John Howard Yoder is most famous for his ethic of non-violence and his critique of just war. This essay will examine the major theological conclusions that underlie Yoder’s rejection of coercive force, and focus on how it informs his understanding of the role that Christians should have in public and political issues. The Politics of Jesus is the most comprehensive example of Yoder’s argument, but not the only one. Some of his smaller works present the argument in a different way, addressed to different audiences, and with different textual and theological support. In this essay, we will consider key aspects of Yoder’s theological ethic as a whole, in a systematic way, rather than examining individual texts.
Yoder’s ethic is, at heart, imitatio Christi, and a large portion of his argument is in support of why Christians should imitate Jesus and what aspects they should imitate. Firstly, Yoder had to defend the centrality of Christ in developing a Christian ethic. On one front, he was arguing against a form of Reformed teaching that sees Jesus’ life and teachings as merely a prelude to his substitutionary death, and not as an ethical norm.[1] On the other front, he was arguing against liberal exegesis that split the gospel Jesus into the ‘Historical Jesus’ and the ‘Christ of Faith’.[2] The ethical impact of this division was that the ‘Jesus of History’ taught an ethic that was only intended for the very short term until the new kingdom was established, while the ‘Christ of Faith’, who is relevant now, has no ethical teachings.[3] Either way; the life of the historical man Jesus was rendered ethically immaterial. Both forms of opposition then sought their ethical frameworks elsewhere.[4]
Against the Reformed opposition, Yoder emphasises a Nicaean Christology; the fact that Jesus is fully God means that he is the authoritative revelation, making him unique and authoritative in all areas – including ethics.[5] Equally, the fact that he is fully man means that his example is validly applicable to humanity; ‘God broke through the borders of our standard definition of what is human, and gave it a new, formative definition in Jesus’.[6] Thus Christian ethics must have the life of Jesus at the centre to be truly Christian.[7] Against liberal opposition, Yoder simply stated that he wanted to consider ‘the Jesus of the Gospels.’[8] In doing so he bypassed the standard division of texts, declaring the ‘Jesus of History’ to be the ‘Christ of Faith’.[9] He also argued that the ethic presented by the writers of the Epistles was consistent with that of the Jesus of the gospels.[10]e
Yoder is not content with placing the teachings of Jesus at the heart of ethics, rather he emphasizes imitation.[11] Focussing on the Book of Luke, Yoder argues that Jesus’ life and teachings show that he not only rejected violence, but all forms of coercive force. Yoder’s definition of coercive force includes any violence, threat or manipulation; ‘the compulsiveness of purpose that leads the strong to violate the dignity of others.’[12] Yoder highlights a number of moments in the Gospel in which he suggests that Jesus was tempted to take direct action to bring about changes in society.[13] Jesus’ refusal to take ‘the Zealot option’ is thus a rejection of using coercive force, even to achieve legitimate goals.[14] Instead, he consistently responded to evil with good.[15] In contrast to arguments that the later New Testament taught a different ethic to Jesus, Yoder seeks to demonstrate that the Epistles teach a similar rejection of coercive force. He particularly highlights the call to imitate Christ in his sufferings and his death.[16] This includes loving enemies as Christ did and accepting innocent suffering as the inevitable consequence of following Christ.[17]
Yoder is severely let down by his choice to focus on imitation of Christ rather than specific biblical imperatives. Because of this method, he needs to demonstrate a negative; that Jesus’ lack of violence was not incidental to another purpose, but a deliberate statement against coercive force. To achieve this, Yoder often uses questionable exegesis of Luke – especially in his claim that the only temptation that Jesus faced was the use of revolutionary violence to achieve a legitimate end.[18] Unfortunately, Yoder fails to prove that Jesus had reason for violence, and deliberately chose against it. Because of this, he fails to prove two key points; (1) that all coercive force is by definition evil, and (2) that following Jesus automatically involves the renouncement of it, even to achieve good. With a different choice of method, and a wider selection of texts, it is quite possible that Yoder could have strengthened his argument for evangelical audiences.[19] Indeed, outside of biblical arguments, he has presented philosophical arguments as to why using force to achieve good is inappropriate.[20]
Any consideration of Jesus needs to consider the meaning of the cross. Yoder’s interpretation focuses on the New Testament idea that Jesus defeated ‘the Powers’. The Powers, according to Yoder, are all the forces in this world that have the ‘capacity to make things happen’.[21] This includes all social structures that exert control; ‘religious structures [...] intellectual structures [...] moral structures [...] political structures’.[22] According to Yoder, the Powers are structures created by God to provide order for the good of humanity.[23] However, sin has corrupted them; rather than recognising their place under God, they have claimed authority and honour in and of themselves.[24] Now, instead of being a good thing, the Powers are idolatrous, evil and oppressive forces.[25]
Yoder’s view of the state is driven by his understanding of it as one of the rebellious Powers.[26] The state claims authority, and demands a loyalty, beyond what God has granted it, often with claims of being a benefactor to its subjects.[27] Intrinsic to its claims to authority is the persistent use of coercive force to enforce that authority.[28] However, God providentially uses the state’s use of coercive force to preserve a level of order and to limit evil.[29] ‘The divine mandate of the state consists in using evil means to keep evil from getting out of hand.’[30] Importantly, this role does not make the state good.[31] Nor is any specific state, government or form of government ‘ordained by God’ over or against any other – they are all in rebellion, and they all turn to coercive force to enforce their claims.[32]
