Well, I did read it and I'm happy to respond! Thanks in turn for responding to me.
Firstly, please drop all the nonsense about me being 'somebody' and you being 'nobody.' Both of us know that's rubbish in the eyes of God. I'm a professional writer and so my words get out widely (after decades of trying) because that's my trade. That doesn't make them any truer or less true than yours, or anyone else's.
There's a lot of food for thought here, and I thank you for it. Let me me just say two things in response.
Firstly, and most importantly, you are misrepresenting what I am saying here. Perhaps this is my fault for not saying it clearly enough. But you say this:
'Mr. Kingsnorth seems to see such calls to action as a purely Western artifact — the West’s “Big Idea” as he calls it. He links it to the Western man’s seemingly disproportionate fondness for abstraction. But action — the physical doing of a thing — is not an abstraction. You might even say it’s the opposite of abstract.'
This is true - which is why I said exactly the same thing myself in the essay:
'Still, activism and action are not the same thing. Nobody is called on to be inactive, as if such a thing were even possible. Jesus was so active in the world that he regularly needed to retire from it just to get his breath back. Sitting in a cave all day praying is certainly a form of action: try it if you don’t believe me. But most of us are ‘in the world’, and so the world will challenge us. It will bring us evils like this. What are we to do with them? Stand up for the truth in love. Practice what we claim to believe. Loving our enemies implies that we have enemies - and we have them because we stand for something. Being called out of the world tends to make you unpopular.'
I think this is quite clear. The question is not 'shall I be active or not?' The question is 'what does that mean, for a Christian?' As you say, that question will never really be resolved. We can all accuse each other of getting it wrong, as people have been doing for 2000 years.
For my part, I think that what Christ is teaching amounts to what has been called for a long time 'non violent direct action.' I have practiced this myself over the years. Tolstoy and Gandhi both preached and practiced it, directly influenced by the gospels. I think St Moses did too, and many other saints. It seems to me to be a response which responds both to the need for action and to the need not to become evil by battling evil (which is what I think Jesus was warning us about.)
There is also a clear distinction, as you say yourself, between evil aimed at you and evil aimed at another. If my children are attacked, I am not going to stand by passively. I am going to defend them, because there is no greater love than laying down a life for a friend. This influenced, for example, someone like Dietrich Bonheoffer in World War Two, who practised non violent resistance against the Nazis and did what he could to save the Jews, but refused to take up arms. That seems to me to be the practical Christian response to tyranny. Action, informed by the gospel - but not 'activism' as an abstract 'change the world' ideological response.
As for 'God isn't crazy.' Well, no - but, as Jesus teaches clearly, and St Paul does too, perhaps even more so, God's values are not those of 'the world.' What God, and Jesus, want from us certainly seems 'crazy' in the eyes of the world and according to its values. 'Do not resist evil' is violently resisted by many Christians for precisely that reason. And yet the early martyrs took it seriously, and died in their thousands practising it. Were they 'crazy'? In the world's eyes, certainly. But in God's?
As an Orthodox Christian I am heavily influenced by the early Church, the desert fathers and the monastic saints, among whom all these teachings are found, related more clearly than I could ever relate them. I am not a theologian either, as you can see.
As a big fan of both of you and your perspective: isn't it ultimately acting in humility? Not trying to "best" someone trying to hurt you, but to be passive and humble, in an effort to show Christ's love to others. However, defending others is self-sacrificing, so therefore also a humble act. I see it as always putting others first. Easier said than done, though.
You're still clinging to your refusal to distinguish between attacks on the personal & corporate, on yourself & others.
"It is true that the Church told some men to fight and others not to fight; and it is true that those who fought were like thunderbolts and those who did not fight were like statues. All this simply means that the Church preferred to use its Supermen and to use its Tolstoyans. There must be some good in the life of battle, for so many good men have enjoyed being soldiers. There must be some good in the idea of non-resistance, for so many good men seem to enjoy being Quakers. All that the Church did (so far as that goes) was to prevent either of these good things from ousting the other. They existed side by side........ Monks said all that Tolstoy says; they poured out lucid lamentations about the cruelty of battles and the vanity of revenge. But the Tolstoyans were not quite right enough to run the whole world; and in the ages of faith they were not allowed to run it."
