To Kingsnorth’s credit, Bonhoeffer is probably one of best figures to look to for this topic. Judging by his comments, however, it doesn’t seem that he knows why Bonhoeffer was executed. He didn’t “refuse to take up arms”, he was actually planning to assassinate Hitler. Here is a quote from Bonhoeffer, which sums up this post quite well:
“If I sit next to a madman as he drives a car into a group of innocent bystanders, I can't, as a Christian, simply wait for the catastrophe, then comfort the wounded and bury the dead. I must try to wrestle the steering wheel out of the hands of the driver.”
When madmen decide to make their own lives the wheel that must be wrestled away, our responsibility remains the same.
Thanks, Ethan. Yes, I thought that was an unusual example, too, given Bonhoeffer was involved in three separate assassination attempts. I think sometimes we're willing to look at a story up until the point it satisfies our priorities, then no further
"For it is a servant of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a servant of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil." - Romans 13:4
It is quite clear that servants of God must wield the sword to punish evil.
And potentially for Christians in government more generally. It may not be everyone's calling, but some "servants of God" need to be involved to realize the Romans 13 vision of governance.
I don't wholly disagree with you on this, but in context, Paulk was writing about earthly government - rulers and authorities, not your average G.I Joe Christian on the street.
This is a great post. You deal artfully with the nuance and unpleasantness of ugly situations where good and evil and moral ambiguity collide. I disagree with the idea that we must try to save the life of a homicidal maniac after incapacitating them, although I won't pretend to disagree on Christian grounds (your stance on that issue probably is doctrinally correct, with lots of New Testament passages that would support it). I just viscerally can't agree on that narrow issue. But all in all, this was a really great essay and a solid response to Kingsnorth.
"I disagree with the idea that we must try to save the life of a homicidal maniac after incapacitating them, although I won't pretend to disagree on Christian grounds... I just viscerally can't agree on that narrow issue. "
I don't even agree with myself "viscerally" on it. That's why I call it a duty. I wouldn't relish doing it, given all my experiences in the world. For instance, I know that, if he is fully healed, he might take a quick trip through my city's revolving door, and be back prowling on the streets in no time (and no-bail) flat. That's why we don't let evil governments take charge. That's a separate fight, with different tactics and options.
So I agree with you that it's a tough pill to swallow. If he had already managed to hurt other people on that train, I don't know how I'd prioritize my attentions to their wounds. I only know the attacker would rank dead last on that list of priorities.
But he would still rank. I think that's the difference.
This is a cornerstone question of Christian theological (and legal) doctrine: are there any circumstances under which it is "justified" for a Christian to take another human life? The historical answer, if it includes the Crusades, would suggest a pretty strong "yes." I'm not sure how Kingsnorth concludes otherwise, but I also respect the beliefs of avowed pacifists and religions who have that bent to them. As noted in some of the quotes, there is ample scriptural support for it, as well. I've also thought there could be a logical flaw having lived through the 20th century's genocide and democides: it's hard for me to imagine that Christ's death to save "Christians" was also simultaneously an explicit decree that they invite their own erasure as a people from "the world" in order to achieve salvation. That seems... odd if it is only "through Christ" that Man can achieve salvation, no?
I go with the more well-reasoned view of all of the evidence: this is a part of the narrow way for a good Christian man or woman, and includes the exercise of discernment with a willingness to stand adjudged before God later on the decision to take a life. (Aborters, well, listen - I mean, you've gotta really own this at some point - and ask for forgiveness.)
"I go with the more well-reasoned view of all of the evidence: this is a part of the narrow way for a good Christian man or woman, and includes the exercise of discernment with a willingness to stand adjudged before God later on the decision to take a life."
I'm not even sure the conclusion is even the product of reason (or, at least not "pure" reason). We act in the crisis moment in accordance with a variety of instincts, abilities, opportunities, and options. In the quieter spans of time between these actions, when we're contemplating our past choices and making future plans, we can maybe see a bit of how we may have served God in some ways and failed Him in others. But at least some of it will remain mysterious to us, due to our limited nature.
I sense that's what you mean by our "willingness" to stand and be judged. Obviously, that part's not up to us, when we're parted from the material. But we can be willing *in the material* to incorporate that final ignorance into our earthly decisions. There will be times when we're unsure what we've done and what it cost. In the case of taking a life, the cost is both simple to tabulate and also unimaginably great. Like William Munny says in Unforgiven: "It's a hell of a thing, killing a man. You take away all he's got, and all he's ever gonna have."
Except that's not quite true. You don't take his soul. Or, we could say, he *is* a soul, and you can't steal it by killing him. You do take his opportunities for redemption, however, which is why jail is preferable to killing someone in the act. That's even the case if you plan on executing him after trial. You give him opportunities to ask God for forgiveness, and prepare himself for an infinitely great form of judgment.
So, even killing the killer on the train is still a tragedy. We should still ask for forgiveness. Not for the act itself, perhaps (you fought out of love of your neighbors), but for allowing your city, your nation, or the world at large to come to such a lowly condition that it practically guarantees such crisis moments and emergency interventions.
My blessed grandfather was the kindest, simplest, and godliest man I ever knew.
At 24 with 3 kids, he volunteered and joined the Army. He wound up carrying a bazooka into fortress Europe, his unit thrown into the salient from England to turn the tide at the Battle of the Bulge. He never discussed it - ever. And my aunts, his daughters, would say, "Daddy wasn't the same when he came back from the war..."
I agree that we ought to lament that we ever find ourselves under either national or local circumstances faced with the necessity, but I don't think Christianity means that we have to re-enact Christ's crucifixion every time we are faced with evil manifest trying to harm others. I think that is a strained read of the whole of the text.