It is their rebellion that brought Jesus into conflict with the Powers, and their use of force that sent him to the cross. Jesus refused to accredit the Powers of the day with the authority that they demanded. He lived ‘a genuinely free and human existence [... and] broke their rules by refusing to support them in their self-glorification’.[33] Instead, he lived a life giving God the honour that he deserved.[34] When opposition to him arose, Jesus refused to withdraw into quietism, instead he stayed in the public eye.[35] He also continued to reject force as a viable means of responding to his opposition.[36] Thus the cross was inevitable as ‘the political, legally-to-be-expected result of a moral clash with the powers ruling his society.’[37] This was not, however, a victory for the Powers. Rather, it was ‘the confirmation that he was free from the rebellious pretentions of the creaturely condition.’[38] Jesus’ willing death exposed the Powers and showed that the coercive force they wielded was not real power, since it could not control him.[39]
However, Yoder’s emphasis is on the Powers being earthly things, not spiritual.[40] Thus he concludes that the primary purpose for Jesus’ life and death was to defeat earthly powers. He specifically rejects any interpretation of the cross as a spiritual victory, such as propitiation of God’s wrath, substitutionary atonement or the defeat of sin as a spiritual power.[41] In the revised edition of Politics, Yoder claims that he is not denying justification by faith or substitutionary atonement; rather he is calling for a corrective to theologies that use spiritual interpretations to negate the ethical implication of the cross.[42] However, his response draws a false antithesis; The cross is ‘not [...] propitiation but [...] the political alternative to both insurrection and quietism.’[43] ‘Jesus’ death was not some kind of metaphysical experience [...] rather it was a perfect ethical act, the highpoint of Christ’s obedience.’[44] Yoder’s use of such antitheses, at best, drastically over-states his point in order to achieve a corrective. At worst, he is propounding a shallow liberation theology.
Despite this, Yoder’s corrective is valuable; Jesus’ life, death and resurrection changed the universe, and it is right that it gives us an ethical model as well as spiritual salvation. While deploring Yoder’s minimisation of Jesus’ defeat of sin and death, it would be wrong to react so strongly so as to ignore the fact that the cross defeated rebellious earthly powers, such as idolatrous or violent states, by exposing their pretentions to power. The main issue is whether the state is always a rebellious Power. This rests, in part, on Yoder’s assertion that coercive force is always evil.
Yoder’s eschatology is also important to his ethical framework; not only has the cross defeated the Powers by exposing their impotence, but it has revealed how the world really works.[45] True power does not lie in coercive force, it lies in servanthood and sacrifice; ‘people who bear crosses are working with the grain of the universe.’[46] This fact could not be revealed simply from observing the created order; it required the revelation of Jesus and faith in him.[47] This changes the meaning of history. Yoder suggests that much of modern ethics is based on attempting to discern the meaning and vector of history, and seeking to encourage behaviour that will advance that meaning.[48] In response, he argues that the meaning of history is the creation of a people for God, who are obedient to him and transformed by the cross.[49] Thus Gods people – the church – are ‘God’s beachhead [...] the down payment, the prototype, the herald, the midwife of the New World’ breaking into this age.[50] However, as with his theology of the Powers and the cross, this eschatology is fundamentally earthly; the Kingdom of God is the creating of a people who live God’s way. There is little mention of God’s heavenly Kingdom breaking in on the world, the present rule of the risen Lord Jesus, or the work of the Holy Spirit.
From this theological framework, we can begin to understand Yoder’s teachings on how Christians, and the church, are to interact with the state. As one of the rebellious powers, the state is a mix of good and evil aspects, and different state governments exhibit these aspects in different ways.[51] The primary test of whether an individual Christian should hold a position or fulfil a role in the state is whether they are free to act totally in a Christian way, or whether they will be forced to compromise.[52] As we already noted, Yoder argues that the use of coercive force, even in the pursuit of a good end, is non-Christian. Since the state’s divinely appointed role is to use force to restrain evil, Christian participation in many state roles is inappropriate.[53] This includes both military and police functions.[54] However, modern states provide services that are outside of the role of using evil to restrain evil – schools, hospitals, social welfare etc.[55] Yoder calls for discernment and freedom for the individual to determine what aspects of the state are appropriate to participate in.[56]
Yoder’s eschatology provides much of the defence against the ‘what if everyone did it’ argument; since the church is the embodiment of the Kingdom of God, Yoder teaches what Christians and the church should do, not what people at large should. His ethic is not intended to be applied to non-Christians or to society as a whole. Coming from a Mennonite background, he also emphasises the voluntary nature of the church, so his ethic is only applicable to people who willingly join the people of God and submit themselves to Jesus’ example. His doctrine of providence means that the state will continue to do God’s work of providing order without Christian participation.[57] Since faithful Christians are, and always were, a distinct minority in society, their withdrawal from these aspects of society will not cripple the state’s ability to enact God’s mandate of providing order.[58] It is right that the state uses evil to preserve order, it is just not right for Christians to participate in it.
