A Prayer For Our Enemies

God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,
     We confess that in times of tragedy we do not want to love our enemies.  We do not want to grant them mercy. We do not want to acknowledge that You created them in the same way that You created us.
     We are unwilling to accept that you love them in the same way that you love us.  We want them to be judged more harshly by You than You would judge us.
     As humans, we have confused and perverted the words "justice" and "revenge." We want revenge; we don't seek justice.
     We want revenge: We want to be God - We want to be You. We want to make the ultimate decisions of others' fates. We think we know what should be done.  They hurt us and the ones we love, after all.
     You seek justice. You seek that the wrongdoers face consequences for their actions by other humans but that those consequences not be doled out in revenge.  You are the only one capable of revenge because only You know the entire story.

     We can take comfort that you also know our pain. You know that we live in a broken world. You know that seeking revenge is more common than seeking justice, but you give us a higher calling.  You've called us to live in your son's image and into His example through the power of the Holy Spirit.
     Empower us to not only tolerate our enemies but to pray for them and to love them.  Yes, God, I did say love.  Even I do not want to love my enemies, but I pray that you guide me in a direction to where I will want to love them.
     Our enemies have done terrible things.  But we are only to carry out justice; not revenge.
     When our hearts are hardened with thoughts of revenge, we pray for a softening that will lead us to turn to You and put judgement back in your hands.  When hate fills our minds, we pray for love.  For only in love are we freed from fear.  And fear is the ultimate enemy that tortures us and causes us to hate and seek revenge.
     We ask all of these things in the name of Jesus Christ who with You and the Holy Spirit lives and reigns forever. Amen!

What if We Took Jesus Seriously?

^{The following is the "meat" of the sermon I preached on February 10, 2013.  Since I preach with notes rather than a manuscript, this is not the exact sermon, but rather, an adaptation of it.}

Luke 6:27-28

²⁷“But I say to you that listen, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, ²⁸bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you.

·   What would happen if we actually took the words of Jesus seriously?  What would happen if the Church actually thought Jesus meant what he said?  Would we act differently? Or, would we tell Jesus that we just don't think His way would work?

I  If we're going to believe the things we say we believe, then we need to at least give the words that Jesus said a chance.  Notice that Jesus never said we'd walk in a "rose garden" for being his disciple.  He never said we'd never suffer.  He never promised that we wouldn't even be killed for being his follower.  But, the rewards he promised us are greater than any suffering.  

I  I'll be the first to admit that when someone is an enemy to me, I don't want to "love them."  I don't want to pray for them, I don't want to be nice to them.  I don't even want to have good things happen to them in most cases. My first thought is that I want "karma" to hit them.  I want what they did unto me to be done unto them, and I want it done now!  

   But then this bothersome Jesus gets in the way and whispers in my ear - You have to love them.  I feel like a little child.  "Daddy, do I have to???"  The answer is obvious.  Yes, I do.  Yes, WE do.

   Now, let's face reality, the enemy who waves to us on the highway with less than 4 fingers (think about it...it'll come to you what I mean) is easier to love than the enemy who attacks our country.  We can love someone rushing to work, but can we love bin Laden?  Well, obviously, some people couldn't.  I admit, when I heard he was killed, I didn't mourn. But then I realized that as evil as he acted, God still loved even him.  So should I.

   The problem is that English only has 1 word for Love.  I can tell you in the same conversation that I love my car, I love my wife, I love my church family, and I love my children.  Think about that for a while, and you'll realize that my love for each has to be different.  If it's not, we have some serious problems to address.

   

   Usually when I say, "love your enemies," (or rather quote Jesus saying that), people think Jesus means there should be no justice.  But God is a God of justice.  But in this simple, yet profound statement, Jesus is calling us to re-imagine justice. Many of us have been raise to believe that justice is punishment.  Yes, sometimes there is an element of punishment in justice.  Evil cannot go unpunished.  But, Jesus is calling for justice that also rehabilitates.  In Luke 4, part of Jesus' reading of the scroll of Isaiah says, "[he has sent me to] release the captive." The people that day thought it was in reference to those captive by the Roman Empire - Jesus meant something completely different.  He meant those who were captive by oppression and sin.  Justice does not just oppress and punish the person who does evil, but it rehabilitates them as much as possible.  THAT is justice. Obviously, depending on the crime, that will take a different amount of time. A person who says something mean to you can be rehabilitated with an apology.  A person who murders will take much longer.  But all the same, Jesus tells us to love our enemies.

