Christ's Kingdom and the Law
Stephen Terry
Commentary for the June 28, 2014
Sabbath School Lesson
“The wolf will live with the lamb,
the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling
together; and a little child will lead them. The cow will feed with the bear,
their young will lie down together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox.
The infant will play near the cobra’s den, and the young child will put its
hand into the viper’s nest. They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy
mountain, for the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the Lord as the
waters cover the sea.” Isaiah 11:6-9, NIV
When I was a child, I used to enjoy
watching “Wild Kingdom,” starring Marlin Perkins and Jim Fowler. While I
enjoyed Perkins soft-spoken narration, I was also always thrilled by Jim
Fowler’s barefooted approach to nature. Back in the 1960s, many children
commonly spent the warm summer days exploring the neighborhood barefooted as
well, so we readily identified with this early “Indiana Jones” type who ran
through the African Savannah pieds nus.
Something that was often a feature of
every show was an example of the interrelationships between predators and their
prey. The various hooved animals lived a precarious existence never knowing
when they would become the next meal for pawed hunters. Frequently they would
be on the run with lions or leopards in hot pursuit. It was felt natural that
children should see such scenes. After all, this was the normal order of
things, and children, especially male children, were expected to grow up and
take their place at the top of this food chain.
During the Vietnam War era, as the
war dragged on and the body counts became a daily feature of the evening news,
some began to question whether this view of the “natural” man was not simply
feeding into the needs of the military-industrial complex. The whole idea was
satirized by The Beatles in their 1968 song “The Continuing Story of Bungalow
Bill.”[i]
For much of their history, the Seventh-day Adventist denomination was reluctant
to see a connection between this almost Darwinian philosophy and Christianity.
Instead, the epitome of faith had been the vegetarianism developed in the later
part of the nineteenth century, largely due to the writings and sermons of
Ellen White and the sanitarium work of John Kellogg.
This denominational practice was to
some degree theologically coupled with a non-combatancy stance taken by the
church during the American Civil War of the 1860s and held fairly consistently
all the way through most of the Vietnam War, which ended in 1975. As a medic
involved in that war, I was challenged repeatedly regarding my non-combatancy
status which I had adopted in harmony with our denominational position. To me,
this seemed to be consistent with Christianity and was exemplified in the
military service of Medal-of-Honor winner and Seventh-day Adventist, Desmond
Doss,[ii]
during the Korean War.
To encourage young men in their
stance regarding non-combatancy, the denomination had set up the National
Service Organization to minister to young men before and during military
service. I was given a Bible kit from this organization that contained several
pamphlets about non-combatancy and information about how to approach one’s
commanding officers regarding various beliefs peculiar to Adventism. I was in
Vietnam from 1970-1971 and had little difficulty regarding my non-combatancy.
There were several other Adventists I met there at the servicemen’s center at
the Saigon Mission. They also shared similar non-combatancy status. However,
that scenario was about to change.
In the years after Vietnam, I began
to encounter Seventh-day Adventists in the Army who were not non-combatants.
This was apparently because the position of the church had changed. In 1972,
the Annual Council of the church had decided to support full combatancy for
those members who should choose that form of military service.[iii]
The previous General Conference had attempted to deal with the issue but it
proved so contentious that a study committee was formed and the position was
then changed at that later meeting.
The result of this change has rapidly
manifested itself both through a growth in nationalistic sentiment within the
denomination in America coupled with an endorsement of armed intervention as
the preferred answer to conflict. Sadly, I have even been advised in the last
few years by members, both male and female, that they regularly carry guns into
their local church sanctuaries in order to stand ready to protect themselves
and their families against armed intruders. In their immediate, fearful
concerns about security, perhaps they do not realize the disconnect this creates
for their children.
Perhaps children no longer hear or
read mission stories, but I know I have read them in the children’s Sabbath
School magazines in the past about missionaries who were threatened by armed
bandits. When they prayed, angels protected them, and all were kept safe. Often
in these stories, the bandits later reported that the angels had appeared to
them like strong, armed men, and they were then afraid to harm the
missionaries. This seemed a biblical understanding consistent with the pacifism
taught by Jesus. But a new understanding seems to have come straight from
Benjamin Franklin instead of the Bible. Although Franklin, in his “Poor
Richard’s Almanac” had stated that God helped those who help themselves, he was
not quoting the Bible. Rather, he was merely rewording a sentiment as old as
the Greek philosophers.[iv]
When children, who often have more
understanding than we give them credit for, see us packing weapons to protect ourselves
after reading of the brave missionaries who were protected by angels, they are
faced with a cognitive dissonance. In order to resolve that conflict they must
choose what to believe, the missionary stories or the actions of their parents.
Perhaps they are most likely to side with their parents, since they don’t know
the missionaries personally and their parents shower them with love and care.
But no matter the choice, their faith has received a severe blow.
If they choose to follow their
parents’ example, then this calls into question the validity of the mission
stories and thereby the denomination that publishes them. On the other hand, if
they choose the mission story as the valid path, then this calls into question
their parents’ faith experience and thereby the validity of the family’s and
also their own faith. Either way, the inconsistency between the two positions
may not be a positive spiritual experience for young minds.
Why is this relevant in a lesson
about the Kingdom of God? Perhaps it illustrates the paradox of proclaiming a
Kingdom where wolves, lions, sheep and toddlers all frolic together in a
peaceful paradise as an idyllic example of the epitome of Christian perfection.
The world is anything but this utopia. However, while we lament the state of
the world around us, are we in danger of becoming a part of the problem when we
strap on a weapon and head out into the fray to dispense “justice,” even when
we justify it by saying we are defending our families by doing so.
There is plenty of warfare in the
Bible, even examples of what might arguably be called righteous warfare. The
closing scenes at the Parousia are also couched in terms of one great final
battle of Armageddon. Maybe this is why some Seventh-day Adventists believe
they must arm themselves. Jesus seems to be an anomaly to all of that with His
talk of turning the other cheek and not resisting evil.[v]
Is it possible that in finding justification for armed conflict in the Old
Testament that we are actually choosing to be more Jewish than Christian? The
early church struggled with how to relate the two faiths. The Jews chose the
path of resistance through the two revolts after the middle of the first
century and early in the second. Christians notably were opposed to resistance.
In spite of opportunities for
Christians to resist their persecutors in those early times, especially in
order to protect their families, they predominantly did not. Examples of
acquiescing martyrdom are well documented historically throughout this period in
the writings of the church fathers and in more modern times in the book by
Ellen White, “The Great Controversy.” Do we now feel that those martyrs were
stupid and should have armed themselves to protect their property and their
families?
How far will we go in our
justification of taking matters into our own hands in the conflict with
evil? Once the church began using arms
in the past, it became a very simple matter to begin using those arms to make
converts. Whether Conquistadors or Pilgrims, the gospel was too often advanced
through forced conversions of those subjugated by superior firepower. Of course
we tell ourselves we live in a more enlightened age and this could never
happen. But Revelation, chapter thirteen, says otherwise. It doesn’t say that
those who are in the Kingdom of God will be able to resist if they only have
enough guns.