The major exegetical issue that Yoder considers is Romans 13 and its command to submit to governments. [59] This becomes particularly important if a government commands violence – such as conscription. The main point that he makes is that submission is not the same as mindless obedience. When a state gives commands that are evil or idolatrous, those commands are to be humbly disobeyed, even while recognising the state’s authority in other matters.[60] For example, the apostles submitted to authorities when they disobeyed commands not to preach, but allowed themselves to be arrested and taken to trial.[61] Indeed, ‘giving to everyone what it is due’ (Rom 13:7) is a very discerning statement that implies that the government is not due all forms of obedience.[62]
Yoder is not advocating withdrawal from society, rather a positive engagement with it.[63] As individuals, Christians are to serve people and society with their gifts.[64] However, his ecclesiological eschatology means that the church’s ethics are primarily acted out by the believing community as a whole – as the presence of the Kingdom of God in this world – rather than the individual.[65] Most importantly, the church is not to try to take control of the state in order to direct it towards change.[66] Nor is it to seek to change the state by placing Christians in powerful roles.[67] As this is the primary ethic of the state that he is arguing against, Yoder gives many reasons for his position; Firstly, taking control of the state will inherently involve compromise to the non-Christian aspects of its enforcement of order and limitation of evil.[68] Secondly, the exercise of changing the state through legislation is coercive force, since it forces changes against people’s will.[69] Thirdly, it assumes that history and morality are governed by institutions, rather than the individual, the church or God.[70] Fourthly, it assumes that cause and effect are clear and visible, and the individual can completely control what effect their actions are going to take.[71] Finally, it assumes that the measure of Christian ethics is the ability to make a calculable or tangible change.[72] This focus on needing to be ‘effective’ is a key objection that opponents raise against Yoder’s ethic of state and of just war.[73] In response, Yoder argues that Christians are not called to be effective but to be faithful; ‘the kind of faithfulness that is willing to accept evident defeat rather than complicity with evil’.[74] Christians are not called to fix all the problems of the world.[75] Instead, Christians are called to participate in God’s solution, which he has put into place through Jesus Christ.[76] Participation in Christ’s victory – proclaiming the gospel and living loving, self-sacrificing servanthood – is true effectiveness.[77] ‘The choice is now between “effective as we now figure it out for ourselves” and “effective after the measure of revelation in Christ.”’[78]
The church is called to exist outside of the coercive forces of society’s power structures and speak to them ‘prophetically’. This, to Yoder, involves four things.[79] Firstly, the church must proclaim the gospel to the Powers.[80] In the case of the Powers, this particularly means proclaiming to them that, in Jesus’ death and resurrection, ‘their rebellion has been broken and the pretentions they have raised have been demolished.’[81] Secondly, because the state exists under God’s authority, it must recognise its divine mandate to restrain evil and uphold justice with the minimum evil.[82] This means that the church has the right, and responsibility, to call upon the state to act justly – to be society’s conscience.[83] This does not mean that the church is limited to religious or sectarian language in its argument.[84] The church can use secular arguments, or ally with appropriate secular groups, in its call for justice.[85] It can expect, and demand, that the state obeys its own laws.[86] It can even use the state’s own language of authority; since most states claim to be governing for the benefit of the population, that language opens up avenues for raising issues of justice.[87] In the case of a democracy, it opens up appeals to the voting population.[88] However, the church has to take care to ensure that its language is persuasive and loving, and does not cross the line into being coercive.[89]
These calls for justice are only valuable if the church is living justice within its community.[90] The call has to come from the church as a whole community, not just the leaders, and will be ineffective if the leaders are proclaiming an ethical vision that the congregation is not supporting.[91] As such, the church’s life is the primary proclamation to the Powers, and social discourse is an outworking.[92] So, thirdly, a prophetic ministry to the state requires the church to live as an example. By living a free life, the church announces the defeat of the Powers.[93] Equally, the church is an example to the world by being an alternative community that lives out the justice it proclaims.[94] By living to serve each other and the community at large, it shows realistic alternatives and models the Kingdom of God.[95] ‘The church is both the paradigm and the instrument of the political presence of the gospel.’[96]
Fourthly, as a prophetic voice to the state and the disciples of the suffering messiah, the church must be willing – and expecting – to suffer.[97] As the gospel is proclaimed to a rebellious state, both in the church’s life and words, it is inevitable that it will react forcefully and coercively, and potentially violently.[98] Responding with loving suffering is a continuation and participation of the cross of Christ and his saving work; ‘a participation in the character of God’s victorious patience with the rebellious powers of creation.’[99] The Powers will especially resist any change that reduces their ability to use coercion to enforce their authority.[100] However, the church can expect to make a difference, and has done so in the past.[101] What the church cannot expect, though, is to make the state ‘Christian’, since its mandate is in conflict with Christian ethic.[102] Finally, faith frees us from despair at our failure to change things quickly, but does not absolve us of responsibility to try.[103]
All these points are right for Christians, regardless of whether they agree with Yoder’s rejection of all coercive force. However, Yoder does not discuss the most obvious tactic for a pacifist Christian ethic – prayer. In this, his eschatology seems to let him down; he does not consider the heavenly aspect of the Kingdom of God, Christ’s current rule and power, and the obvious consequence that God can achieve far more than humans can.