- G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy
This quotes' about you, Paul; & it was written by a morbidly obese dude generations before you were born. Let those born for the kingdom of the left hand do their jobs.
Infact, this is one of those situation where deep dives and further Analysis of all the sundry points you bring up in this comment… ought to be delved into deeper for the benefit of the readers and listeners.
Sir Kenaz Filan and myself run a podcast, and we would love to host you! Not only to talk about this response comment, but likewise your original essay as well.
How does that sound, good sir? 😉
Addendum: Here is a recent episode we did with Grandmaster of DOOM, John Michael Greer, just to give you an idea of what the show is like:
I think you hit upon the crux of the misunderstanding with your closing sentences, Paul. Orthodox Christianity has few analogues in the Western world in terms of self-denial and asceticism and instead the battle against evil is largely externalized, resulting in culture wars and physical wars.
Even Catholic ascetic tradition has an element of bloodlust to it, with the self-flagellation and whatnot. Maybe that’s also why ideas like penal substitutionary atonement caught on so easily in the West: humanity’s desire for bloody justice is necessarily mirrored in their perception of God.
I don’t mean this to say that Mark is bloodthirsty; not at all, and I’m in agreement with him on a number of points. But the Western expressions of Christ (especially the abysmal “Republican Jesus” of modern American churches) don’t do much to cultivate the fruits of the spirit, particularly peace and gentleness. It follows that anyone advocating for non-violence will easily be misunderstood and misrepresented.
As someone who also spent much of his life as an “activist,” and fought tooth-and-nail to change hearts and minds, I can safely say that changing my own heart and mind to align with Christ has been the most vicious battle I’ve ever engaged in, and I have been a more ruthless enemy to myself than any other human being has ever been, and I have Orthodoxy to thank for that battle.
As an aside I’ll add that I loved the image you painted of Christians as having “spiritual bombs under (our) cloaks,” and I think of it often. Blessed Nativity to you and yours!
Thanks, Mark. I'll take this essay over 99% of the sermons I've heard in my lifetime. My experience, having been raised in a Christian/Fundamentalist culture, is that people overthink these things (I did for years) and attempt to take everything so literally in an attempt to be so "spiritual", they abandon common sense, the common sense God gave us. Have a Merry Christmas...
Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter. If you say, “But we knew nothing about this,” does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who guards your life know it?
Thanks for these. I was trying to keep it focused on the Sermon on the Mount and keep the OT out of it. But I don't recall Jesus disputing any of that.
Thank you for your beautiful words and perspective.
I used to think the OT was irrelevant after Jesus but it is a beautiful tapestry of God working in the world, His love on display, and the constant foreshadowing of the Savior to come.
Christ affirmed the truth and authority of the OT. I understand if you were trying to keep to the sermon on the mount for rhetorical purposes. But just for your general walk with God, there is no more or less inspired Scripture. The black letters of the OT are every bit the word of God as the red letters of Jesus.
It seems to me, a choice between choosing to live for awhile longer, or dying to prevent a few cartel members from ever raping, enslaving or killing anyone ever again, is not a choice at all. In that case may God and the Angels give me the strength to lay waste to my enemies.
Another excellent and timely essay for this Christmas season. The Daniel Penny case ties in nicely. A person of good conscience and morality could not stand by and do nothing. To cower in fear would likely haunt a person and eat away at their soul for the rest of their life. I watched a movie yesterday about the early 20th century Irish revolutionary, Michael Collins. He was a fierce and ruthless warrior in his battle to through off the yoke of British tyranny, but was willing to negotiate a treaty that was less than the complete indeal his comrades fought for in order to end the bloodshed. He was betrayed by one of the men closest to him and killed for it. I think lessons like this are so important for the times we are living in. Your writing is important, and you are not a nobody to your fans, like me, here on Substack. One day you will publish ground breaking books. You have the talent. I have no doubt.