^{Luke 6:}

³⁷“Do not judge, and you will not be judged; do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven;

·      

  Jesus is on a roll!!! He now tells the people not to judge.  But what does that mean? Does that mean that we are to tolerate sin in our very midst?  Does that mean that anything goes?  

  Churches are great Judges...no wonder people avoid us! Let me add onto say that we do it wrongly too often.  Judging is not saying that something is a sin.  Judging is saying that we know the eternal destiny of someone.  Judging is also making the church so exclusive that only certain types of people are welcome.  Remember - the church is not a show off place for saints.  It's a hospital for sinners.

  Too often, people in the church will start off a sentence by saying "I'm not judging, but..." - stop them there if you hear those words...They are judging.  Or, there's the famous "Hate the sin, love the sinner."  Unless you've gone on to perfection, I promise there is enough sin in your own life to hate that you don't need to worry about hating someone else's sin. 

 Luke 6:

⁴¹Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? ⁴²Or how can you say to your neighbor, ‘Friend, let me take out the speck in your eye,’ when you yourself do not see the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye.

At this point, Jesus is telling us well meaning Christians in a very polite way to "know our place."  In other words, don't worry about someone else's house being a mess until your own is clean.   We must also remember Jesus was speaking to a group.  Is there division in your church? Has anyone in your church sinned today? Is everyone fully reconciled to everyone else?  Is everyone fully worshipping God to the best of their ability?  Is everyone fully loving God and Neighbor?  If not, then you have a log to deal with - let others deal with their own dust.  

BUT, if you feel led to help others deal with their problems, remember that you do it as equals and walk side by side.  One sinner cannot tell another sinner how to walk a better Christian life and be the moral compass of another.  But, any Christian can partner with another Christian and together they can help each other walk through life holding one another accountable and guiding one another through struggles. 

·      

    What is your primary label – Mom? Dad? Grandparent? Son? Daughter? Your Job? Republican? Democrat? American? Or is it CHRISTIAN? Until we can fully say that we are NOTHING but Christian, according to Jesus’ own words, we are hypocrites if we condemn others, judge others, or be anything but equals with others.  We are called to love others.

Not only will that help us in this life, but it will also help us on Judgement Day, because, we definitely do not want to hear Jesus say an adaptation of what he said in Luke 6:46 -   ⁴⁶“Why did you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and did not do what I told you?

2 Conversations Most Pacifists Will Have

            OK, I admit it, I used the word “donkey” so I didn’t begin with the word I really meant… “ass.”  But, when someone comes out as a pacifist, or if they say they are exploring pacifism, the following is usually the conversation.   This eventually leads to the pacifist calling the tormentor an “ass” or vice versa. 

 The Donkey Conversation #1  (This idea of this conversation is borrowed from John Howard Yoder’s What Would You Do?).

(Key:  P=Pacifist, NP=Non Pacifist)

NP:  So, you’re a pacifist?

P:  Well, yeah, I’m pretty sure this is what God expects of us.

NP:  So what would you do if someone were holding a gun at the head of someone you love?

P:  Well, I guess I’d be upset.

NP:  You wouldn’t shoot them?

P:  I don’t have a gun, and I doubt spitballs would do much good in this situation.

NP:  OK, you have a gun.

P:  Well, I’d expect the person would break in without much warning and I wouldn’t  have time to grab the gun even if I wanted it.

NP:  OK, forget about how it happens, but you have a gun, and someone is threatening to kill someone you love.

P:  Am I a good shot?

NP:  Yes…a very good shot.

P:  OK, that’s easy…I’d shot the gun out of the criminal’s hand.

NP:  You’re not that good…

P:  How do you know…have you ever seen me shoot a gun? 

NP:  No…but that’s not the point…Why wouldn’t you just kill the criminal?