This is symptomatic of the earthly focus of his whole theology; the powers are earthly, the cross is an earthly victory and the Kingdom of God is an earthly entity. However, if Yoder’s observations are taken to be a partial description, they are appropriate and valuable for developing a social ethic, since the gospel does have ethical and earthly aspects. The greatest remaining weakness is that Yoder fails to prove that coercive force is, by definition, evil and that it is wrong for Christians to use it to achieve good ends, or to participate in the state’s use of force to establish order. If this claim is false, then Yoder is unjustly excluding a valid avenue for Christians to actively love the world. However, should this be demonstrated, then his ethics of church and state are a very appropriate response.[104] Indeed, with a fuller theology of the cross, eschatology and prayer, the argument for faithfulness rather than effectiveness is enhanced, not undermined.
[1] Yoder, The Politics of Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994), 4-8, 98-99, 129-30, 134. Yoder, ‘Following Christ as a Form of Political Responsibility’, in Discipleship as Political Responsibility (Scottdale, PA: Herald, 2003), 57-8
[2] Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 4. Carter, The Politics of the Cross: The Theology and Social Ethics of John Howard Yoder (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos, 2001), 139.
[3] Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 4-8, 104-5, 134. Carter, Politics of the Cross, 139, 144.
[4] Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 164-6. ‘Following Christ as Political Responsibility’, 52. Carter, Politics of the Cross, 139, 144.
[5] Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 99. ‘Following Christ as Political Responsibility’, 53-4.
[6] Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 99. C.f. Yoder, ‘The Racial Revolution in Theological Perspective’, in For The Nations: Essays Evangelical and Public (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), 110. Carter, Politics of the Cross, 59.
[7] Yoder, ‘Following Christ as Political Responsibility’, 52.
[8] Carter, Politics of the Cross, 140. Although Yoder does try to keep source critics on board by arguing that the Gospel texts he uses are accepted to be the most authentic records of Jesus. Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 94, 99, 102.
[9] Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 103.
[10] Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 112-128.
[11] Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 95, 112-128, 130-1, 184. ‘Following Christ as Political Responsibility’, 51, 61.
[12] Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 234. C.f. 34, 45-7, 96-8, 234. ‘Following Christ as Political Responsibility’, 55, 57. Yoder, ‘The State in the New Testament’, in Discipleship as Political Responsibility (Scottdale, PA: Herald, 2003), 30-1.
[13] Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 26-7, 29-32, 34-5, 40-3, 45-7, 96, 98. ‘The State in the NT’, 30-1. ‘Following Christ as Political Responsibility’, 55, 57.
[14] Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 96-7, 234, ‘The State in the NT’, 30-1, ‘Following Christ as Political Responsibility’, 55-6.
[15] Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 109, 233. ‘The State in the NT’, 30-1. ‘Racial Revolution in Theological Perspective’, 110. Carter, Politics of the Cross, 52-53, 59. Yoder, ‘The Racial Revolution’.
[16] Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 120-3.
[17] Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 116-9, 124-5.
[18] Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 26-7, 45-7, 96, 98. ‘The State in the NT’, 30-1. ‘Following Christ as Political Responsibility’, 55, 57.
[19] It is beyond the scope of this paper to make Yoder’s point for him, except to accept that it is possible that it could be argued better, possibly from such passages as the Sermon on the Mount, Rom 3:8 or 1 Cor 6:7. Yoder hints at similar arguments. Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 200. ‘The State in the NT’, 27.
[20] Yoder, What Would You Do? (Scottdale, PA: Herald, 1983).
[21] Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 138. C.f. 141.
[22] Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 142.
[23] Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 141-4.
[24] Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 143. ‘The State in the NT’, 24. Yoder, ‘The Biblical Mandate for Evangelical Social Action’, in For The Nations: Essays Evangelical and Public (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), 190-1. Yoder, ‘On Not Being in Charge’, in The Jewish-Christian Schism Revisited (eds. Cartwright and Ochs; London: SCM, 2003), 175.
[25] Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 141-4, 195. ‘Biblical Mandate for Social Action’, 190-1, 195. ‘On Not Being in Charge’, 175.
[26] By ‘state’, Yoder is referring to all national governments and similar entities. Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 137, 141-3, 194. ‘The State in the NT’, 19-20.
[27] Yoder, ‘Biblical Mandate for Social Action’, 191. Yoder, ‘The Christian Case for Democracy’, in The Priestly Kingdom: Social Ethics as Gospel (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame, 1994), 155-6, 158. C.f. Luke 22:25-27.
[28] Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 198. ‘The State in the NT’, 18.
[29] Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 142, 198, 201-2, 205. ‘The State in the NT’, 18-19, 25. ‘Following Christ as Political Responsibility’, 62. Yoder, ‘The Believer’s Church and the Arms Race’, in For The Nations: Essays Evangelical and Public (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), 151-2.
[30] ‘The State in the NT’, 18.
[31] Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 198, 201-2. ‘Believer’s Church’, 152. ‘Following Christ as Political Responsibility’, 65.
[32] Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 183, 198-99, 201-2.
[33] Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 145.
[34] Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 129, 144-5.
[35] Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 36, 96-7, 99.
[36] Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 98. ‘The State in the NT’, 31. ‘Following Christ as Political Responsibility’, 57.
