I find myself returning to contemplate the problem of evil time and time again. Maybe millennials (of which I barely make the cut) have a bigger hang-up with the way evil's existence seems to encroach on the possibility of a good God's existence, but I think the problem is much broader than one generation. Whether it's the death of a daughter leading Darwin to embrace his religious doubts, or the holocaust of a whole race which is remembered and lamented in the works of Elie Wiesel - each generation seems to have its own works and workers who wrestle with the reality of evil's existence. Evil is hard to stomach, and especially so if one is a Christian who proclaims the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God who supposedly despises evil. 

In response to the problem of evil Christian history has produced a number of defenses for God. These defenses are known as "theodicies." A theodicy doesn't claim to prove that God exists or that its explanation for evil's existence is the correct one, but it merely offers what is a possible explanation for evil's existence alongside a good God. If the theodicy's explanation is logically possible, then evil's existence is not incompatible with the existence of God, even if this particular explanation doesn't end up being the correct one. The goal is simply to show that the existence of a good God and evil aren't logically incompatible. At the moment, the most broadly accepted theodicy on the market is the free will theodicy as refined and presented by Alvin Plantinga. Plantinga argues that for a God to create a world in which his creatures loved him in a meaningful sense, then those creatures would need to have the choice not to love him. God could have created robots that would have never disobeyed him or done any evil thing, but in creating such a world, he would have created a world where true love was impossible. So while it is true that evil exists, it's only in a world where evil is possible that love can exist, and God deems that the existence of love is worth the price of allowing evil. 

The Free Will Theodicy (FWT) is a beautiful defense because it makes a lot of sense. Everyone would love a world without evil, but we recognize that we'd all likely prefer a world where we make meaningful choices to love than a world where we were programmed robots - even if the price of love was the existence of evil. Love is such a beautiful and powerful thing that we recognize evil pales in comparison to it. The FWT is a fantastic defense of God, though as with all arguments, there are some problems. But it isn't in the scope of this article to expound on this theodicy or defend it. Suffice it to say that this is the going theodicy in Christianity, particularly Western Christianity. With the acknowledgement of this broad Christian adherence to the FWT, what I want to do, then, is actually draw out some implications this theodicy has for two other Christian positions: nonviolence and Christian anarchism. ​

I recently started a podcast with some acquaintances. The podcast focuses on the issue of Christian nonviolence, exploring the case for a nonviolent position as well as discussing rebuttals against the position. Check it out here!

For a much expanded version of the case for nonviolence in podcast form, check out the Fourth Way Podcast.

​1. Introduction: My journey to pacifism
2. Biblical Teaching: A foundation for pacifism using scripture
3. Biblical Examples: Examples of explicit non-violence in the face of aggression from the Bible and Apostles
4. Early Church Teaching: Quotes from the early church fathers about their beliefs on war, soldiering, vengeance, violence, punishment, etc
5. Real Life Examples: Examples of non-violence, its implementation, and effect
6. Pacifism Applied: Explores what the process and action of pacifism look like
7. Evaluating the Christian Alternative to Pacifism: A look at a Just War theory of morally using violence as a Christian and asking how it isn't even more idealistic than pacifism
8. Pacifism Quotes to Ponder: A reflection on non-violence and violence from those who journeyed through persecution 
9. Counter-Rebuttals: Rebutting the greatest criticisms leveled at a pacifistic position
10. Questions for Just-War Adherents : Returning difficult questions to Just War adherents about their ideology
11. Conclusion
12. Resources


*13. Addendums - Additional arguments and ideas I'm putting here until I reformat the site or figure out where I can include them. 
​*14. My Poetry - Poetry I've written in trying to work through various issues of the Kingdom, including nonviolence.
​*15. My Book - While the book isn't specifically about pacifism, it deals with the consequentialist (ends justify the means) morality which my culture taught me that prevented me from living as Christ desires, which includes a nonviolent life. I think this inculcated morality is what must be addressed before many can hear Christ's words. I'm happy to share this document for free as well, just contact me. 

The full, original article (not updated with more recent editions) can be downloaded in PDF format below: 

In Stanley Hauerwas's book, "War and the American Difference: Theological Reflections on Violence and National Identity," he summarizes some very profound thoughts from Martin Luther King Jr. Hauerwas says, 

I want to pull out three basic ideas from this quote which I think are vital to understanding the position of nonviolence. While you can read the rest of the material I've provided and glean many of these concepts, I think it is succinctly stated here so well, I wanted to make sure it was grasped.

