I’ve long been intrigued by the vision of Jesus clearing the temple of the money changers. It certainly gives the impression that there are circumstances in which force can and should be used, but when, where, and how… that is the question.
I am reminded of a quote by Aristotle: “Anybody can become angry—that is easy; but to be angry with the right person, and to the right degree, and at the right time, and for the right purpose, and in the right way—that is not within everybody’s power and is not easy.”
We can say that Jesus was probably the one individual that could do this, but what about the rest of us? It certainly seems like there is a case for the employment of force, but how could it be justified, and how could it be expressed in a way that is in keeping with the teachings of Jesus? That’s what I’d like to explore in this article.
In The Urantia Book, Jesus’ approach to violence is explored in great detail; from his early days as a youth dealing with school bullies to the ideals he wanted his Nazareth family to live by, his approach to violence when it was being inflicted by one upon another, the notion of government or group “self-protection” versus the ideals of personal living that he set for his apostles, how he faced his own violent end, and how, why, and when he used violence/force and what lessons could be learned from these episodes.
Outside of the Jesus papers, The Urantia Book itself considers violence in even greater detail, exploring the evolution of violence and force from the scrambling of the early savage to the skirmishes of the first troops, the clashes of the tribes and nation states, onto the inevitable conflict between the great empires.
In the end it frames what is likely to be humanity’s greatest, and looming, battle: the ingenuity of the entrepreneur (who prospers most when peace and the arts are flourishing) versus the might of the industrial military complex (who literally profit from war and the cultivation of division and hate).
At each step, as humanity ascends the scale of life, the writers highlight how the stakes get higher and higher and endeavor to impress upon us the very great and desperate need for ever increasing wisdom and higher values to match and keep pace with the progress of civilization. They make the ominous point that as wisdom and values decrease, instability and destruction increase; and that without the directionization sponsored by wisdom and the self-control nurtured by ever higher moral values, such blind power presages the ultimate suicide of the civilization that sponsored it.
Violence and the intelligent and wise use of force, then, is so fundamental an issue that civilization cannot progress until we have fully, finally, forever mastered this issue. Given the pivotal nature of the issue, it behooves us to explore what light, if any, Christ can shed on it. So, with that said, let us go forth and explore.
The first thing we glean from the pages of the revelation is that Jesus was never inclined to defend himself. As a youth his rougher and more uncouth classmates were wont to take advantage of his unwillingness to defend himself. This tendency was all the more striking as he was big enough to ensure he could give a good account of himself if he so chose, but he never did.
Interestingly, his boyhood neighbor, best friend (later husband to his eldest sister Miriam) and ever ready defender was Jacob-the son of a stone mason. Jacob took great personal pleasure in kicking the ass of anyone who thought to presume upon Jesus’ pacific proclivities. What is interesting is that Jesus never told Jacob not to do this. Jacob took it upon himself, and Jesus didn’t object. Eventually, beating Joshua meant having to deal with Jacob and that took the fun out of it.
There were a couple of other times before his public ministry, during his phase as a wandering teacher, wherein he found himself involved in scuffles. However, his approach was a milder version of Jacob’s. If he saw one person beating another, he would get involved to break up the fight. Once the fight was broken up, once the violence had ceased, he disengaged and went immediately back to his original goal.
He didn’t get involved in meting out justice, in attempting to figure out who was right and who was wrong. His motivation was only to prevent harm. This proclivity, to act to disrupt the attempt of one person to harm another, resurfaced throughout his ministry in intriguing and subtle ways.
As a case in point, during the early years of his public ministry he once encountered a funeral in the tiny village of Nain. He was accosted by the villagers who had heard of his ability as a healer and importuned him to bring back to life the boy, the only son of a widowed mother. He approached the funeral bier, pulled back the grave cloths and noticed the boy was merely in a coma. Thus he found himself confronted with a tragedy which his presence could avert. He was thus compelled by duty to act to save the boy—to prevent harm.
He comforted the mother and endeavored to quell the crowd, exclaiming that the lad was not dead-merely sleeping, and turning to the boy he summoned him to wakefulness. Though he would have rather avoided the tumult, duty compelled him to act in defense of the boy, notwithstanding that this episode led to the whole village nearly losing their collective minds.
The key here is: people were engaging in an action that was going to harm another. Whether people understood what they were doing or not was not in question. The only point worth noting for Jesus was that he found himself in a place where he was morally compelled to act to protect the life of another. His actions were such as to disrupt the action of those that were doing the harm, even if those actions led to complete bedlam in the village of Nain and added considerably to the difficulties he had in executing his mission.