"To bear with patience wrongs done to oneself is a mark of perfection, but to bear with patience wrongs done to someone else is a mark of imperfection and even of actual sin"
If I could give this a standing ovation I would. I read that Kingsnorth essay and it did not sit right with me either. I've debated this subject matter with a Buddhist monk and in a Christian prayer group: when is violence perhaps necessary both to defend yourself but also to alleviate the suffering of others at the hands of the wicked? The Book of Jeremiah it seems has some of more interesting passages on it: "Thus says the LORD: Do justice and righteousness, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor him who has been robbed." for example.
This turn the other cheek and let them rob, rape, kill, do whatever because Jesus says so seems to be a gross oversimplification. Even pacifist Buddha allows it in cases where it is done to prevent a greater bloodshed...
I really enjoyed this. I admire your humility, your willingness to acknowledge that your relationship with God is still a work in progress and that it is often difficult to know what God would want us to do in a particular situation. Its not worth a whole lot but not only have I heard of you, I look forward to reading whatever you write. And I have never heard of Mr. Kingsnorth.
We are admonished to not be quick to anger. This does not mean not to protect what is precious. -
Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?”
“Nothing,” they answered.
He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.” - Luke 22:35-37
This legalistic world knows nothing about such matters. It only knows its own empowerment and authority.
and it’s refreshing to read a thoughtful non-expert take on what it means to discern and apply Christian teaching for real, in practice, in the world.
I’m a Kingsnorth fan and subscriber and I agree with your criticism here. I even suspect he would agree with you. But who knows, I didn’t even get through the Moses piece because something wasn’t sitting right with me.
His writing can be muddy—impressionistic and imprecise. (Seriously bro which is it— freely given or helpless?). Ah, but he can be incandescent and inspirational! Even then there’s a bit of impressionism involved, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing when done well.
Well, I did read it and I'm happy to respond! Thanks in turn for responding to me.
Firstly, please drop all the nonsense about me being 'somebody' and you being 'nobody.' Both of us know that's rubbish in the eyes of God. I'm a professional writer and so my words get out widely (after decades of trying) because that's my trade. That doesn't make them any truer or less true than yours, or anyone else's.
There's a lot of food for thought here, and I thank you for it. Let me me just say two things in response.
Firstly, and most importantly, you are misrepresenting what I am saying here. Perhaps this is my fault for not saying it clearly enough. But you say this:
'Mr. Kingsnorth seems to see such calls to action as a purely Western artifact — the West’s “Big Idea” as he calls it. He links it to the Western man’s seemingly disproportionate fondness for abstraction. But action — the physical doing of a thing — is not an abstraction. You might even say it’s the opposite of abstract.'
This is true - which is why I said exactly the same thing myself in the essay:
'Still, activism and action are not the same thing. Nobody is called on to be inactive, as if such a thing were even possible. Jesus was so active in the world that he regularly needed to retire from it just to get his breath back. Sitting in a cave all day praying is certainly a form of action: try it if you don’t believe me. But most of us are ‘in the world’, and so the world will challenge us. It will bring us evils like this. What are we to do with them? Stand up for the truth in love. Practice what we claim to believe. Loving our enemies implies that we have enemies - and we have them because we stand for something. Being called out of the world tends to make you unpopular.'
I think this is quite clear. The question is not 'shall I be active or not?' The question is 'what does that mean, for a Christian?' As you say, that question will never really be resolved. We can all accuse each other of getting it wrong, as people have been doing for 2000 years.
For my part, I think that what Christ is teaching amounts to what has been called for a long time 'non violent direct action.' I have practiced this myself over the years. Tolstoy and Gandhi both preached and practiced it, directly influenced by the gospels. I think St Moses did too, and many other saints. It seems to me to be a response which responds both to the need for action and to the need not to become evil by battling evil (which is what I think Jesus was warning us about.)
There is also a clear distinction, as you say yourself, between evil aimed at you and evil aimed at another. If my children are attacked, I am not going to stand by passively. I am going to defend them, because there is no greater love than laying down a life for a friend. This influenced, for example, someone like Dietrich Bonheoffer in World War Two, who practised non violent resistance against the Nazis and did what he could to save the Jews, but refused to take up arms. That seems to me to be the practical Christian response to tyranny. Action, informed by the gospel - but not 'activism' as an abstract 'change the world' ideological response.
