrificially accepting the slapper's punishment, by the way - than to continue the cycle that leads to hatred. Jesus is giving us a model for sacrificial maturity. Conclusion Much more could be said about the Bible's wisdom for civil government, especially about war and foreign policy. This article is long enough as it is. If you would like to continue the discussion feel free to leave a comment. At this point, it should be abundantly clear that Jesus is not a pacifist. Self-defense and judicial penalties, when administered properly, are righteous acts. This means not all violence is evil and civil government is necessary.