And unless I misremember... David did kill Goliath with a slingshot and a stone, yes? Cut off his head and paraded it about? Or is that not part of some new versions of the Bible anymore?
That's a tricky one for me, since it conflates warfare with local defense. I'm not sure that righteous combat scales cleanly. Wars tend to get tangled in political webs, greedy contractors, and whatnot.
I agree, but so does individual defense and individual loyalties, ties, ethnic group, language considerations - as your article notes: it's a mess. And "war" may exist b/w two entities, nation-states, but I promise you, like politics, it's local AF. Ask the Bosnians, Serbs, and Croats. I was off the Coast in '95 when it went to shit, but all agreed, it was savage in its "locale-ness." Ask the Irish Catholics and Protestants and Brits (and Scots). Jews/Arabs, etc.
When it comes to killing - even at scale - it's someone's home turf, where people live and sleep and eat.
Most of the same considerations apply to the use of violence, whether it's used "instrumentally" or not. Your article hints at this: but when it's someone "other," whether yelling allahu akhbar or in some other foreign language, or gibbering like a lunatic, it informs context and response.
There's also an important pragmatic point here about the use of violence "righteously" - it needs to be decided in advance, not pondered in the moment. A USAF Colonel - a Vietnam pilot with air-to-air kills - said that the most important thing was to already have had the moral debate & faced the quandary and made the decision to kill beforehand. In the moment it was just carrying out an intent that already had been approved and waited only its opportunity to be carried out. David v. Goliath in 1 Samuel has that same lesson within it, as well.
The thing that is never (well, nearly never) absent in your posts is a preferential, obviously higher-order sympathy for women vis-a-vis men (without a doubt) and, sometimes it may seem, even children. I block anyone who for example, writing on Palestine, mourns the "killed women and children," and blocking them without addressing any response to them is, I suspect, the kindest approach I can take.
However, in your case, I have neither blocked nor quit being a reader. I like (read: I agree with, and I find it morally and spiritually worthy) with all the rest still more than I find it infuriating that it is worse if someone gets a bullet in their head if they have an uterus than two testicles; and I find that genuinely infuriating (and unjust, and... the adjectives from me would never end).
I read the first post by Kingsnorth you "attacked". I didn't see his second until today, because I hadn't read anything on his blog after that first time. When I read his first, it was after reading your criticism here, and I agreed with what he said there as much as I had agreed with your criticism: meaning that I didn't think your criticism was really addressed at what he had said, and so, for me, both of you were mostly right.
Now, this second time, I have even more of that impression: that what you have written isn't in contradiction with what he did write. Nothing in his writing can be really seen as advocating any of the wrong, or pathetically wrong, behaviours you rightly target.
The organization "operating at the border in the name of Christ" have at best nothing to do with Christ or being Christian: I share your sentiments toward them, but, strictly speaking, they feel out of topic in this post or in any reply to Kingnorth.
To me, he is mostly right; you are equally mostly right.
In Jungian (or Myers-Briggs) terms, he is obviously a different type than you. I empathize with your aversion for Evil, inclination to spot it, and yearning for countering it as actively and "dynamically" as possible. He fights in another way; another equally needed one, maybe (probably, if you ask me).
I try my best at it as well, since short after I knew Good was I also was made to realize the Enemy is.
I wish the best to him, to you, to myself, and to all more-than-nominal Christians. I should wish the best to the nominal-only ones, and to all of humankind, but I am not close enough to the Spirit to write that without pretending, and prefer not to.
Thanks for this comment, ikaruga. I confess, it highlighted a perception of my writing that I wasn't aware of, and which wasn't intentional.
"I find it infuriating that it is worse if someone gets a bullet in their head if they have an uterus than two testicles; and I find that genuinely infuriating (and unjust, and... the adjectives from me would never end)."
Me too, actually. I honestly wasn't aware my writing was coming off this way. To be clear, it is *not* "better" (less tragic, more morally defensible, more just) for a man to be murdered than for a woman or a child. In fact, I think such a idea, if deeply held, at least borders on psychopathic evil. It eventually devolves into utilitarian nonsense like the Trolley Problem on Acid that ChatGPT famously played. So it obviously troubles me that this is an impression I've been giving.
At best, what I could say is that a man is more physically and mentally equipped for combat, one consequence of which is that leads us into mortal danger more often. That's not a good thing or a bad thing, to my mind. Just a thing. But that doesn't make it any less tragic. At the civilizational level, it might even lead to much greater desperation and ruin, as the populace runs low on its most capable defenders. In any case, I will try to be more careful in my language, from now on. Maybe I'll even write something specifically about it. Thank you.
"Now, this second time, I have even more of that impression: that what you have written isn't in contradiction with what he did write. Nothing in his writing can be really seen as advocating any of the wrong, or pathetically wrong, behaviours you rightly target."
I don't see him as advocating what's wrong or evil. Quite the opposite. That's why I've tried to narrow my disagreement as much as possible. My inclusion of the border prebendaries wasn't specifically in argument with him, but meant as an example of how difficult it is to see how we might be serving a more distant evil while believing we're serving God's will. The people in these stories (there are quite a few, and if I had the time I'd do a whole journalistic article on them) will often use similar distortions of Christ's lessons to validate their actions in the moment.
The connection I was drawing -- perhaps clumsily -- was between the man who sees evil being committed against his neighbors and rationalizes against putting a stop to it with "violence", no matter how intelligent or limited the application. Wrestling a gunman to the ground is a form of violence. Shooting him is another. We'd prefer the former, but it's not always possible. That was my argument with Mr. Kingsnorth's response: its lack of specificity.
