Loving Your Enemy, Martyrdom, and True Non-Resistance: Dirk Willems

I read in this month's Berean Call newsletter, who's mailing list I am on (don't know how), an account of the Anabaptist Dirk Willems. You might have heard of him, but I have not. So, I will share with you the account of his death. I surely would like to know more about his life, but I believe the end of the latter plainly speaks for the former. 


From the Martyr's Mirror:

In the year 1569 a pious, faithful brother and follower of Jesus Christ, named Dirk Willems, was apprehended at Asperen, in Holland, and had to endure severe tyranny from the papists. But as he had founded his faith not upon the drifting sand of human commandments, but upon the firm foundation stone, Christ Jesus, he, notwithstanding all evil winds of human doctrine, and heavy showers of tyrannical and severe persecution, remained immovable and steadfast unto the end. Therefore, when the chief Shepherd shall appear in the clouds of heaven and gather together His elect from all the ends of the earth, he shall also through grace hear the words, "Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things; enter thou into the joy of thy Lord." (1 Pet. 5:4; Matt. 24:31; 25:23.)

[Later, Dirk Willems was able to escape from the prison where he was held. He was pursued by the burgomaster and his deputy or “thief-catcher.”]

Concerning his apprehension, it is stated by trustworthy persons, that when he fled he was hotly pursued by a thief-catcher, and as there had been some frost, said Dirk Willems ran before over the ice, getting across with considerable peril. The thief-catcher following him broke through, when Dirk Willems, perceiving that the former was in danger of his life, quickly returned and aided him in getting out, and thus saved his life. The thief-catcher wanted to let him go, but the burgomaster, very sternly called to him to remember his oath, and thus he was again seized by the thief-catcher, and, at said place, after severe imprisonment and great trials proceeding from the deceitful papists, put to death at a lingering fire by these bloodthirsty, ravening wolves, enduring it with great steadfastness, and confirming the genuine faith of the truth with his death and blood, as an instructive example to all pious Christians of this time, and to the everlasting disgrace of the tyrannous papists.

In this connection, it is related as true from the trustworthy memoirs of those who were present at the death of this pious witness of Jesus Christ, that the place where this offering occurred was without Asperen, on the side of Leerdam, and that, a strong east wind blowing that day, the kindled fire was much driven away from the upper part of his body, as he stood at the stake; in consequence of which this good man suffered a lingering death, insomuch that in the town of Leerdam, towards which the wind was blowing, he was heard to exclaim over seventy times, "O my Lord; my God," etc., for which cause the judge or bailiff, who was present on horseback, filled with sorrow and regret at the man's sufferings, wheeled about his horse, turning his back toward the place of execution, and said to the executioner, "Dispatch the man with a quick death." But how or in what manner the executioner then dealt with this pious witness of Jesus, I have not been able to learn, except only, that his life was consumed by the fire, and that he passed through the conflict with great steadfastness, having commended his soul into the hands of God.

Resistance and Pacifism: Little Ol' Lady

 He said to them, "But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors.' For what is written about me has its fulfillment."  you should defend yourselves at all costs, and remember that the gospel is only for people who come to church.
(Luk 22:36-37)

.

Resistance and Pacifism Part IV: James White or John Piper?

So I thought the resistance and pacifism posts were dead. I suppose revamping my perspectives after starting the series two plus years ago would indicate this to myself. I guess that was not the case. I received a message from a friend of mine the other day related to the latest post. Of course the last post in question contained a summary of my perspectives and some links to other posts. You can find the post 'Resistance and Pacifism Part III: Final Cut' here. Of course, you can see the entire series thus far, here. In my last post I was hoping to skirt out of further explanation of my perspective.

The message I received was a link to a post from James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries. His post entitled 'I Beg to Differ, Brother Piper,' in every sense of Dr. White's style, speaks for itself. He articulates his point and clarifies his intention is only to speak briefly on the matter. He also aims to clarify that he does not intend to start a 'blog war' on the topic and merely expresses his brief opinion about John Piper's statements about Guns and Martyrdom following the Supreme Court ruling on guns in the homes of Americans.

