Derek: 00:28

Welcome back to the Fourth Wave podcast. I'm really excited to bring to you today a work by Aidan Balu entitled Christian Nonresistance in All Its Important Bearings. And you can probably tell from the title that it was written quite a while ago, eighteen hundreds. And, you know, it's one of those things that I'm coming to realize in my arrogance of modernity, where when when a work comes up and it's like, Ah, it's back in the 1800s, you know, we've thought so much more about this issue since then. I'm not going to get anything out of this work that I don't already know, that I haven't seen elsewhere.

Derek: 01:10

It's not really because I I think that I know everything. It's more because, I think that what is somebody gonna give me from way back in the day after we've had 150 of of advancement in conversations and new issues and resolutions and all that stuff. But this work was actually, it was recommended to me by one of our listeners, Joseph, thank you. And it's become one of my favorite works because I think he organizes the book very, very well. But also because he really does say things in a way that is helpful, in a structure that's helpful, and he also says some new and interesting things that I hadn't really seen elsewhere.

Derek: 01:57

The other reason I really well, a couple other reasons that I like Balu here is because I really trust his integrity because a lot of the other pacifists of this day, I think Garrison was one of them, William Lloyd Garrison, They kind of recanted their non violence when it came to the civil war. They're like, Well, you know, I'm pretty non violent, but go civil war. You know, let's let's, let's free the slaves, which is great, but let's do it by killing a bunch of other people. And you have Frederick Douglass in his, what's the slave is the July 4, who says, no, violence is not the way. And he himself, a former slave and somebody who's who is recognizes that, I'm sure that if slavery were to be abolished, over time, views and antagonisms towards him would change too.

Derek: 02:50

So it would still benefit him even though he wasn't still enslaved. So Bali was one of the few main pacifists who adhered to his pacifism all throughout the civil war. And he's also somebody who strongly influenced Leo Tolstoy, which I love Tolstoy. I mean, he's got some he's got some places where where I definitely part ways with him, but just his his incisiveness is is fantastic. And I love Tolstoy, and since Tolstoy was was, influenced by Balu, I think I love Balu even more.

Derek: 03:29

Kind of like with C. S. Lewis. I love C. S.

Derek: 03:31

Lewis, but when you find out he's influenced by Chesterton, you're like, Oh, I love Chesterton even more. Or was it was it, George McDonald that influenced I I don't know. I I think I think that was kind of the line, McDonald, Chesterton, Lewis. Anyway, point is, Balu's pretty awesome, at least what what little I know about him. And, I I have some other works of his that I want to read that I haven't gotten to.

Derek: 03:58

And my understanding is that he's maybe a a Christian anarchist? He's he's got a book about socialism and stuff too. So he's just politically, like, everything. He's just, so intriguing, and I can't wait to read more of him. But for today, the topic at hand, the book at hand, is Christian Non Resistance and All Its Important Bearings.

Derek: 04:24

Now I do want to say, you can find this book, this audiobook, on LibriVox, so if you don't like my voice, the way that I read, the lack of editing out, my inability to pronounce everything correctly, whatever, go check out LibriVox. It's free. You can you can get it, and it's it's going to be broken up differently too. I'm actually gonna gonna, do this by chapters, and LibriVox because some of these chapters are kind of long, LibriVox is going to break it up into some chapters up into like two or three parts. And then of course, at the end of each chapter, I will have a, you know, interject some of my thoughts and, kind of pull out what I think are some some really good things.

Derek: 05:08

Obviously not every good thing, but some of the things that I think are are particularly particularly good and helpful. I think that's it for the intro. I don't want to take up too much time, away from Balu, so let's dive in to chapter one. Different kinds of non resistance. What is Christian non resistance?

Derek: 05:35

It is that original peculiar kind of non resistance which was enjoined and exemplified by Jesus Christ according to the scriptures of the New Testament. Are there other kinds of non resistance? Yes. One. Philosophical non resistance disregards the authority of Jesus Christ as a divine teacher, excludes all strictly religious considerations, and deduces its conclusions from the light of nature: the supposed fitness of things and the expedience of consequences.