We can say we'll "defend" others from evil all we want, but if we don't draw clear boundaries around that concept, then all kinds of shenanigans can break loose. We could say that blowing up a hospital was an act of "defense" or nuking some foreign city was an act of "defense". Meanwhile, am I "resisting evil" by calling for an evacuation of my town in advance of an imminent air strike?
Much of this doesn't scale well, which is why I believe Christ was talking to us as individuals, not as polities or clades. I will do my best to not resist the slap or the insult, to carry more than what's asked, to not feed the trolls. These are displays of strength, if we do them well. If he means it when he says he will defend his children (and I believe he does), then it seems it might contradict his reading of pacifism in the Sermon. Not trying to pick a fight with him (that was humorous hyperbole on my part). I was actually trying to clear up any differences. As I noted before, I enjoy and respect his writing.
well you may want to revisit your position in regard of the Palestinian casualties who speak of 70% of "women & kids"
I understand a will on your side to honour the men - and know that in all those people you block there may be some who really don't have any % in mind of any form of bad will in regard of the Palestinian men.
Mark, just a book-keeping thing... but I've mentioned it before...
It seems to be a substack thing, but you know, it won't LET you do the "buy a coffee" thing, if you are already a paid up subscriber. (I've made the attempt several times over the past year or so.)
I think I'm going to downgrade my subscription, and then buy some coffees as and when. Just so you know why. :)
I'm going to have a think about the post and be back, later. :)
A good take on an important and often dismissed concept of Christian duty.
I am routinely patience-tested with the effeminate male Christian bros who get all sulky and not just a little salty when they pout about how Jesus told Peter to stop swinging his sword, and that Christian men should *gasp* never pick up a sword or gun.
I think many have either overlooked, forgotten or just haven’t read Luke 22:36 where Jesus says, “And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.” If we evaluate the context of Jesus’s arrest, He not only knew that that the mob would not be killing Him on the spot, but that He had a far more important appointment with the cross.
We might also consider what Jesus didn’t say, as in ‘Peter, I forbid you and the others to carry a sword!’ or ‘Never swing or carry that again, Peter!’ On the contrary, the disciples already had two swords, to which Jesus responded in that same passage, “It is enough.” As you say, when’ Evil pays one of its surprise visits,’ we may, in an sudden moment, be convinced of our need to immediately intervene.
The question in that instant, isn’t so much a moral one or a biblical one, as it is if we are individually able to face our own mortality to prevent the triumph of Evil. Failing that, we become effeminate drones who stand around videotaping and then attempt to justify a raw and contemptible public cowardice by twisting scripture.
"If we evaluate the context of Jesus’s arrest, He not only knew that that the mob would not be killing Him on the spot, but that He had a far more important appointment with the cross."
Right. Christ saw all the designs, all the pieces in motion and how they would interact. He knew how it needed to play out, including the wounding of Malchus by Peter. Christ didn't need a sword to fight, or a horse to flee. But neither of those actions would have served his mission.
We are not Christ. Though we strive to be like him, and to follow his lessons, to become extensions of his body and consciousness, we will not "succeed" in any attempt to actually become what he was and is. We won't see as far as he did, won't command the material of reality like he did, no matter how many fancy gadgets we build. We work within limitations and with limited tools.
That includes our swords, which are pale imitations of His sword, just as our satellites, telescopes and predictive models are pale imitations of His vision. So we do the best with what we have, to do the good we can and serve God's will.
I do not consider myself a soldier of God, as we are admonished from taking that perspective. However, should he tell me somehow that I am needed in some fight, I will look at my fit 52 year old body - his gift - and my alleged basic warfighting skills and see how I’m needed. Id have backed up Penny in the train. I’ve been in dozens of fights and lost a few - I don’t relish the idea of going back in.
I'm no Anabaptist but I do find great beauty in someone like Leo Tolstoy's arguments for Christian pacifism.
But Tolstoy also says you have to stop paying your taxes at tremendous personal risk to yourself to be a true Christian pacifist. How many current armchair revolutionaries fantasizing about living in Neo-Byzantium and polishing their AR-15 feed ramp have even this much courage?
Personally, I do believe in the physical resistance to evil, but the Church historically still bars you from the chalice for at least 3 years for killing a person under any circumstances. It does, in some manner, mystically separate you from God, even if it's for the Good.
To Kingsnorth's point, the pattern of most early Martyrs can be broadly generalized. They repent, they don't physically resist violence done to them done by Rome, and are killed (usually by dismemberment) as a result. As an Orthodox Christian who reads the Synaxarion daily I'm sure Kingsnorth noticed this clear pattern.
There are certainly great Saints who take up the sword in defense of themselves and others who receive a heavenly crown as a result, but they are not the norm. Most of them receive a clear blessing to do so, which is hardly clear to many of us in our fallen state.
"But Tolstoy also says you have to stop paying your taxes at tremendous personal risk to yourself to be a true Christian pacifist. How many current armchair revolutionaries fantasizing about living in Neo-Byzantium and polishing their AR-15 feed ramp have even this much courage?"
This is similar to my thoughts on people who advise a total retreat from the material world, into the realm of the spiritual. First: you're not going to make that trip in the flesh. Second: you aren't retreating nearly as much as you think you are. The fact that I know of your ideas and plans at all means you're still connected to the same evil networks you claim to oppose: tasting their fruits, exchanging their money, fueling the system.
"It does, in some manner, mystically separate you from God, even if it's for the Good."