[37] Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 129. C.f. Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 36, 38, 51, 98, 128-9. ‘Following Christ as Political Responsibility’, 58.
[38] Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 145.
[39] Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 145-7, 156. ‘On Not Being in Charge’, 175.
[40] Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 139, 143-4, 147, 160.
[41] Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 36, 98-9, 129-30. ‘Following Christ as Political Responsibility’, 57-8.
[42] Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 227. C.f. Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 4-8, 98-99, 129-30, 134. ‘Following Christ as Political Responsibility’, 57-8.
[43] Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 36.
[44] Yoder, ‘Following Christ as Political Responsibility’, 58.
[45] Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 149, 156-7.
[46] Yoder, ‘Armaments and Eschatology’, Studies in Christian Ethics 1/1 (1988): 58. C.f. Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 144. ‘Biblical Mandate for Social Action’, 191. Yoder, ‘Are You the One Who is to Come?’ in For The Nations: Essays Evangelical and Public (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), 211-2.
[47] Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 144. ‘Are You the One’, 216. ‘Armaments and Eschatology’, 58. Yoder, ‘The Otherness of the Church’, in The Royal Priesthood (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995), 61-62. Yoder, The Priestly Kingdom: Social Ethics as Gospel (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame, 1994), 11.
[48] Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 228-31, 238.
[49] Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 232-3.
[50] Yoder, ‘Are You the One’, 218. C.f. ‘Biblical Mandate for Social Action’, 189. Yoder, ‘The Spirit of God and the Politics of Men’, in For The Nations: Essays Evangelical and Public (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), 228.
[51] Yoder, ‘The State in the NT’, 40-1.
[52] Yoder, ‘The State in the NT’, 45.
[53] Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 198. ‘The State in the NT’, 18-19.
[54] Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 203-4. ‘The State in the NT’, 27. ‘Spirit of God and Politics of Men’ 229. ‘Following Christ as Political Responsibility’, 65.
[55] Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 198, 201-2. ‘The State in the NT’, 20, 40. ‘Following Christ as Political Responsibility’, 65.
[56] Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 154, ‘Spirit of God and Politics of Men’ 234-5. ‘The State in the NT’, 43, 45.
[57] ‘The State in the NT’, 31-32. ‘Following Christ as Political Responsibility’, 62.
[58] Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 151. ‘The State in the NT’, 35-9. ‘Following Christ as Political Responsibility’, 62. ‘Christian Case for Democracy’, 158. Carter, Politics of the Cross, 210.
[59] Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 194-208.
[60] Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 195, 203-8. ‘The State in the NT’, 24-5, 39-40, 45. ‘Following Christ as Political Responsibility’, 62.
[61] Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 208-9.
[62] Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 207-8.
[63] Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 148, 154-5. ‘The State in the NT’, 46. ‘Racial Revolution in Theological Perspective’, 110, 113. ‘Christian Case for Democracy’, 165.
[64] Yoder, ‘Biblical Mandate for Social Action’, 191. ‘Are You the One’, 217. ‘Spirit of God and Politics of Men’ 235.
[65] Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 108-9, 148, 151, 153-4. ‘Biblical Mandate for Social Action’, 152-3, 184-9, 197. ‘Spirit of God and Politics of Men’ 235. ‘Are You the One’, 217. Carter, Politics of the Cross, 186.
[66] Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 183. ‘Christian Case for Democracy’, 155-6, 167. ‘On Not Being in Charge’, 175. ‘Believer’s Church’, 159. ‘Are You the One’, 212.
[67] Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 151. ‘Christian Case for Democracy’, 166-7. Yoder, ‘The Kingdom as Social Ethic’, in The Priestly Kingdom: Social Ethics as Gospel (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame, 1994), 82.
[68] Yoder, ‘On Not Being in Charge’, 175. ‘Biblical Mandate for Social Action’, 190-1. ‘Racial Revolution in Theological Perspective’, 112.
[69] Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 185. ‘Christian Case for Democracy’, 155-6, 167. ‘On Not Being in Charge’, 175. ‘Believer’s Church’, 159. ‘Biblical Mandate for Social Action’, 190. ‘Racial Revolution in Theological Perspective’, 112.
[70] Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 232-33. ‘Racial Revolution in Theological Perspective’, 105.
[71] Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 229. What Would You Do, 12-17.
[72] Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 109, 230. ‘Racial Revolution in Theological Perspective’, 122-124.
[73] Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 228-9, 238. ‘Believer’s Church’, 155. ‘Racial Revolution in Theological Perspective’, 105. ‘Biblical Mandate for Social Action’, 190. ‘On Not Being in Charge’, 175.
[74] Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 235. C.f. ‘Are You the One’, 211-2. ‘Racial Revolution in Theological Perspective’, 109.
[75] Yoder, ‘Are You the One’, 211. ‘Racial Revolution in Theological Perspective’, 109.
[76] Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 154, 156, 127, 187. ‘Biblical Mandate for Social Action’, 195.
[77] Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 109, 234. ‘Biblical Mandate for Social Action’, 191. ‘Spirit of God and Politics of Men’ 235.
[78] Yoder, ‘Racial Revolution in Theological Perspective’, 110.
[79] Yoder, ‘Are You the One’, 199-217. ‘Spirit of God and Politics of Men’ 235.