Those we tend to identify as our enemies are fellow image bearers of God: 
While no Christian will ever say it, we tend to group terribly evil individuals in a subhuman category. Murderers and despots are not worthy of life. They deserve to rot in hell. They are animals. Often, we loathe these depraved individuals, and rarely do we seek to love and weep for them. King rightly identifies that those who opposed him, while technically his enemy, were fellow human beings worthy of love. If Jesus Christ could and did love those who murdered and tortured him, and if Jesus loved me while I was at enmity with God, than surely I am called to love even those image bearers who are at enmity with me. If we are not better than Jesus, than our enemies are not below us. 

Our war is not with flesh and blood:
I think King identifies what so many of us forget - that our war is with evil. Yes, humans often ally with and embody evil, but our war is not with our fellow humans. Many of us wrongly believe that by defeating human embodiments of evil, we are defeating it. But such is not the case. Conquering and killing - even those who are evil - simply creates more evil, or extends the evil. We are very familiar with this in regard to our habits. We recognize that the "killing" of some of our bad habits is not the end of our inner warfare, as true change and reform requires a positive creation of good habits. As Hauerwas says at the end of his quote, the end we seek isn't simply the abolishment of evil, but rather the thriving of a loving community.

Means must be commensurate with the end:
The last sentence segues nicely into the third point Hauerwas makes. Christians who choose violence and those who choose nonviolence both claim that their end goal is the creation of a loving community. But one has to ask how the means of violence are commensurate and logical if the end being sought is a loving community? Such means and ends seem antithetical to one another. If my enemies are image bearers, and if my goal is reconciliation and loving community, how could I justify the use of violence as a consistent means to accomplish my goal? 

- "Fight" (book): This is a good, comprehensive book (by an Evangelical who is also Reformed) which begins in the OT, goes through Revelation, discusses church history, and ends with common objections. Because it covers so much and is directed for regular people, it's not as in-depth as some of the other resources below. It digs pretty deep, but you'll definitely need more. Nevertheless, it's a wonderful aerial view that will help the rest of the sources to fill in the gaps. You can also check out an interview the author had with the Gospel Coalition where he addresses some questions. 

- "The Early Church on Killing" (book): This book compiles the early church documents and quotes with references to violence (abortion, murder, warfare, capital punishment, soldiering, being a politician, etc). It references quotes that could also be questionable for the case of pacifism. 

- "The Crucifixion of the Warrior God" (book): I recommend this book above all others for a comprehensive look at non-violence, but only if you want a heavy, long read. I heard a lot of negative things from my conservative community said about the author of this book, Greg Boyd. After reading the book, I am ashamed my community seems to have failed at being thoughtful. You can't just dismiss the things Boyd says as "Liberal" or "misguided." We can't make Christianity like we've made our moral schemes and politics - packaged platforms with an all or nothing choice. This book comes in two volumes, and sits at about 1500 pages. There are references galore. Even if you end up dismissing Boyd's explanation for violent attributions of God in the Bible (volume 2), you have to deal with the 600 pages Boyd spent tearing down modern hermeneutics in volume 1, which are often shown to be incomplete, shortsighted, and culturally influenced hermeneutics. Boyd explores how the NT writers handled OT scriptures, he explains the moral problems with divine violence and the character of God, he attacks modern notions of empiricism and the historical approach to the Bible as stand-alone hermeneutics, and he just rips Christian hypocrisy and syncretism to shreds in his call for us to be consistent. Even if Boyd's positive assertion in volume 2 ends up being wrong, his attacks on what we think we know are powerful and require the Christian community to do a lot of work if they want to maintain some of the views they currently hold. Wherever you land, this book gets you to think. It is extremely academic, but extremely powerful. You don't have to latch on to all of Boyd's theology to appreciate what he has written here. 

- Tim Mackie from the Bible Project (podcasts): Tim Mackie is a brilliant theologian who I believe does a great job putting the Bible into its historical context, and faithfully works within the Bible's tension of it as both a human and divine work. There is an interview where Mackie works through both Revelation and the Old Testament violence, and an extended podcast where he fleshes that out in a six part series. 

- "It's Just War" video debate (Youtube): This is the debate that kicked off my inquiry into pacifism. It's a great discussion and I think the pacifists win pretty handily. If I didn't think they won, I wouldn't be in their camp today. 

- Pacifism, Just War, and Peace (Youtube): A video with three speakers who explore the early church context of non-violence, what that looks like in the real world, and an evaluation of the Just War Theory in contrast to pacifism. 

- Pablo Yoder's Testimony (Youtube): ​A wonderful testimony of how this regular Christian has prepared for and implemented non-violence, the impact it's had on him and his family, and the influence it has had on the lives of others. 