I'll need to ponder this one for a while. I think the key phrase is "in some manner", because it may be inexplicable outside of the context of your options, and the condition of your soul.
"To Kingsnorth's point, the pattern of most early Martyrs can be broadly generalized. They repent, they don't physically resist violence done to them done by Rome, and are killed (usually by dismemberment) as a result."
But even here, I don't think we can't separate them from their circumstances and options at the time. I've been writing something about Diocletian and Sebastian that will hopefully shed light on the way I see that period. For now, I'll just note that it was bookended with Constantine in battle.
"There are certainly great Saints who take up the sword in defense of themselves and others who receive a heavenly crown as a result, but they are not the norm. Most of them receive a clear blessing to do so, which is hardly clear to many of us in our fallen state."
Yes - a total retreat into the spiritual basically lands you deep in Gnostic or New Age territory and is firmly heretical.
Tolstoy's critique of the sacramental life in 19th Century Russia is that it was bordering on this as the great material evil of Communism was capturing the minds of the peasants and the Tsar offered no alternative. In a sense it's quite tragic that Tolstoy and St. John of Kronstadt were such bitter enemies - Tolstoy advocated resistance to tyranny through nonviolent compliance while St. John tried to raise a militia later in life.
Both failed, but were at least trying. I see advocates of "just cause" violence and extreme pacifists in much the same way and it's all largely circumstantial, to your point.
I don't see Kingsnorth as advocating for an attainment of Eden here on Earth, but insomuch as we can try to live that way in an embodied fashion (in contrast to completely spiritual), it is pleasing to God.
"In some manner" is definitely the key here as I'm certainly no Bisohp! But at the very least it is tied up with a deep love, repentance, and forgiveness of one's enemies, as all things are in Christ. This restriction of Communion for killers also extended to soldiers, even in the Christian Empires, and we see this lack of love and repentance from modern veterans.
Many come back with some form of regret for their actions (and a corresponding inner brokenness), but seldom do they abandon completely animosity for their enemies on the battlefield or question whether the presuppositions of their violence were virtuous to begin with. It's the rare soul who can weep for their actions and simultaneously justify their virtue, and that suffering surely separates us from God.
Sometimes I wonder if pious pacifists confuse reaction to unsought lethal force with more ordinary tit for tat pot-stirring behavior. No Christian goes looking for trouble, and does what he can to avoid violence. But sometimes as you point out Satan sets real monsters loose, and they really do need to be dealt with so society doesn't collapse sooner than necessary. There is the fact that God loves justice, and normally we rely on our police/military/courts to see that vigilantism doesn't reign, but lately there seems to be a little bit of a problem in that arena. Proper avenues of redress have been and are being removed/blocked. Another thing that strikes me is the popular notion that Christians are to be innocent/harmless as doves, and that is so. But what was the first part of Paul's injunction? To be wise as serpents. They must go together. Christians should spend serious time thinking about Satan - who he is, what he wants, how he operates. Also we should learn to recognize those same traits in ourselves and then in others (without turning into witchfinder generals). Someday we will all stand before Jesus and give an account of all our thoughts and actions. For some He will be their judge, for others their savior and friend. Either way we all will have to answer Him. If Kingsnorth is satisfied with his take on this then fine. Paul also said we had to work out our salvation with fear and trembling (not works salvation!), and to me this is even more troubling than Jesus saying we are not to resist an evil person.
"There is the fact that God loves justice, and normally we rely on our police/military/courts to see that vigilantism doesn't reign, but lately there seems to be a little bit of a problem in that arena. Proper avenues of redress have been and are being removed/blocked."
That's an understatement, here in NYC. Years of no-bail policies, police defunding and other treachery under the color of law hasn't just led to more murders, but to more nihilism, mistrust, fear and hopelessness. That was the evil motive behind persecuting Penny. They weren't afraid he'd turn in Batman and start cleaning up the streets on his own. They were afraid he'd make the rest of us a little more courageous, a little more hopeful. That we'd start looking at each other as potential friends instead of threats, and that the next time around we might all jump in to stop the madman. Evil wants, more than anything else, to crush our spirits. If our bodies get in the way, they might crush those too. But if we join forces, they are doomed.
And yes, that means we need to play it smart as well. Jesus didn't say, "Walk into the first town you see and turn yourself in to the cops." Wise as serpents, quiet as doves.
Evil wants, more than anything, to keep souls away from Father God by preventing them from accepting the free gift of salvation paid for in full by Jesus the Son. From even KNOWING about the gift. If we are indwelt by the Holy Spirit we can't be crushed, but our bodies yes can be destroyed.
Brilliant Mark. Regarding the killing. It is secondary. The intent comes first. Content before form. Are we killing out of hate? No. Are we killing out of guilt, fear or some imagined morality? No we are alive and simply in the moment of decision. We see the pure mathematics of it in a way. The one of ego to be stopped or restrained by the means most likely to have effect. The most broad and life affirming of the range we have.
We kill constantly and the animals and plants that sustain these bodies are for us to be killed. So too the one who seeks to end our progeny or ourselves.
To Kingsnorth’s credit, Bonhoeffer is probably one of best figures to look to for this topic. Judging by his comments, however, it doesn’t seem that he knows why Bonhoeffer was executed. He didn’t “refuse to take up arms”, he was actually planning to assassinate Hitler. Here is a quote from Bonhoeffer, which sums up this post quite well:
“If I sit next to a madman as he drives a car into a group of innocent bystanders, I can't, as a Christian, simply wait for the catastrophe, then comfort the wounded and bury the dead. I must try to wrestle the steering wheel out of the hands of the driver.”