As for 'God isn't crazy.' Well, no - but, as Jesus teaches clearly, and St Paul does too, perhaps even more so, God's values are not those of 'the world.' What God, and Jesus, want from us certainly seems 'crazy' in the eyes of the world and according to its values. 'Do not resist evil' is violently resisted by many Christians for precisely that reason. And yet the early martyrs took it seriously, and died in their thousands practising it. Were they 'crazy'? In the world's eyes, certainly. But in God's?
As an Orthodox Christian I am heavily influenced by the early Church, the desert fathers and the monastic saints, among whom all these teachings are found, related more clearly than I could ever relate them. I am not a theologian either, as you can see.
All the best, and thanks for responding.
As a big fan of both of you and your perspective: isn't it ultimately acting in humility? Not trying to "best" someone trying to hurt you, but to be passive and humble, in an effort to show Christ's love to others. However, defending others is self-sacrificing, so therefore also a humble act. I see it as always putting others first. Easier said than done, though.
This sounds right to me. And yes - easier said than done!
You're still clinging to your refusal to distinguish between attacks on the personal & corporate, on yourself & others.
"It is true that the Church told some men to fight and others not to fight; and it is true that those who fought were like thunderbolts and those who did not fight were like statues. All this simply means that the Church preferred to use its Supermen and to use its Tolstoyans. There must be some good in the life of battle, for so many good men have enjoyed being soldiers. There must be some good in the idea of non-resistance, for so many good men seem to enjoy being Quakers. All that the Church did (so far as that goes) was to prevent either of these good things from ousting the other. They existed side by side........ Monks said all that Tolstoy says; they poured out lucid lamentations about the cruelty of battles and the vanity of revenge. But the Tolstoyans were not quite right enough to run the whole world; and in the ages of faith they were not allowed to run it."
- G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy
This quotes' about you, Paul; & it was written by a morbidly obese dude generations before you were born. Let those born for the kingdom of the left hand do their jobs.
Excellent responses!
Infact, this is one of those situation where deep dives and further Analysis of all the sundry points you bring up in this comment… ought to be delved into deeper for the benefit of the readers and listeners.
Sir Kenaz Filan and myself run a podcast, and we would love to host you! Not only to talk about this response comment, but likewise your original essay as well.
How does that sound, good sir? 😉
Addendum: Here is a recent episode we did with Grandmaster of DOOM, John Michael Greer, just to give you an idea of what the show is like:
https://www.notesfromtheendofti.me/p/eurabiamania-46-be-quiet-the-wizards?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Looking forward to having you on! 😊
I think you hit upon the crux of the misunderstanding with your closing sentences, Paul. Orthodox Christianity has few analogues in the Western world in terms of self-denial and asceticism and instead the battle against evil is largely externalized, resulting in culture wars and physical wars.
Even Catholic ascetic tradition has an element of bloodlust to it, with the self-flagellation and whatnot. Maybe that’s also why ideas like penal substitutionary atonement caught on so easily in the West: humanity’s desire for bloody justice is necessarily mirrored in their perception of God.
I don’t mean this to say that Mark is bloodthirsty; not at all, and I’m in agreement with him on a number of points. But the Western expressions of Christ (especially the abysmal “Republican Jesus” of modern American churches) don’t do much to cultivate the fruits of the spirit, particularly peace and gentleness. It follows that anyone advocating for non-violence will easily be misunderstood and misrepresented.
As someone who also spent much of his life as an “activist,” and fought tooth-and-nail to change hearts and minds, I can safely say that changing my own heart and mind to align with Christ has been the most vicious battle I’ve ever engaged in, and I have been a more ruthless enemy to myself than any other human being has ever been, and I have Orthodoxy to thank for that battle.
As an aside I’ll add that I loved the image you painted of Christians as having “spiritual bombs under (our) cloaks,” and I think of it often. Blessed Nativity to you and yours!
Thanks, Mark. I'll take this essay over 99% of the sermons I've heard in my lifetime. My experience, having been raised in a Christian/Fundamentalist culture, is that people overthink these things (I did for years) and attempt to take everything so literally in an attempt to be so "spiritual", they abandon common sense, the common sense God gave us. Have a Merry Christmas...
Right. "God isn't crazy" was an alternate title I considered. I thought he came to clear away all the legalese and heady dorm room jive talk.