[80] See the discussion on the meaning of the cross above. Despite Yoder’s minimisation of many aspects of the cross, the point still stands that the defeat of rebellious political powers is part of the gospel to proclaim.
[81] Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 156. C.f. The Politics of Jesus, 157. ‘The State in the NT’, 24. ‘Believer’s Church’, 151, 158. ‘Following Christ as Political Responsibility’, 64. ‘Are You the One’, 212.
[82] Yoder, ‘The State in the NT’, 25.
[83] Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 155. ‘Racial Revolution in Theological Perspective’, 111. ‘The State in the NT’,
24-5.
[84] Yoder, ‘Believer’s Church’, 156.
[85] Yoder, ‘Believer’s Church’, 156-7.
[86] Yoder, ‘The State in the NT’, 25.
[87] Yoder, ‘Christian Case for Democracy’, 158-161.
[88] Yoder, ‘Christian Case for Democracy’, 158-9.
[89] Yoder, ‘Biblical Mandate for Social Action’, 191. ‘Spirit of God and Politics of Men’ 235. ‘Racial Revolution in Theological Perspective’, 111, 118.
[90] Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 148, 150-1.
[91] Yoder, ‘Biblical Mandate for Social Action’, 188. ‘Are You the One’, 217.
[92] Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 148. ‘Biblical Mandate for Social Action’, 188. Carter, Politics of the Cross, 211.
[93] Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 148.
[94] Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 105-107, 148. ‘Believer’s Church’, 153. ‘Biblical Mandate for Social Action’, 185, 187, 189.
[95] Yoder, ‘Biblical Mandate for Social Action’, 185. ‘Believer’s Church’, 153. Carter, Politics of the Cross, 211. Yoder, ‘Discerning the Kingdom of God in the Struggles of the World’, in For The Nations: Essays Evangelical and Public (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), 240, 242.
[96] Yoder, ‘Biblical Mandate for Social Action’, 189.
[97] Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 96. ‘Racial Revolution in Theological Perspective’, 111. ‘Following Christ as Political Responsibility’, 58-60.
[98] Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 125. ‘The State in the NT’, 25. ‘Following Christ as Political Responsibility’, 60. ‘Racial Revolution in Theological Perspective’, 116.
[99] Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 209. C.f. ‘Following Christ as Political Responsibility’, 59.
[100] Yoder, ‘Believer’s Church’, 152.
[101] Yoder, ‘Believer’s Church’, 151. ‘Racial Revolution in Theological Perspective’, 118-120. Carter, Politics of the Cross, 211.
[102] Yoder, ‘Racial Revolution in Theological Perspective’, 118. ‘Biblical Mandate for Social Action’, 188.
[103] Yoder, ‘Believer’s Church’, 150, 159.
[104] As stated earlier, (n. 19) it is outside the scope of this essay to prove Yoder’s point for him, except to recognise that it could be possible.
Hmmm, where to start….
Firstly I must admit that I haven’t read any of the references given, nor am I “ethicially” trained, however Yoder’s body of work seems more interested in the concept of ethics or dare I say “teaching” than the saving work of Jesus Christ. This approach seems to have some inherent bias associated with it, besides the theological implications. My views are also perhaps “coloured” by my pragmatic rather than idealistic approach to things, believing God wants us to live in the real world. [Hence my previous “fairy-land' comments.]
It seems that somewhere between the Old Testament and New, coercive force became an “Evil” thing. Being a Godly leader (or King) of people has become a bad thing. I’m not quite sure that the nature of God can change so radically, that David and Solomon could be God appointed Rulers and yet be part of an inherently evil thing. Yes, they were human and did on occasion do bad things – yet these were not associated with being a default aspect of their rulership. Their sinfulness is recognised yet they are also held up and esteemed, much like Moses. Only Jesus is perfect – and that is kind of the point.
Additionally it strikes me as somewhat odd that Christians should petition the government of the day to do what is right. Yet by the same token refuse to take a meaningful part in the government process and indeed call the very “Powers” that you are seeking to influence – evil. Further by maintaining such a distance how does one evangelise to those in the Government, police force or military?
Romans 13 says that the Authorities are put in place by God, who uphold what is right. It goes on to call the Authorities God’s servants – is that not what Christians are called to be? I read no influence of evil in these verses, no exhortation to remain apart.
I find this stance odd when so many references in the New Testament refers to things military (Ephesians 6). Jesus refers to himself carrying a sword and causing disruption in Matthew 10:34. We don’t really see any equivalent analogies to something that is clearly abhorent to God such as prostitution to name an extreme example.
Matthew 26:52 Jesus reprimands his disciple for using a sword. However in context the use of the sword is against what He wills. Does Jesus react in horror to his disciple having a sword? Does he ask for it to be thrown away? No, he asks for it to be put back in it’s place. Sure Jesus would have commented about the sword before and asked the disciple to throw it away, long before these events took place.
I totally recognise verses like Matthew 5:38 which implore a radical love your enemy approach. This, anecdotally, has been an amazing source of some conversions and indeed inspiration from Christians today. However I think it is a very long bow indeed to take this to mean that as a result Christians cannot take an active role in the police, government or military (if I can extend the weapon metaphor).