When madmen decide to make their own lives the wheel that must be wrestled away, our responsibility remains the same.
Thanks, Ethan. Yes, I thought that was an unusual example, too, given Bonhoeffer was involved in three separate assassination attempts. I think sometimes we're willing to look at a story up until the point it satisfies our priorities, then no further
"For it is a servant of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a servant of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil." - Romans 13:4
It is quite clear that servants of God must wield the sword to punish evil.
This would be the creed of Christian cops, sheriffs and deputies, I imagine. Thanks.
And potentially for Christians in government more generally. It may not be everyone's calling, but some "servants of God" need to be involved to realize the Romans 13 vision of governance.
I don't wholly disagree with you on this, but in context, Paulk was writing about earthly government - rulers and authorities, not your average G.I Joe Christian on the street.
True. There is also Luke 22:36 and Matthew 10:34. The key point is that *someone* must bear the sword in defense of the righteous.
Not everyone will be cut out for it (so to speak). But that's true of every job. Each body part is made for a different task.
I wholly agree
This is a great post. You deal artfully with the nuance and unpleasantness of ugly situations where good and evil and moral ambiguity collide. I disagree with the idea that we must try to save the life of a homicidal maniac after incapacitating them, although I won't pretend to disagree on Christian grounds (your stance on that issue probably is doctrinally correct, with lots of New Testament passages that would support it). I just viscerally can't agree on that narrow issue. But all in all, this was a really great essay and a solid response to Kingsnorth.
"I disagree with the idea that we must try to save the life of a homicidal maniac after incapacitating them, although I won't pretend to disagree on Christian grounds... I just viscerally can't agree on that narrow issue. "
I don't even agree with myself "viscerally" on it. That's why I call it a duty. I wouldn't relish doing it, given all my experiences in the world. For instance, I know that, if he is fully healed, he might take a quick trip through my city's revolving door, and be back prowling on the streets in no time (and no-bail) flat. That's why we don't let evil governments take charge. That's a separate fight, with different tactics and options.
So I agree with you that it's a tough pill to swallow. If he had already managed to hurt other people on that train, I don't know how I'd prioritize my attentions to their wounds. I only know the attacker would rank dead last on that list of priorities.
But he would still rank. I think that's the difference.
This is a cornerstone question of Christian theological (and legal) doctrine: are there any circumstances under which it is "justified" for a Christian to take another human life? The historical answer, if it includes the Crusades, would suggest a pretty strong "yes." I'm not sure how Kingsnorth concludes otherwise, but I also respect the beliefs of avowed pacifists and religions who have that bent to them. As noted in some of the quotes, there is ample scriptural support for it, as well. I've also thought there could be a logical flaw having lived through the 20th century's genocide and democides: it's hard for me to imagine that Christ's death to save "Christians" was also simultaneously an explicit decree that they invite their own erasure as a people from "the world" in order to achieve salvation. That seems... odd if it is only "through Christ" that Man can achieve salvation, no?
I go with the more well-reasoned view of all of the evidence: this is a part of the narrow way for a good Christian man or woman, and includes the exercise of discernment with a willingness to stand adjudged before God later on the decision to take a life. (Aborters, well, listen - I mean, you've gotta really own this at some point - and ask for forgiveness.)
"I go with the more well-reasoned view of all of the evidence: this is a part of the narrow way for a good Christian man or woman, and includes the exercise of discernment with a willingness to stand adjudged before God later on the decision to take a life."
I'm not even sure the conclusion is even the product of reason (or, at least not "pure" reason). We act in the crisis moment in accordance with a variety of instincts, abilities, opportunities, and options. In the quieter spans of time between these actions, when we're contemplating our past choices and making future plans, we can maybe see a bit of how we may have served God in some ways and failed Him in others. But at least some of it will remain mysterious to us, due to our limited nature.
I sense that's what you mean by our "willingness" to stand and be judged. Obviously, that part's not up to us, when we're parted from the material. But we can be willing *in the material* to incorporate that final ignorance into our earthly decisions. There will be times when we're unsure what we've done and what it cost. In the case of taking a life, the cost is both simple to tabulate and also unimaginably great. Like William Munny says in Unforgiven: "It's a hell of a thing, killing a man. You take away all he's got, and all he's ever gonna have."
Except that's not quite true. You don't take his soul. Or, we could say, he *is* a soul, and you can't steal it by killing him. You do take his opportunities for redemption, however, which is why jail is preferable to killing someone in the act. That's even the case if you plan on executing him after trial. You give him opportunities to ask God for forgiveness, and prepare himself for an infinitely great form of judgment.
So, even killing the killer on the train is still a tragedy. We should still ask for forgiveness. Not for the act itself, perhaps (you fought out of love of your neighbors), but for allowing your city, your nation, or the world at large to come to such a lowly condition that it practically guarantees such crisis moments and emergency interventions.
Hear-hear.
My blessed grandfather was the kindest, simplest, and godliest man I ever knew.
At 24 with 3 kids, he volunteered and joined the Army. He wound up carrying a bazooka into fortress Europe, his unit thrown into the salient from England to turn the tide at the Battle of the Bulge. He never discussed it - ever. And my aunts, his daughters, would say, "Daddy wasn't the same when he came back from the war..."
https://theabjectlesson.substack.com/p/le-roi-est-mort
I agree that we ought to lament that we ever find ourselves under either national or local circumstances faced with the necessity, but I don't think Christianity means that we have to re-enact Christ's crucifixion every time we are faced with evil manifest trying to harm others. I think that is a strained read of the whole of the text.