Summarily, John Piper's post considered the sacrifice made by the missionaries to the Auca (Waudoni) Indians in Ecuador in 1956. The missionaries Jim Elliot, Peter Fleming, Ed McCully, Roger Youderian, and Nate Saint lost their lives attempting to reach an otherwise unreached people. Although these men met physical death that day they could have easily averted it with the side arms in their possession, right? Had these men simply chosen to fire their weapons in defense of their lives they may well still be here today, and there would be no story to tell regarding this matter. (Guns and Martyrdom: John Piper)

I would like to begin by looking at the sentiments expressed by Dr. White, and as he invokes the right to disagreement in lieu of Christian liberty, so shall I. Dr. White states that his intention behind the blog was not to start a blog war, and this is not an attempt to awaken a sleeping dog. I just want to touch on the topic as it is often a response that mirrors those I often encounter from many other Christians as well.

Dr. White says that he cannot agree with John Piper’s prototypical man breaking into his home  as being similar to the heathen who carries a spear and lives in a remote land. While illustrating his disagreement he takes Piper’s potential intruder and makes him a “meth-laden gang member seeking to rob, rape, and murder.” This is a logical assumption in many cases, as we know intruders come with many motives, and meth addiction definitely could be one of them. Dr. White says,

In the second place, I don't believe a Christian is a martyr if they fall prey to the random, drug-induced violence of a gang member or criminal. There is a difference between being a victim because you did not take the proper precautions and being a martyr because you purposefully expose yourself to danger and even death in the service of the gospel.

Now, on the surface this does not seem to impose much threat to a typical Christian worldview. Unfortunately, this statement propagates the view that a person who is Christian can only qualify as a martyr when persecution or affliction occurs within the context of preaching the gospel, or doing missions work. I concede to the view that dying while falling prey to an unsuspecting attacker or disastrous consequence would not qualify a believer as a ‘martyr’ but I do feel that this situation is insufficient to stand as justification for arming or defending one’s family or self with a weapon during the time that you are not ‘proclaiming’ the Gospel.

John Piper states that his view of a would be attacker into his home holds the same stature as the tribesmen who attacked the missionaries with their spears and killed them. He believes that they too are not prepared for eternity and should receive the same consideration a Christian missionary would give any islander or savage who is lost and blind to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. In Piper’s words,

Here’s the connection. The missionaries had guns when they were speared to death. One of them shot the gun into the air, it appears, as he was killed, rather than shooting the natives. They had agreed to do this. The reason was simple and staggeringly Christlike:
The natives are not ready for heaven. We are.

Ending this post, and looking forward to the next one to come, I leave you with this question. What differentiates what James White says,

The gang member in the streets of Phoenix has every possible opportunity to do good, to obey the gospel, to work and abide by the law. But he chooses, purposefully and knowingly, to do otherwise. He chooses to enter into my home, threatening the lives of my family. And he comes armed.

And what Paul an Apostle of Jesus Christ writes,

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
(Rom 1:20-21)

And the end result of what Dr. White’s position creates is that those who are native to a civilized concrete jungle are exempt from the treatment given to those who are native to remote locales where the proclamation of God solely resides in the testimony of creation, which in fact will incriminate any who are not able to receive a spoken Gospel message, or witness a Christian who embodies the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ? Does the ‘meth-laden gang member’ receive a different version of Christian love because he lives in a christianized Western context?

I would suggest to those sharing the position of Dr. White that the purposeful and knowing wrongdoer is equal to the heathen who carries a spear to skewer a passive missionary. The ability to obey the gospel, work and abide by laws, and do good is not unfulfilled in the action of the individual, but the lack thereof is a direct result of man’s depravity, just like the man who carries a spear to murder an innocent Christian missionary.
The next post “Resistance and Pacifism Part V: Binding the Strong Man” I aim to address the Scriptures cited in Dr. White’s blog post. Until then,

Peace be with you,

Resistance and Pacifism Part III : Final Cut?

Resistance and pacifism represents two sides of the fence in most of christendom. By and large, you are either or. Some of us are fond of the constitutional right to bear arms, defend our persons and our families, and some of us are hard pressed when confronted by the Scriptures to admit, we need to turn the other cheek, or not 'resist an evil man.'

Two years ago I held a position that advocated our rights to be involved in defense of our person when necessary outside of the context of presenting the gospel. I still do not quite know if that view matured into a defensible position. However, I did begin to defend it a series of posts labeled 'Resistance and Pacifism.' If you have time, give them a read. They are at least worth an exploration for contextual application.