Reverting to the times of his wanderings around the Mediterranean, he happened upon a man beating his wife. On this occasion he interrupted the man and engaged him in conversation. During this episode his engagement with the violent offender was not physical but such as would sober him up and bring the man to his better senses. This kindly exchange helped re-establish the man on the path to righteousness—fostering healing and unity between him and his wife.
This intervention was so profound that it positively impacted not only the man with whom he spoke, but it likewise touched the hearts of many of those who beheld the exchange. One imagines that Jesus employed subtle spiritual power and deep sympathy in this encounter.
There was another episode during which a drunk was beating a slave girl and Jesus got involved. This required Jesus to get quite physical with the chap, to the point where he had to physically restrain him. Eventually, with the drunk finally too exhausted to continue the struggle and the threat now neutralized, Jesus set about escorting the young lady safely home.
At this point his young companion took it upon himself to mete out some rough justice to the drunk. Again, Jesus was compelled to intervene in the conflict, restraining his young pupil until the drunk had fled the scene. His pupil was astonished and bewildered, complaining that if mercy compelled us to intervene would not justice compel us to thrash the offender? At which point Jesus took pains to explain that while mercy ministry might be personal and individual, justice is always a group function.
Jesus didn’t care to determine who was right or wrong in the conflict. His duty was to put a stop to the harm being inflicted by one party on another and then leave it to the parties involved to bring the matter before the judges to get justice.
The teachings constantly rehearse the pacific ideals of religion, but the angels “of the trumpets” talk realpolitik and the dangers of groups being so overly pacific due to their high ideals that they allow themselves to be exterminated. The angels consider this a pernicious failing. It is when it comes to the exchange between groups that the use of violence and force becomes different.
Jesus could see a time when the material minded leaders in Jerusalem, by failing to recognize and respond to the spiritual calling they were being given in his life, would soon bring the wrath of the gentiles down upon their head and that a religion would rise out of the ashes of this conflict that would see the Jews become a byword. He tried his best to save his people from coming into conflict with the most powerful and vengeful nation on earth and to spare them the ignominy that would sully their race for two thousand years, but the corrupt leaders of the Jews conspired to have him murdered and so sealed the fate of their race and nation for a time.
Anyway, back to the topic at hand. In light of the above insights, it would be acceptable as a Christian to engage in a war for defense. If one’s family, friends, and community are under attack by an aggressor then it would be morally acceptable to fight in their defense. In Paper 72, “Government on a Neighboring Planet”, the writers explore the social and political evolution of a great continent on another planet in our system. When speaking of this nation’s approach to war they say this:
Although these people maintain a powerful war establishment as a defense against invasion by the surrounding hostile peoples, it may be recorded to their credit that they have not in over one hundred years employed these military resources in an offensive war. They have become civilized to that point where they can vigorously defend civilization without yielding to the temptation to utilize their war powers in aggression …
Although this nation maintains adequate defense against attack by hostile neighbors, it pays far more attention to the training of statesmen, scientists, and philosophers. [72:11.4, 819.2] Emphasis added
In light of such teachings, it is easy to see that it is morally acceptable to use force to defend one’s family, friends, community, race, or nation from the violent activities of malevolent aggressors. Violence is only morally problematic when it is used offensively—as by an aggressor—and the violence used should only be such as would bring the aggressor to the table that they would discuss terms for peace.
However, it seems to me that the aggressors now waging war on Christendom are doing so very subtly and the sons and daughters of the Christian world have, alas, been anesthetized by luxury and have fallen asleep, unaware of the threat that has broken into their house.
However, in light of this it is worth reflecting on one of the exchanges the Master had with the leaders of the Jews:
“How can Satan cast out Satan? A kingdom divided against itself cannot stand; if a house be divided against itself, it is soon brought to desolation. Can a city withstand a siege if it is not united? If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then shall his kingdom stand? But you should know that no one can enter into the house of a strong man and despoil his goods except he first overpower and bind that strong man.” [153:4.3, 1214.2]
Two things strike me about this statement: first, is his use of the term kingdom and, second, what he says about the strong man. We, the faithful, know that the deposed Prince of this world wages an unceasing war against the children of God and is wholly committed to the overthrow of the divine kingdom on earth. Isn’t it interesting that the Lord figuratively suggests that Satan has a kingdom? Isn’t it also intriguing that he notes how division weakens kingdoms and makes them vulnerable to being overthrown? And isn’t it peculiar that he points out a further strategy that could be employed to overthrow a kingdom: overpower and bind up the Strong Man of the House?