And unless I misremember... David did kill Goliath with a slingshot and a stone, yes? Cut off his head and paraded it about? Or is that not part of some new versions of the Bible anymore?
That's a tricky one for me, since it conflates warfare with local defense. I'm not sure that righteous combat scales cleanly. Wars tend to get tangled in political webs, greedy contractors, and whatnot.
I agree, but so does individual defense and individual loyalties, ties, ethnic group, language considerations - as your article notes: it's a mess. And "war" may exist b/w two entities, nation-states, but I promise you, like politics, it's local AF. Ask the Bosnians, Serbs, and Croats. I was off the Coast in '95 when it went to shit, but all agreed, it was savage in its "locale-ness." Ask the Irish Catholics and Protestants and Brits (and Scots). Jews/Arabs, etc.
When it comes to killing - even at scale - it's someone's home turf, where people live and sleep and eat.
Most of the same considerations apply to the use of violence, whether it's used "instrumentally" or not. Your article hints at this: but when it's someone "other," whether yelling allahu akhbar or in some other foreign language, or gibbering like a lunatic, it informs context and response.
There's also an important pragmatic point here about the use of violence "righteously" - it needs to be decided in advance, not pondered in the moment. A USAF Colonel - a Vietnam pilot with air-to-air kills - said that the most important thing was to already have had the moral debate & faced the quandary and made the decision to kill beforehand. In the moment it was just carrying out an intent that already had been approved and waited only its opportunity to be carried out. David v. Goliath in 1 Samuel has that same lesson within it, as well.
The thing that is never (well, nearly never) absent in your posts is a preferential, obviously higher-order sympathy for women vis-a-vis men (without a doubt) and, sometimes it may seem, even children. I block anyone who for example, writing on Palestine, mourns the "killed women and children," and blocking them without addressing any response to them is, I suspect, the kindest approach I can take.
However, in your case, I have neither blocked nor quit being a reader. I like (read: I agree with, and I find it morally and spiritually worthy) with all the rest still more than I find it infuriating that it is worse if someone gets a bullet in their head if they have an uterus than two testicles; and I find that genuinely infuriating (and unjust, and... the adjectives from me would never end).
I read the first post by Kingsnorth you "attacked". I didn't see his second until today, because I hadn't read anything on his blog after that first time. When I read his first, it was after reading your criticism here, and I agreed with what he said there as much as I had agreed with your criticism: meaning that I didn't think your criticism was really addressed at what he had said, and so, for me, both of you were mostly right.
Now, this second time, I have even more of that impression: that what you have written isn't in contradiction with what he did write. Nothing in his writing can be really seen as advocating any of the wrong, or pathetically wrong, behaviours you rightly target.
The organization "operating at the border in the name of Christ" have at best nothing to do with Christ or being Christian: I share your sentiments toward them, but, strictly speaking, they feel out of topic in this post or in any reply to Kingnorth.
To me, he is mostly right; you are equally mostly right.
In Jungian (or Myers-Briggs) terms, he is obviously a different type than you. I empathize with your aversion for Evil, inclination to spot it, and yearning for countering it as actively and "dynamically" as possible. He fights in another way; another equally needed one, maybe (probably, if you ask me).
I try my best at it as well, since short after I knew Good was I also was made to realize the Enemy is.
I wish the best to him, to you, to myself, and to all more-than-nominal Christians. I should wish the best to the nominal-only ones, and to all of humankind, but I am not close enough to the Spirit to write that without pretending, and prefer not to.
Thanks for this comment, ikaruga. I confess, it highlighted a perception of my writing that I wasn't aware of, and which wasn't intentional.
"I find it infuriating that it is worse if someone gets a bullet in their head if they have an uterus than two testicles; and I find that genuinely infuriating (and unjust, and... the adjectives from me would never end)."
Me too, actually. I honestly wasn't aware my writing was coming off this way. To be clear, it is *not* "better" (less tragic, more morally defensible, more just) for a man to be murdered than for a woman or a child. In fact, I think such a idea, if deeply held, at least borders on psychopathic evil. It eventually devolves into utilitarian nonsense like the Trolley Problem on Acid that ChatGPT famously played. So it obviously troubles me that this is an impression I've been giving.
At best, what I could say is that a man is more physically and mentally equipped for combat, one consequence of which is that leads us into mortal danger more often. That's not a good thing or a bad thing, to my mind. Just a thing. But that doesn't make it any less tragic. At the civilizational level, it might even lead to much greater desperation and ruin, as the populace runs low on its most capable defenders. In any case, I will try to be more careful in my language, from now on. Maybe I'll even write something specifically about it. Thank you.
"Now, this second time, I have even more of that impression: that what you have written isn't in contradiction with what he did write. Nothing in his writing can be really seen as advocating any of the wrong, or pathetically wrong, behaviours you rightly target."
I don't see him as advocating what's wrong or evil. Quite the opposite. That's why I've tried to narrow my disagreement as much as possible. My inclusion of the border prebendaries wasn't specifically in argument with him, but meant as an example of how difficult it is to see how we might be serving a more distant evil while believing we're serving God's will. The people in these stories (there are quite a few, and if I had the time I'd do a whole journalistic article on them) will often use similar distortions of Christ's lessons to validate their actions in the moment.
The connection I was drawing -- perhaps clumsily -- was between the man who sees evil being committed against his neighbors and rationalizes against putting a stop to it with "violence", no matter how intelligent or limited the application. Wrestling a gunman to the ground is a form of violence. Shooting him is another. We'd prefer the former, but it's not always possible. That was my argument with Mr. Kingsnorth's response: its lack of specificity.