P:  Because it never works that way.  If I shot, the criminal would shoot at the sound of my shot, and then we’d have 2 dead people.

NP:  You’re being impossible.  OK…if you shoot, the criminal can’t.  If you don’t shoot, the criminal will.

P:  Oh, well you’ve made it easy.  I know exactly what I’d do.  I’d dance.

NP:  Dance?  Why would you dance at a time like this?

P:  Have you ever seen me dance?

NP:  Well, no…but what does dancing have to do with this situation?

P:  A lot!  I can clear a room if I start dancing.  The criminal couldn’t stand seeing my                         gyrations that he/she would have to leave.  Trust me, my dancing should be outlawed!

NP:  That’s stupid.  That’s not how the scenario goes.

P:  Why do you get to make up how it goes?  Are you going to break into my house?

NP:  Of course not…I’m just trying to prove that…Ugh…You know, you’re being a smartass!

P:  Well, that’s because you’re being a dumbass!

            The problem with the above conversation is that it implies there are only 2 options.  Kill the criminal or the criminal kills the loved one.  But, I’ve never heard of a situation working like that…ever!  Criminals don’t enter with much warning, so unless one keeps a gun on a holster at all times, the chances of getting to the gun would not be great.  Even if one could get to the gun, what if it scares the criminal into killing the loved one?  And then, come to think of it, aside from very few instances, I’ve never heard of a home invasion where the sole purpose was to kill one person.  Most home invasions are to steal goods or money. 

            So, while the above may be someone’s vain attempt to “prove” that someone can’t be a pacifist, the logic and flow of events is quite unlikely.  It fails to prove anything.  The problem comes when the pacifist agrees to fall into the trap of this conversation by allowing that it “could happen” just this way.  In that event, many pacifists will admit they would kill to save a loved one.  But, we must remember that the logic of that conversation (and most like it) is flawed and inaccurate.

The Donkey Conversation #2

            If one who claims to be a pacifist “wins” conversation #1, the following conversation usually ensues…assuming that the non-pacifist doesn’t mind being called a “dumbass,” doesn’t storm off, or doesn’t bring severe bodily harm to the pacifist (thus challenging how passive the pacifist truly can be).

NP:  OK, what if our country was invaded by some other country?

P:  That would stink.

NP:  What would you do?

P: Probably try to be somewhere safe, or at least as far away from the battles as I can get.

NP:  You mean you wouldn’t defend your country?

P:  I didn’t say that…

NP:  Not directly…but you said you’d get away from the fighting.

P:  Why do I have to be near gunfire to defend my country?

NP:  You’d have to shoot the opposing army.

P:  I don’t have a gun, remember?

NP:  What if you did?

P:  Well, if I were to use a gun (which I wouldn’t), I doubt a shotgun or hunting rifle is going to match up to military weapons.

NP:  OK, fine…You have a machine gun…or a grenade launcher…or….

P:  You mean they’re just handing those things out to anyone?  And we’re worried about an invading army?  It seems we have other issues to worry about now.

NP:  The nation needs defended, so the government is giving weapons to people to defend it.

P:  What if one of those weapons is given to the person who came into my house to shoot my loved one?           

NP:  What does that person have to do with this conversation?

P:  Well, if that person is so deranged to invade my house just to kill a loved one or to be killed, what would stop that person from doing it in a time of war?

NP:  Because that person is now defending the country…like you should be doing.

P:  Why does this person hate me so much?  And what happens if the country is successfully defended?  Would that home invader come back?

NP:  You’re being a smartass again!

P:  Well, you’re being…oh, never mind.

NP:  So you wouldn’t defend the nation?

P:  I didn’t say that…you did.

NP:  OK, so you would?

P:  I would defend freedom and fight oppression.

NP:  So you would fight?

P:  Of course I’d fight (assuming the invaders were oppressors – come to think of it, what if they were just lost, and people started shooting at them, and they started shooting back…what if it’s not an invasion at all but a misunderstanding?).           

NP:  I’m going to ignore that and just ask how you’d defend the country.

P:  By fighting the oppression.

NP:  So you’re not a pacifist? Gotcha!

P:  Yes I am…Pacifists fight.