In the past two years I have begun to view these things in light of my Scripture readings, and of course, new discernment through maturity has changed how I interpret some of the key passages that are used to defend bearing arms, defending ourselves/others with violence, or eventually justifying the 'Just War' theory. Arthur Sido at 'the voice crying out in suburbia' has posted a series concerning the viewpoints of a Christian's right to bear the sword. He fairly explores both sides and comes to a conclusion that results in a challenge to most of us who view the bible through American eyes. He starts to see the message of the Lord is plain. Our obligation as believers is to follow the teachings of our Lord and treasure the opportunity to consider this life but dung in comparison to the treasure we will have in Heaven. This includes claiming a 'right' to physically assault another for the sake of defense.

I do not believe I have come to full maturity on my position regarding this issue, but will admit I have begun to assume a pacifistic position. In his post regarding the 'Anti-Sword View,' Arthur quotes the synoptical account of Jesus' arrest in the garden. He discusses with his readers the need to observe the Lord's reaction to Peter when he draws a sword (that Jesus instructed them to buy) and strikes the ear of one of those seeking to arrest Jesus. As simple as it may sound, there is much to be learned from studying the Greek construction of this passage, as well as looking plainly at the passage itself.

And he said to them, "When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?" They said, "Nothing." He said to them, "But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors.' For what is written about me has its fulfillment." And they said, "Look, Lord, here are two swords." And he said to them, "It is enough."
(Luk 22:35-38)

Just take a look at the statement 'And he was numbered with the transgressors.' Obviously we know this to be a quote of Isaiah 53:12, and we know this to be fulfillment of the Lord's purpose to go to the cross and be numbered amongst the transgressors (us) so that he may be a full propitiation for sin. I found it profitable to consider within this context the statements our Lord made regarding the purchase of a sword. It was not to defend themselves against the mob that was coming to arrest Jesus, it was so that was written about Him would have it's fulfillment. The transgressors have a two-fold meaning, immediate, and future. Obviously the two swords that Christ said were enough would not be sufficient in defending Christ against a group of trained men would it?

It really seems simple to me. No need to impose a complex theological and systematic explanation that proves all the places where violence was not 'reproved' in order to substantiate a claim that makes it okay to harm or injure others in the name of defense or justice. This clearly is a job that is okay for the 'State' to conduct, but not the individual believer himself. The Lord stated clearly that we turn the other cheek. He also made it clear that if His Kingdom were of this world His followers would fight (Joh 18:36). I claim that what you read in the account of what happened in the garden was NOT an example of the Lord's followers fighting, or defending. We surely see Peter rebuked for his hastiness, and we also hear the Lord say that living by the sword will cause one to perish by it as well.

Stark contrasts that are much clearer than we often think they are. If we view this topic without an agenda, or an evangelical-politico lens, we may see the truth of our messiah brought forth clearly.

A response to "resistance" and pacifism. (Part II)

As a humble disclaimer, I would like to proclaim that my research has been troubling, and at best, convicting of my own personal conscience in the perceptions of this particular topic. When I first undertook this response and owned the burden of proof, I underestimated the task at hand, and saw very quickly that this is not an easy issue to explore. While I find that my opinion and proof for it is easily grounded in scripture, church history, and extra-biblical sources, I must admit that I find sympathetic and evident proof for the opposing argument. I would also like to further note that my “humanity” at most points of personal conflict was the antagonist of God’s revealed word. This opposition was due to my personal, fair, and humane sense of justice that should be dealt equally amongst all mankind. Most importantly, it was a matter of changing my feelings about such things and finding a better way. Let it be known my partiality will influence my opinion on this subject. Be it as it may, I will make the best attempt within my humanity to be neutral in the presentation and to address the subject matter I proposed in the initial post of Part I.

(Once again, all cited scripture comes from the NASB unless otherwise noted)

The first verse I would like discuss and address is Matthew 5:39 from the teaching of Jesus at the Sermon on the Mount. As Jesus ascended the Mount and took His seat from which our Master was to teach, He began to deliver His Beatitudes. These scriptures for many cite the peaceable and rewarded nature that Christ has taught the Christian to live and strive for daily. In this discourse of instruction for the believers life, Jesus says the blessed are those who are poor in spirit, mourn, are gentle, hunger and thirst for righteousness, are merciful, pure in heart, and of course the high note, are peacemakers for they shall be called sons of God.