​- Naked Bible Podcast (or Youtube): This particular episode is on the two swords of Luke, referenced in my counter-rebuttal to the idea that Christ validated self-defense in telling his disciples to arm themselves. While the episode is on that specific passage, I think it not only undercuts the initial rebuttal against pacifism, but shows how Christ was instituting an expectation for non-violence through the passage. It's a good reminder about how we can insert interpretations into the text because of tradition or misunderstanding, and the speaker points out a number of ways that we have done this in such an obvious manner (e.g. Christ being numbered with the transgressors so obviously has nothing to do with the thieves on the cross in context, yet that's how most interpret it today). 

-Unbelievable Podcast: "Unbelievable" is a fantastic podcast for tons of Christian issues. You always get to hear a proponent from each side argue their position. In this episode you can hear Hauerwas and Biggar - Duke vs. Oxford - have a cordial discussion on the topic. They're two of the greatest minds for their respective side and the podcast will fill you in on the main points and contentions in about an hour.

-The Christian Humanist Podcast: While I don't think any of the speakers on this episode are full-fledged pacifists, they do a pretty fair job explaining the positions and elaborating. 

- The Politics of Jesus Book: John Howard Yoder writes a phenomenal book that explains why we need to take Christ's words and commands seriously rather than metaphorically. He really focuses on the two kingdoms and explains what allegiance to the Kingdom means for our subordination to our kingdom (nation). I recommend the book, but if you want something a bit shorter, I pulled out the best quotes and summarized this book here. 

- The Anatomy of a Hybrid Book: While there are better sources for the history of individuals or time periods, I think this book does a good job of making a case for the problems we get when the church and state are married. It helps to explain why a Europe run by professing Christians can be such a horrendous place to live - why there were tortures, wars amongst Christians, etc. Whereas "The Politics of Jesus" focuses on Christ and his teaching, this book focuses on how an allegiance to nations and kingdoms along with or over Christ plays out. 

Telling the Truth About the Sacrifices of War Article: Stanley Hauerwas explores how war is a secular religion and idol that Christians ought to avoid. He delves into the role of the church, the Lordship of Christ, and the City of God vs. the City of Man. I believe he does a good job getting Christians to think about their role in this world and how war is antithetical not only to our Christian ethic, but to the Lordship of Christ and the vision of the Kingdom we are supposed to be spreading. 

- Letters from a Birmingham Jail: This isn't specifically about Pacifism, but it's a fantastic document to read from a man who implements non-violence. There is some talk about non-violence, but I think the main thing it does is show how non-violence is not inaction. It can be a very active path. Martin Luther King Jr. is so eloquent here, and this is one of the best pieces of prose you'll find in the English language. 

- The Case for Christian Realism Article: Stanley Hauerwas is an influential, intellectual who happens to be a pacifist. In this article he assesses the Just War position and explains how it is as unrealistic (or more so) than pacifism. Pacifism can be lived out, but there has never been such a thing as a just war. It seems an impossibility to implement. 

​- Does ISIS Prove Non-Violence Wrong Article: This article takes a modern day issue and discusses non-violence. It also provides a good list of successful non-violence campaigns from around the time of Christ until today. 

- Love Your Enemies Audio by MLK: Martin Luther King Jr.'s voice is a treat to listen to in and of itself. He is so well spoken, genuine, and compelling. But hearing about enemy love from him with an understanding of his persecution and ultimate assassination just infuses this sermon with meaning. I have nothing to say to a man who preaches love and embodies it at the cost of his own well-being, and ultimately his life. While you might say that King is a fallible man and could have embodied the wrong ethic, what then do you have to say to Christ who unarguably preached and embodied the same ethic? The ethic isn't only for God. It's for us too. Jesus is a living example, and so is MLK. But sometimes its helpful to see a more contemporary example and actually hear their voice. I hope you will see Christ through MLK's example and words. 

- The Upside Down Kingdom Book: This book isn't really about pacifism at all. It does have one chapter on it, but it can easily be skipped. The first time I read this book I wasn't even thinking about pacifism. I found the book to be extremely profound and applicable to anyone's Christian life. I highly recommend this book for every Christian, even if you want to skip the chapter on pacifism. The reason I'm recommending it here is because I have been arguing that pacifism isn't inaction (or passive). Pacifism is a mindset - a theology. It's a foundation for living. "The Upside Down Kingdom" is essentially a layman's version of Yoder's "The Politics of Jesus," which looks at what a Christian's life should look like in light of Christ's teachings. It's a fantastic book. 

- Christian Pacifism Article: This is a pretty long article, but it does a good job highlighting some of the main theological grounding for Christian pacifism. It's not so much an argument as it is a framework for understanding how pacifists come to the conclusions they do. It really gets at the core of pacifism and is a good jumping off point to research more. 

​- Why Civil Resistance Works book: Modern research which indicates that non-violent movements are far more effective than those which are violent. 

- Quotes 1, Quotes 2, Quotes 3: These are some quotes from the early church fathers. While I included a lot of these in the tradition section, there are more here I left out.