Jesus himself wasn’t afraid of confrontation as evidenced by numerous verbal sparring matches with Pharisees and Herodians. Additionally he was quite forceful in removing the coin changers from the temple court – making a whip from cords and driving the animals out. John 2:14.
I just don’t see enough Biblical references to convince me of the pacificist agenda being peddled by Yoder. I don’t think the Second Coming will align with his pacifist ideals either. I don’t think that the Bible is calling us to be bloodthirsty either mind – I believe it is dealing with much more important issues.
Yoder’s big problem is his jump from violence to coercive force. That’s where I want to do my project next year, is violence by definition evil, and therefore is coercive force?
I guess it all depends on how you define evil and coercive force as distinct from violence.
Yoder suggests that Jesus gives us a basis to judge when the state calls us to do evil. Without us adopting his view that all coercive force is evil, he nonetheless gives us space to consider that sometimes the state may be asking us to do evil.
What would it have meant if the Church of England as it was in Australia had opposed conscription in WW1? Or opposed the Vietnam War? Instead, in both instanvce the church supported forcing young men to go to questionable war.
Evil is a strong word in our culture. I think the best theological definition of it must be “that which is against God’s plan for the world”. It is very broad, but it recognizes the fact that things that are against God’s pattern are fundamentally wrong.
So, the issue is whether violence is against God’s pattern. Then the question is whether Christians are ever to use something against God’s pattern in order to achieve good. Then the question is whether threats of violence or incarceration are evil. And if we answer yes, no, yes, then the Government’s role of creating laws, and then enforcing them by punishing people is essentially outside of what is appropriate for Christians.
Too many if-then statements. According to Genesis work (as in toil) is against God’s design and therefore using Yoder’s concept is evil. Should we work to do good?
Yoder takes one concept and extrapolates it well beyond the intent and other verses contradict what the extrapolation becomes.
If the Bible consistently and uneqivocally said that violence was evil, bad and no Christian should ever partake in any form of violence, incarceration, policing or Government I would buy it, however as it doesn’t, I find it hard to swallow.
I disagree with your assumption. The Bible most definitely does not say that work is wrong. In fact, it consistently says that it is good. Genesis says that God made the man to care for the garden and tend it, and told humanity to fill and subdue and rule the world. This is good work. Sin made word hard, but never made it evil. Sin makes many good things hard, but it never negates the intrinsic good in them.
However, anything that the bible does say is evil should never be done by Christians, even for good reasons (Rom 3:8)
As for your second point, you have eliminated any possibility that Jesus teaches new things that are not in the OT. Because, if he did, then they would not be “consistently and uneqivocally” taught. We have to acknowledge that Jesus introduced commands and ethical standards that were not explicitly in the OT – he gave “a new commandment”.
Jesus’ revelation of God was world-changing, and though God’s intrinsic nature did not change, his revelation of that nature was made massively more full – we now know God as trinity, we know him as the God who suffers on the cross out of love for us. These, and many more things that we now know about God have to affect our ethics, and override conclusions drawn from implications in the OT.
I’m glad you agree with my point – just because something is not part of God’s plan for the world doesn’t mean that it is therefore Evil. (I was referring to a section in Genesis just a little later than that – in Chapter 3…)
Actually I might argue that Rom3:8 is taken slightly out of context in your usage however the point is – what is to be taken as the definition of Evil?
My other point is that you can’t take several verses from the Bible and apply it unilaterially to match an “-ism”, in this case pacifism. God didn’t become man to teach -isms. Yoder takes selective passages of the Bible to justify an -ism.
How to live in a “modern world” is not directly addressed by the writings of the New Testament. We must take the principles and apply to our lives as we might However such a huge concept as Pacifism that Yoder proposes has no real corroboration in other events of the OT or NT and indeed doesn’t feature in further letters of the NT. Hence my extreme caution in taking this extrapolation as far as Yoder does.
I don’t think God changes his mind or character between the OT and NT. The liife and work of Jesus fulfills the OT. Jesus clarifies the OT and indeed points the way. Jesus doesn’t disavow or write-off the work of the OT, but quotes it on numerous occasions. Jesus clearly did not come to perpetuate the system of sacrifices and so forth, but fulfils it with His work on the cross.
My argument is and continues to be that there is insufficient evidence in the Bible to endorse the pacifism line that Yoder argues for. Indeed there is enough to contradict what he extrapolates to, both in the OT and NT.
Yes in the new creation, God’s ultimate plan, there will be no need of soldiers or police or governments; but also no need of doctors, teachers or indeed Ministers.
I’ll have to pick this up again in 2 weeks – after exams.
I just thought of something: Let’s not call it an “ism”, as if it is a big theological construct independent of the Bible. Let’s call it obedience to the sermon on the mount.
Jesus has given an explicit command: Don’t respond to evil with evil, but turn the other cheek.
This is set in a block of teaching where he takes OT laws and modifies them with “but I say to you…” which seriously implies that this is a change from the OT
Understanding a command in context, and allowing context and the rest of the Bible to further shape a command is a valid thing to do.
However, the burden of proof does not lie on those who want to obey Jesus’ direct command. The burden of proof lies on those who want to use other passages to mitigate this command or limit its scope.
Not sure what version you are quoting there.