Immediately after, Jesus reminds them of the result and consequence of exhibiting this type of behavior in the world. Because He has taught the believer to exhibit these traits and characteristics, the world’s response will obviously be the same as it was to our Master, as He endured the very persecution and insult as the prophets and foresaw that we too would receive the same treatment (vv11-12). The teachings of our Lord enter their fullness through the Beatitudes and He comforts His children as He gives warning of what is to come as a result.

Let’s take a look at the preceding verse in Matthew 5:38. This verse gives the reader a detailed description of what Jesus is about to proclaim. If the reader is not discerning or taking into consideration the whole of scripture, it is easy to read into the text an absolution of any kind of retribution. The basis of this proclamation, “You have heard that it was said” is in Exodus 21:24. The entire 21^st chapter of Exodus gives ordinances to the people that clearly define the dealings of retribution and retaliation when it comes to personal offense. The issue at stake here is not the misunderstanding of the words our Lord is speaking, it’s a misreading of what our Lord is referring to and what He eventually addresses. The law of retaliation (Exo_21:23-25;Lev_24:19, Lev_24:20; Deu_19:21) gave a clear prescription of how to administer justice and provide an example to others of what God’s law required of the individual, and the punishment for violation. So now we ask the question, “What does that have to do with Jesus stating that you should turn the other cheek?” Well, quite simply, we must always remember the audience, and what kind of understanding they would have when being addressed by a Rabbi, leader, or specifically here, Jesus. The understanding they would have is the knowledge of the abuse of this law that was being carried out by current rabbinical tradition.

To understand the violation that was occurring under rabbinical tradition we must know what means were to be utilized to carry out these ordinances properly. As was cited above, the Old Testament ordinances provided direction, or inference of who was to make the decisions and appropriate the justice in regard to any given violation of the Law (Exo 21:22; Deu 19:18; Lev 24:14-16). This ordination of the magistrate (or governing body) to carry out justice is a clear and obvious illustration of scriptural governance and justified punishment. One obvious problem with this mandate being carried out personally by an individual is the obvious nature of the sinful human condition. The same condition which would cause the person to go above and beyond the outlined ordinances, and take more than he should, is the very condition that Christ is speaking of here in Matthew chapter five. What we have in the Lord’s words is a clear rebuke of what the Scribes and Pharisees had perverted with their own advocacy of personal revenge. Further evidence (Pro 20:22; Pro 24:29) in the scripture to prohibit personal revenge further proves the need of instruction by Jesus in this text and gives a solemn example and precedence of why He makes the statement, “Turn to him the other also…”

"Not to restrain evil is neither just nor kind. It fails to protect the innocent and has the effect of encouraging the wicked in their evil. Proper restraint of evil, however, not only is just but is beneficient as well. (MacArthur)

Arthur Pink said,

”Magistrates and judges were never ordained by God for the purpose of reforming reprobates or pampering degenerates, but to be His instruments for preserving law and order by being a terror to evil. As Romans chapter 13 says, they are to be “a revenger to execute wrath on him that doeth evil.”… Conscience has become comatose. The requirements of justice are stifled; maudlin concepts now prevail. As eternal punishment was repudiated—either tacitly or in many cases openly—ecclesiastical punishments were shelved. Churches refuse to enforce sanctions and wink at flagrant offenses. The inevitable outcome has been the breakdown of discipline in the home and the creation of ‘public opinion,’ which is mawkish and spineless. School teachers are intimidated by foolish parents and children so that the rising generation are more and more allowed to have their own way without fear of consequences. And if some judge has the courage of his convictions, and sentences a brute for maiming and old woman, there is an outcry against the judge.” (An exposition of the Sermon on the Mount [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1974], p.112-13)

So the question remains, what evil is to be resisted then? The word Anthistēmi (resist) means set against or oppose and in this verse obviously refers to harm done by someone who is evil. This would bring the understanding immediately back to a personal attack and specifically against the dignity of the person. The Jewish practice of striking one across the face was extremely demeaning and spiteful. Jesus endured such treatment without retaliation from such Jews (cf. Matt. 26:67-68; Mark 14:65; John 18:22). Turning the other cheek symbolizes the nonavenging, nonretaliatory, humble, and gentle spirit that is to characterize kingdom citizens (cf. vv. 3, 5). When evil was directed against others, especially His Father—as when He cleansed the Temple of those who defiled His Father’s house, Jesus strongly resisted it (Matthew 21:12). While this remains a sole event to illustrate non-resistance, there is also the resistance when it was personally against Him and His character or dignity (Matt. 26:67-68). (The MacArthur New Testament Commentary, Matthew 1-7 [Chicago: Moody Bible Institute, 1985], p.332-33)