NP:  How?  Are you going to throw stones at the invaders?

P:  That would be violent…I doubt I’d do that.

NP: So, what would you do?

P:  Fight.

NP: How?

P:  Speaking out, protesting, creating disturbances to the oppressors, you know…stuff like Gandhi did.

NP:  Well, that stuff is illegal under the invaders.

P:  And shooting them isn’t?

NP:  Well, of course it is…but at least shooting would work.

P:  Not necessarily…what if the shooters on our side are bad at aiming? Or we have inferior weapons?

NP:  We don’t…don’t you see that we have the best military in the world?

P:  Well, then why aren’t they defending the country?

NP:  They are...they just need our help.

P:  If they need our help, then technically they wouldn’t be as good as the invaders.

NP:  OK, fine…you’re really irritating me…they don’t NEED us, but to be patriotic you’d have to fight.           

P:  I already told you I would and how I’d do it.

NP:  But your way won’t work!

P:  First of all, how do you know?  And second of all, why is your version of success the only acceptable success in this event?

NP:  We don’t want them taking us over!

P:  Right!  So that’s why I’d speak out, protest, etc.

NP:  How can “fighting” that way work?

P:  Well, I guess a lot of that has to do with God.  What about “turning the other cheek,” “loving our enemies,” “blessed are the peacemakers,” and other stuff like that?

NP:  You’d love our invaders?

P:  Well, I’m probably not going to marry any of them…my wife wouldn’t approve anyway.  I certainly wouldn’t like what they’d be doing, and I probably wouldn’t want to have tea and crumpets with them, but yeah, I’d love them the way I love all of God’s creation.  It’s not perfect love, but I’d try none the less.

NP:  So now you’re bringing God into this?

P:  I didn’t bring God in…God’s always been in.

NP:  Not in this scenario…

P:  How is God not somehow involved in everything?

NP:  OK, fine, God is involved, but God wants you to shoot the enemy.

P:  You talked to God???  You mean you actually heard God say that???

NP:  Of course I didn’t talk to God…well, I pray…but…you know…you’re very                         difficult…I guess I just can’t talk sense into you.

P:  You’re probably right.  You can’t talk sense into me.  And, didn’t Paul say something about God using the foolish to shame the wise?

NP:  I really want to hit you now!

P:  If you do, I’ll turn the other cheek, but you’ll have to look me in the eye when I do.

NP:  Ugh!!!! (Storms off).

            When countered with biblical evidence against killing (“Turn the other cheek,” “Thou shalt not kill,” “Blessed are the peacemakers,” etc.), it is hard to claim that it is God’s will to wage war.  The Book of Joshua may be thrown in as “counter-evidence” to defend killing.  If that happens, we have to take a close look at what Joshua is really about.  Is the killing a true genocide?  Does it symbolize “killing idolatry?”  Aren’t those people also God’s creation?  And, even if it does condone killing, notice that the killing is directed solely by God.  Never does a person decide whom to kill. 

Conclusions:

1.    1.   It seems that God desires pacifism even in the face of danger. One can do a long detailed study, but there are enough small anecdotes that prove this.  Heck, Jesus even yelled at Peter after he cut off the guard’s ear…the same guard who was arresting Jesus.  Then, if that wasn’t enough, he put the ear back on the guy.

2.    2.   People often say pacifism won’t work.  That depends on what the definition of success is.  By not killing, a person succeeds at not having blood on his or her hands.  If the definition of success is winning an intended goal, there are examples such as Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi who never fired a shot, and both of them succeeded.

3.     3.  There is still the question of “duty of care.”  If we had a time machine and could kill Hitler to save all those he killed, would it be ok to kill?  That is a tough question, but also an impossible question.  There is no way of knowing if by killing anyone (including Hitler) if the intended results will prevail.  What if one of the other Nazis came into power after Hitler’s death and was more brutal?  This does not mean caring for the weak or those who can’t defend themselves is forbidden.  But, look at how Jesus defended the woman caught in adultery.  She was supposed to be stoned.  He got in the middle and said whoever hasn’t sinned could cast the first stone.  He put himself at risk while still defending the woman.  Each scenario is different, but there is always a non-killing option.