So, divide, overpower, and bind.
Who is the Strong Man of the House of Israel? Who is the Strong Man of Christendom? What strategies are his enemies using to overpower him? In what way is the kingdom being divided? How are they attempting to bind him? In what way is he being prevented from acting to protect his own? What devices and strategies are being deployed to restrain him so that his goods may be despoiled? Could making it illegal to resist the destruction of his house be a technique? Could the thieves be ensuring that no one hears when he cries out, lest his neighbors realize the injustice and rush to his aid? Things that make you go, hmmm…
Who are the children of God, how do we distinguish them from the children of this world? Jesus taught us that by their fruits are they known, by the fruits of their love for their fellows. However, it seems to me that the aggressors now waging war on Christendom are doing so very subtly and the sons and daughters of the Christian world have, alas, been anesthetized by luxury and have fallen asleep, unaware of the threat that has broken into their house—by the unselfish service their love inspires. They highlight corruption and seek to establish justice. They are inspired by a vision of a Better World therefore fight with vigor and selflessness against corruption and degeneracy, and they are hated for it.
As the Master said, “If you were of this world, then would the world love its own, but because you are not, the world refuses to love you.” (180:3.1) Their hearts are in, and belong to, the kingdom of divine ideals. Indeed, they are so inspired by the spiritual glories that they are consecrated to establishing the divine ideals of this kingdom on this sin-stricken sphere and this brings them into direct conflict with the forces of darkness.
The Children of Light have no love for violence but backed into a corner and threatened with the loss of all they hold dear—they might well be forced to defend themselves. Understanding that the children of this world fear not to use violence, intimidation, and every underhanded strategy their evil minds can concoct to undermine and destroy Christendom, it is important for us to reflect on this teaching:
This cleansing of the temple […] demonstrates that Jesus did not look with approval upon the refusal to employ force to protect the majority of any given human group against the unfair and enslaving practices of unjust minorities who may be able to entrench themselves behind political, financial, or ecclesiastical power. Shrewd, wicked, and designing men are not to be permitted to organize themselves for the exploitation and oppression of those who, because of their idealism, are not disposed to resort to force for self-protection or for the furtherance of their laudable life projects. [173:1.11, 1891.1]
This intriguing comment suggests not only that force should be used to defend, but that there are certain circumstances during which it could, and should, be used to further laudable life projects. That sounds like a slippery slope, but let’s play with fire here and hypothesize how this could play out.
Given the framework herein outlined, it might be that force could be employed to destroy enslaving networks and thereby bring about greater liberty. One need only look at the efforts that were undertaken to end slavery. That involved considerable violence and bloodshed. Men risked their lives fighting against slave traders and their networks.
The slave traders were engaged in a profitable business and, as a group, were heartily committed to preserving their way of life and were not going to give it up without a fight. Hence violence was called for; in this case it was a proactive use of force to prevent harm to brothers and sisters, most of whom those fighting would never meet. Countless people lived better lives because of this action, and they never saw the faces of those courageous and selfless men that vanquished that vile system.
In light of these reflections, one might consider industries, organizations, and confederacies that seek to enslave as being legitimate focal points for action. Also, we live in the Information Age—there are ways to effectively disrupt organizations and jam systems that don’t necessarily involve bullets but could involve the destruction of IT networks that support oppression. It might be that a well-organized cadre of IT super geeks could so deploy themselves as to cripple, or make instruments of enslavement so unworkable as to render them a waste of time and resources. Indeed, it is easy to imagine that another group could work to deploy decentralized systems that enable others to live independently of the systems that seek to oppress by establishing what are known as parallel economies.
The Lord came that we might have life and have it more abundantly. He invited us to realize joy through service, peace through faith, perfection through perseverance, and liberation in truth-realization. He didn’t say it would be easy; he said it would be worth it, but he promised to accompany us through all the ensuing struggles. His existence shone a great light on the greatest truth there is to know, the Fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of his children. As this great truth penetrates all the earth it will ultimately dethrone all the corrupt ones even as it enthrones the God of Everlasting Love in every human heart, and this light can never be extinguished.
The corrupt leaders of Israel thought that if they killed him that would be the end of it; they little realized that it was only the beginning. They picked a fight they couldn’t win and when this fight is over every knee will bend and every tongue confess that he is Lord, and we will no more learn to make war and then shall our swords be beaten into plowshares.