We can say we'll "defend" others from evil all we want, but if we don't draw clear boundaries around that concept, then all kinds of shenanigans can break loose. We could say that blowing up a hospital was an act of "defense" or nuking some foreign city was an act of "defense". Meanwhile, am I "resisting evil" by calling for an evacuation of my town in advance of an imminent air strike?
Much of this doesn't scale well, which is why I believe Christ was talking to us as individuals, not as polities or clades. I will do my best to not resist the slap or the insult, to carry more than what's asked, to not feed the trolls. These are displays of strength, if we do them well. If he means it when he says he will defend his children (and I believe he does), then it seems it might contradict his reading of pacifism in the Sermon. Not trying to pick a fight with him (that was humorous hyperbole on my part). I was actually trying to clear up any differences. As I noted before, I enjoy and respect his writing.
well you may want to revisit your position in regard of the Palestinian casualties who speak of 70% of "women & kids"
I understand a will on your side to honour the men - and know that in all those people you block there may be some who really don't have any % in mind of any form of bad will in regard of the Palestinian men.
Mark, just a book-keeping thing... but I've mentioned it before...
It seems to be a substack thing, but you know, it won't LET you do the "buy a coffee" thing, if you are already a paid up subscriber. (I've made the attempt several times over the past year or so.)
I think I'm going to downgrade my subscription, and then buy some coffees as and when. Just so you know why. :)
I'm going to have a think about the post and be back, later. :)
A good take on an important and often dismissed concept of Christian duty.
I am routinely patience-tested with the effeminate male Christian bros who get all sulky and not just a little salty when they pout about how Jesus told Peter to stop swinging his sword, and that Christian men should *gasp* never pick up a sword or gun.
I think many have either overlooked, forgotten or just haven’t read Luke 22:36 where Jesus says, “And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.” If we evaluate the context of Jesus’s arrest, He not only knew that that the mob would not be killing Him on the spot, but that He had a far more important appointment with the cross.
We might also consider what Jesus didn’t say, as in ‘Peter, I forbid you and the others to carry a sword!’ or ‘Never swing or carry that again, Peter!’ On the contrary, the disciples already had two swords, to which Jesus responded in that same passage, “It is enough.” As you say, when’ Evil pays one of its surprise visits,’ we may, in an sudden moment, be convinced of our need to immediately intervene.
The question in that instant, isn’t so much a moral one or a biblical one, as it is if we are individually able to face our own mortality to prevent the triumph of Evil. Failing that, we become effeminate drones who stand around videotaping and then attempt to justify a raw and contemptible public cowardice by twisting scripture.
"If we evaluate the context of Jesus’s arrest, He not only knew that that the mob would not be killing Him on the spot, but that He had a far more important appointment with the cross."
Right. Christ saw all the designs, all the pieces in motion and how they would interact. He knew how it needed to play out, including the wounding of Malchus by Peter. Christ didn't need a sword to fight, or a horse to flee. But neither of those actions would have served his mission.
We are not Christ. Though we strive to be like him, and to follow his lessons, to become extensions of his body and consciousness, we will not "succeed" in any attempt to actually become what he was and is. We won't see as far as he did, won't command the material of reality like he did, no matter how many fancy gadgets we build. We work within limitations and with limited tools.
That includes our swords, which are pale imitations of His sword, just as our satellites, telescopes and predictive models are pale imitations of His vision. So we do the best with what we have, to do the good we can and serve God's will.
I do not consider myself a soldier of God, as we are admonished from taking that perspective. However, should he tell me somehow that I am needed in some fight, I will look at my fit 52 year old body - his gift - and my alleged basic warfighting skills and see how I’m needed. Id have backed up Penny in the train. I’ve been in dozens of fights and lost a few - I don’t relish the idea of going back in.
Thanks, Nick. I'm pretty sure you meant "back up Penny", though.
Holy wow, yes I did, edited.
I'm no Anabaptist but I do find great beauty in someone like Leo Tolstoy's arguments for Christian pacifism.
But Tolstoy also says you have to stop paying your taxes at tremendous personal risk to yourself to be a true Christian pacifist. How many current armchair revolutionaries fantasizing about living in Neo-Byzantium and polishing their AR-15 feed ramp have even this much courage?
Personally, I do believe in the physical resistance to evil, but the Church historically still bars you from the chalice for at least 3 years for killing a person under any circumstances. It does, in some manner, mystically separate you from God, even if it's for the Good.
To Kingsnorth's point, the pattern of most early Martyrs can be broadly generalized. They repent, they don't physically resist violence done to them done by Rome, and are killed (usually by dismemberment) as a result. As an Orthodox Christian who reads the Synaxarion daily I'm sure Kingsnorth noticed this clear pattern.
There are certainly great Saints who take up the sword in defense of themselves and others who receive a heavenly crown as a result, but they are not the norm. Most of them receive a clear blessing to do so, which is hardly clear to many of us in our fallen state.
"But Tolstoy also says you have to stop paying your taxes at tremendous personal risk to yourself to be a true Christian pacifist. How many current armchair revolutionaries fantasizing about living in Neo-Byzantium and polishing their AR-15 feed ramp have even this much courage?"
This is similar to my thoughts on people who advise a total retreat from the material world, into the realm of the spiritual. First: you're not going to make that trip in the flesh. Second: you aren't retreating nearly as much as you think you are. The fact that I know of your ideas and plans at all means you're still connected to the same evil networks you claim to oppose: tasting their fruits, exchanging their money, fueling the system.
"It does, in some manner, mystically separate you from God, even if it's for the Good."
I'll need to ponder this one for a while. I think the key phrase is "in some manner", because it may be inexplicable outside of the context of your options, and the condition of your soul.