However I think you have it the wrong way around entirely. If you want to push the scope of a command way beyond what it says to include things like what jobs you can do as a Christian that is not contained or implied or referred to within the verse itself and indeed other verses appear to contradict this “reading” of the verse the burden of proof is on to you to not take the verse in isolation and extrapolate from there, but to consider it within context of the rest of the Bible.
I wonder where one might end up if one were to take a verse in the same section, a little earlier, out of context and without regard to other verses? What about Matthew 5:29-30? Should I start cutting bits off my body now?
How about Matthew 6:25 – do not worry, still in the same section. Should I cancel my life, car and house insurance now?
OK, take a step back from the job thing. The key issue is whether violence is wrong for Christians in any way. That is the point to decide first, occupational implications of that then fall out. But ethical teachings will effect our career choices, ie, Jesus’ teachings about lust prevent us from a number of legal career choices, such as porn producer.
Matt 5:29-30: Yes, cut off your hand if it causes you to sin. However, usually body parts don’t cause you to sin, but parts of your life just as painful to remove do. And, yes, Jesus is teaching radical surgery on parts of your life that cause you to sin, no matte how much those parts are loved.
Matt 6:25: Would it be a bad thing if that passage was teaching that? Jesus teaches against the rich man who hoards his riches. The NT holds a very tenuous connection with money, and sees it as generally more of a problem than a blessing. It is particularly suspicious of anything designed to remove uncertainty in life in an attempt to trust something else rather than God.
In that light, we should be thinking very carefully about insurance. I’m not saying it is wrong per se, but if it is a source of trust rather than God (which is the exact meaning of the passage) then insurance is very wrong.
I would question any exegesis that starts with a bible passage that makes us very uncomfortable, say that Jesus really didn’t mean that, and then use that conclusion to say that Jesus didn’t mean another passage.
The Matthew passage will have to be my first step on the road, and will be my top priority after the exams have finished.
There really isn’t a lot of corroborating verses to support the statement that violence is wrong in all circumstances for a Christian. The proposals being put forward by Yoder stand or fall on this verse. I’m loath to have some very sweeping position being put forward as Christian if there are so few verses dedicated to the notion. The more radical the view – the more supporting evidence I would want to see.
I’m not sure I share your fatalistic (hyper-Calvinistic) view of insurance or superannuation either – I’m not aware of any Anglican buildings that aren’t insured. Having come out of a 3 week sermon series and Bible Study on Money, I’m fairly sure that you can’t support this scripturally either.
I’m a big Yoder fan, and appreciate your insight into his work. I think that he’s right to take it as far as coercive force, because when seen theologically coercive force is violence, and all violence is to be judged equally. I appreciate Yoder and the work you’ve done analyzing him.
thanks.
Thanks for your comment.
What do you mean by “seen theologically”?
How would you go about theologically justifying extending violence to coercive force?
(It’s a bit of an enthymeme in Yoder’s argument)
I think Yoder’s project is about interpreting violence and coercive force through the humility of Jesus, thus providing a theological ethic, rather than a philosophical one. I know Yoder mostly through Hauerwas.
I think the way I might attempt such a project might include the Gospel’s call to not Lord power over one another, but to submit ourselves to one another in self-disclosure. I know Moltmann is much better at this particular point than I am. But I suppose I’d have to say that the community Jesus calls out is one that does not take up the sword, and i suppose a bit symbolically/allegorically the sword is the power of the systems of this world. Jesus establishes a community that rejects power in this manner, and thus rejects the use of coercive force as something that is taking up the power of the world, rather than that of the cross.
I think Yoder is all about a metaphysic of the cross. Where reality eschatologically looks like the crucified Christ, and so this is how we must act to participate in what history, politics and religion truly mean.
I hope that I’ve been clear. I’m honestly a bit intimidated by the clarity and insight of your work.
Where did you go if you don’t mind my asking?
Why do you remain unconvinced if you don’t mind my asking? I didn’t notice it in the earlier responses, but i might have browsed too quickly.
moltmann’s spirit of life seems to be in keeping with a vision similar to Yoder’s.
Why am I unconvinced?
Because I have a very high level of skepticism about theological rather than exegetical arguments.
When you create a theological framework, and then mount your argument based on that framework, your argument is only as good as the unacknowledged assumptions underlying the framework. Many great people have created plausible frameworks from scripture, but when that framework becomes the basis for ethical or theological discourse, rather than the underlying texts, then you get unstuck pretty quickly (for instance hyper-Calvanism or “Thomist” Catholicism).
I am presently studying at Moore Theological College, Sydney, Australia.
http://www.moore.edu.au
Easily the best academic college in the Southern Hemisphere, and Don Carson thinks it’s one of the best in the world (I agree).
By the grace of God, it’s a short train trip from my house.
I think it’s a little too far to commute from Florida, though.
Eek. I’ve never intimidated anyone before. At least, not off a football field
I think you’re right about where Yoder gets his theology of power. I’m just not sure he is right. Jesus clearly banns punching someone in the face. It is a much more subtle argument to say that it applies to legislation as well.
I haven’t read Moltmann on this, so I’ll have a look
If my thoughts are clear, it is all by the grace of God and the blessing of attending one of the best theological colleges in the world