This brings us to the final entry in this post. In direct relation to the “resistance” of evil, or “resist an evil person” a definition is necessary. If one has a presupposed idea of this text, and it is in error, the error can only further misrepresentation in the teaching of Jesus, and a misconception of how to apply it to the Christian life. Because the above definition of what the commandment meant, how Jewish culture exercised it in life, we should see how Jesus’ sayings would influence the mind and hearts of those hearing His words that day. This post is not advocating any preference of physical retaliation or violence toward any one individual for any reason. What is being illustrated hear is that the command Jesus issued in the Scripture is not one that abrogates defense of one’s person upon attack (or in later posts war and Christian involvement in it.) As most would like to see here in this particular text, I disagree with it being a command to not defend one’s person, or initiate defense for someone who is unable to do so on behalf of them. These issues will be addressed in upcoming posts and until then I urge you to consider the rest of this passages context, the commands, and what they directly relate to. Ideally the legalities and ordinances given for Christian action when involved in civil suits or disputes (cf. vv 5:40-42)

(other sources include John Gill's Exposition of the whole Bible, Matthew Henry's Commentary, Jamieson, Faussett, and Brown Commentary, and the Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge)

A response to "resistance" and pacifism. (Part I)

A sister in the Lord has posed a question, this question has been a slightly ongoing discussion between her and I. Consideration of our presuppositions should always be laid out beforehand and set aside in lieu of scriptural authority. I hope to attempt and succeed at avoiding frivolous personal preference in favor of presenting accurate descriptions of the nature of our Lord and His direction in warfare and justice in the Old Testament. To further refute the notion that warfare is not biblical, I hope to illustrate the presence of direction, instruction, and reasonable justification of war through the citation of war, the sword, or action against an enemy (of God) in the New Testament.

This by no means will be exhaustive, but thorough in its description. It is purely a survey of findings thus far and I pray to do it justice. I merely hope to provide an answer to a question that requires an answer, and further promotes a proper biblical view of the precepts our Lord has given in scripture.

(all scripture quotations will come from the NASB unless otherwise noted)

First the pacifist position states that the Christian is to renounce and separate themselves from any participation in war, murder, or violence toward any other person. No matter the catalyst or consequence, the Christian must abstain from any such practice. Common citations of scripture include the verse in Mat. 5:39 "But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also." There is also the immediate thought of all Christians (at least I would hope) of Murder being profoundly ruled against through the commandment of our Lord given to Moses in Exodus 20:13 "You shall not murder." I have also heard the citation of Luke 3:14 Some soldiers were questioning him, saying, "And what about us, what shall we do?" And he said to them, "Do not take money from anyone by force, or accuse anyone falsely, and be content with your wages."

Now I have based the initiation of this examination on just a few of the scriptures utilized to abrogate Christian participation or view of war and further remove the unchanging nature of God from a position of tolerance of war (OT) to pacifism (NT). I would also like to further point out the need to clarify the error based on this position. This does not just cause one to become antagonistic toward war, be it just or unjust, but also furthers a misunderstanding, misinterpretation, and bad hermeneutic when reading the Word of our Lord and living out His commands in our life. This error can also present a severe stumbling block when approaching the Word of God and rightly dividing the truths contained within.

Because I have elected to respond to this question I will bear the burden of proof and provide answers to the selected scriptures above. If there are others that any of you would like to present for explanation, I humbly accept any commentary and/or proof to be examined. But for now, the discussion will be limited to these particular texts.

In Closing for this installment, please consider the notion needed to understand the presentation and need for clarification on this matter. The opposition to conflict by way of war or battle is a contradiction to the truth of God's unchanging nature/being. To state that Jesus did away with war/violence etc., in the NT is to say that God somehow changed His ways in how He dealt with the world, most notably the wicked. That said, the next post will include some clarification on the cited scriptures, a treatment of the nature of God's dealings with men in war and peace, and a remedy to the idea posed by my arguments "War contradicts the teachings of Jesus." I do not believe in any way whatsoever that war and civil justice dealt by the authorities given by God and placed by God (Romans 13) conflict with the nature Jesus admonished us to exhibit in loving our neighbor or our enemy.

See you then....