"To Kingsnorth's point, the pattern of most early Martyrs can be broadly generalized. They repent, they don't physically resist violence done to them done by Rome, and are killed (usually by dismemberment) as a result."
But even here, I don't think we can't separate them from their circumstances and options at the time. I've been writing something about Diocletian and Sebastian that will hopefully shed light on the way I see that period. For now, I'll just note that it was bookended with Constantine in battle.
"There are certainly great Saints who take up the sword in defense of themselves and others who receive a heavenly crown as a result, but they are not the norm. Most of them receive a clear blessing to do so, which is hardly clear to many of us in our fallen state."
Amen.
Yes - a total retreat into the spiritual basically lands you deep in Gnostic or New Age territory and is firmly heretical.
Tolstoy's critique of the sacramental life in 19th Century Russia is that it was bordering on this as the great material evil of Communism was capturing the minds of the peasants and the Tsar offered no alternative. In a sense it's quite tragic that Tolstoy and St. John of Kronstadt were such bitter enemies - Tolstoy advocated resistance to tyranny through nonviolent compliance while St. John tried to raise a militia later in life.
Both failed, but were at least trying. I see advocates of "just cause" violence and extreme pacifists in much the same way and it's all largely circumstantial, to your point.
I don't see Kingsnorth as advocating for an attainment of Eden here on Earth, but insomuch as we can try to live that way in an embodied fashion (in contrast to completely spiritual), it is pleasing to God.
"In some manner" is definitely the key here as I'm certainly no Bisohp! But at the very least it is tied up with a deep love, repentance, and forgiveness of one's enemies, as all things are in Christ. This restriction of Communion for killers also extended to soldiers, even in the Christian Empires, and we see this lack of love and repentance from modern veterans.
Many come back with some form of regret for their actions (and a corresponding inner brokenness), but seldom do they abandon completely animosity for their enemies on the battlefield or question whether the presuppositions of their violence were virtuous to begin with. It's the rare soul who can weep for their actions and simultaneously justify their virtue, and that suffering surely separates us from God.
Magnificent piece! Agreed; some serious Knight Templar's twist on our current reality, some American culture, and The American's Creed.
Well done!
OD
While I'm not so sure about the "Templar" part, I obviously agree about the knight part. Some of us must be knights.
Sometimes I wonder if pious pacifists confuse reaction to unsought lethal force with more ordinary tit for tat pot-stirring behavior. No Christian goes looking for trouble, and does what he can to avoid violence. But sometimes as you point out Satan sets real monsters loose, and they really do need to be dealt with so society doesn't collapse sooner than necessary. There is the fact that God loves justice, and normally we rely on our police/military/courts to see that vigilantism doesn't reign, but lately there seems to be a little bit of a problem in that arena. Proper avenues of redress have been and are being removed/blocked. Another thing that strikes me is the popular notion that Christians are to be innocent/harmless as doves, and that is so. But what was the first part of Paul's injunction? To be wise as serpents. They must go together. Christians should spend serious time thinking about Satan - who he is, what he wants, how he operates. Also we should learn to recognize those same traits in ourselves and then in others (without turning into witchfinder generals). Someday we will all stand before Jesus and give an account of all our thoughts and actions. For some He will be their judge, for others their savior and friend. Either way we all will have to answer Him. If Kingsnorth is satisfied with his take on this then fine. Paul also said we had to work out our salvation with fear and trembling (not works salvation!), and to me this is even more troubling than Jesus saying we are not to resist an evil person.
"There is the fact that God loves justice, and normally we rely on our police/military/courts to see that vigilantism doesn't reign, but lately there seems to be a little bit of a problem in that arena. Proper avenues of redress have been and are being removed/blocked."
That's an understatement, here in NYC. Years of no-bail policies, police defunding and other treachery under the color of law hasn't just led to more murders, but to more nihilism, mistrust, fear and hopelessness. That was the evil motive behind persecuting Penny. They weren't afraid he'd turn in Batman and start cleaning up the streets on his own. They were afraid he'd make the rest of us a little more courageous, a little more hopeful. That we'd start looking at each other as potential friends instead of threats, and that the next time around we might all jump in to stop the madman. Evil wants, more than anything else, to crush our spirits. If our bodies get in the way, they might crush those too. But if we join forces, they are doomed.
And yes, that means we need to play it smart as well. Jesus didn't say, "Walk into the first town you see and turn yourself in to the cops." Wise as serpents, quiet as doves.
Evil wants, more than anything, to keep souls away from Father God by preventing them from accepting the free gift of salvation paid for in full by Jesus the Son. From even KNOWING about the gift. If we are indwelt by the Holy Spirit we can't be crushed, but our bodies yes can be destroyed.
What a wonderful essay. Never read a better explanation of why pacifism/nonresistance is NOT the answer to every conflict. Well said.
Excellent response and explanation of what it means to resist evil.
I'd be inclined to just ignore Kingsnorth. He lacks vitality.
If Mr Kingsnorth was correct, Christianity would've never spread beyond a few hundred people. He wants Christian yoga, not Christianity.
Brilliant Mark. Regarding the killing. It is secondary. The intent comes first. Content before form. Are we killing out of hate? No. Are we killing out of guilt, fear or some imagined morality? No we are alive and simply in the moment of decision. We see the pure mathematics of it in a way. The one of ego to be stopped or restrained by the means most likely to have effect. The most broad and life affirming of the range we have.
We kill constantly and the animals and plants that sustain these bodies are for us to be killed. So too the one who seeks to end our progeny or ourselves.