You have yourself a Merry Christmas too, brother.
I graduated from Liberty Baptist College (now Liberty University) so I know all about dorm room jive talk!
Proverbs 24:11-12 New International Version (NIV)
Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter. If you say, “But we knew nothing about this,” does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who guards your life know it?
Thanks for these. I was trying to keep it focused on the Sermon on the Mount and keep the OT out of it. But I don't recall Jesus disputing any of that.
Thank you for your beautiful words and perspective.
I used to think the OT was irrelevant after Jesus but it is a beautiful tapestry of God working in the world, His love on display, and the constant foreshadowing of the Savior to come.
Christ affirmed the truth and authority of the OT. I understand if you were trying to keep to the sermon on the mount for rhetorical purposes. But just for your general walk with God, there is no more or less inspired Scripture. The black letters of the OT are every bit the word of God as the red letters of Jesus.
He came to fulfill all righteousness. Thank you for your words and witness!!
Amen
It seems to me, a choice between choosing to live for awhile longer, or dying to prevent a few cartel members from ever raping, enslaving or killing anyone ever again, is not a choice at all. In that case may God and the Angels give me the strength to lay waste to my enemies.
Thought provoking but this catholic woman believes in fighting in every sense⚔️
Luke 22. 36 “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.
Another excellent and timely essay for this Christmas season. The Daniel Penny case ties in nicely. A person of good conscience and morality could not stand by and do nothing. To cower in fear would likely haunt a person and eat away at their soul for the rest of their life. I watched a movie yesterday about the early 20th century Irish revolutionary, Michael Collins. He was a fierce and ruthless warrior in his battle to through off the yoke of British tyranny, but was willing to negotiate a treaty that was less than the complete indeal his comrades fought for in order to end the bloodshed. He was betrayed by one of the men closest to him and killed for it. I think lessons like this are so important for the times we are living in. Your writing is important, and you are not a nobody to your fans, like me, here on Substack. One day you will publish ground breaking books. You have the talent. I have no doubt.
"To bear with patience wrongs done to oneself is a mark of perfection, but to bear with patience wrongs done to someone else is a mark of imperfection and even of actual sin"
—St Thomas Aquinas
I too have been wondering about the rules of engagement in a spiritual battle
I don't buy what he's selling either, Mark.
If he ever reads it, I hope he takes it the right way. I think he's mistaken, but probably never as totally lost in the dark as I once was.
If I could give this a standing ovation I would. I read that Kingsnorth essay and it did not sit right with me either. I've debated this subject matter with a Buddhist monk and in a Christian prayer group: when is violence perhaps necessary both to defend yourself but also to alleviate the suffering of others at the hands of the wicked? The Book of Jeremiah it seems has some of more interesting passages on it: "Thus says the LORD: Do justice and righteousness, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor him who has been robbed." for example.
This turn the other cheek and let them rob, rape, kill, do whatever because Jesus says so seems to be a gross oversimplification. Even pacifist Buddha allows it in cases where it is done to prevent a greater bloodshed...
I really enjoyed this. I admire your humility, your willingness to acknowledge that your relationship with God is still a work in progress and that it is often difficult to know what God would want us to do in a particular situation. Its not worth a whole lot but not only have I heard of you, I look forward to reading whatever you write. And I have never heard of Mr. Kingsnorth.
We are admonished to not be quick to anger. This does not mean not to protect what is precious. -
Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?”
“Nothing,” they answered.
He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.” - Luke 22:35-37
This legalistic world knows nothing about such matters. It only knows its own empowerment and authority.
John 2:13-17
Thabks for the thoughtful soul searching post. I added some source material for review which more than supports your base case.
Really interesting post. I’m a recent convert
and it’s refreshing to read a thoughtful non-expert take on what it means to discern and apply Christian teaching for real, in practice, in the world.
I’m a Kingsnorth fan and subscriber and I agree with your criticism here. I even suspect he would agree with you. But who knows, I didn’t even get through the Moses piece because something wasn’t sitting right with me.
His writing can be muddy—impressionistic and imprecise. (Seriously bro which is it— freely given or helpless?). Ah, but he can be incandescent and inspirational! Even then there’s a bit of impressionism involved, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing when done well.