Derek: 06:10

Number two: Sentimental nonresistance, also of various hue, which is held to be the spontaneous dictate of man's higher sentiments in the advanced stages of their development, transcending all special divine revelations, positive instructions, ratiocination, and considerations of expediency. Necessitous nonresistance (three) commonly expressed in the phrase passive obedience and nonresistance, imperiously preached by despots to their subjects as their indispensable duty and highest virtue also recommended by worldly prudence to the victims of oppression when unable to offer successful resistance to their injurers. With this last mentioned kind, Christian non resistance has nothing in common. With philosophical and sentimental non resistance, it holds much in common, being in fact the divine original of which they are human adulterations embracing all the good of both without the evils of either. This treatise is an illustration and defense of Christian nonresistance properly so designated.

Derek: 07:22

The term nonresistance. The term non resistance itself next demands attention. It requires very considerable qualifications. I use it as applicable only to the conduct of human beings towards human beings, not towards the inferior animals, inanimate things, or satanic influences. If an opponent willing to make me appear ridiculous should say, You are a non resistant and therefore must be passive to all assailing beings, things, and influences, to Satan, man, beast, bird, serpent, insect, rock, timber, fire, flood, heat, cold, and storm, I should answer, Not so.

Derek: 08:03

My non resistance relates solely to conduct between human beings. This is an important limitation of the term. But I go further to disclaim using the term to express absolute passivity, even towards human beings. I claim the right to offer the utmost moral resistance, not sinful, of which God has made me capable to every manifestation of evil among mankind. Nay, I hold it my duty to offer such moral resistance.

Derek: 08:32

In this sense, my very non resistance becomes the highest kind of resistance to evil. This is another important qualification of the term. But I do not stop here. There is an un injurious, benevolent physical force. There are cases in which it would not only be allowable, but in the highest degree commendable to restrain human beings by this kind of force.

Derek: 08:55

Thus, maniacs the insane, the delirious, sick, ill natured, children the intoxicated, and the violently passionate, are frequently disposed to perpetrate outrages and inflict injuries, either on themselves or others, which ought to be kindly and uninjuriously prevented by the muscular energy of their friends. And in cases where deadly violence is inflicted with deliberation and malice of forethought, one may nobly throw his body as a temporary barrier between the destroyer and his helpless victim, choosing to die in that position rather than be a passive spectator. Thus another most important qualification is given to the term non resistance. It is not non resistance to animals and inanimate things, nor to Satan, but only to human beings. Nor is it moral non resistance to human beings, but chiefly physical nor is it physical nonresistance to all human beings under all circumstances, but only so far as to obtain abstain totally from the infliction of personal injury as a means of resistance.

Derek: 10:02

It is simply non resistance of injury with injury, evil with evil. Will the opposer exclaim, This is no non resistance at all. The term is mischosen. I answer: So said the old opposers of the Temperance Reformation respecting the term total abstinence. They began by insisting that the term must be taken unqualifiedly and pronounced total abstinence and absurdity.

Derek: 10:31

It was replied, We limit its application to the use of ardent spirits and intoxicating liquors. Then you exclude these substances from the arts and from external applications, do you? Rejoined the opposers. No, replied the advocates of the cause. We mean total abstinence from the internal use, the drinking of those liquors.

Derek: 10:51

But are they not sometimes necessary for medical purposes? Said the opposers. And then may they not be taken internally? Certainly with proper precautions, was the reply. We mean by total abstinence precisely this and no more the entire disuse of all ardent spirits and intoxicating liquors as a beverage.

Derek: 11:13

That, exclaimed the objectors, despairing of reductio ad absurdum, is not total abstinence at all. The term is mischosen. Nevertheless, it was a most significant term. It had in it an almost talismanic power. It expressed better than any other just what was meant, and wrought a prodigious change in public opinion and practice.

Derek: 11:35

The term nonresistance is equally significant and talismanic. It signifies total abstinence from all resistance of injury with injury. It is thus far non resistance, no farther. The almost universal opinion and practice of mankind has been on the side of resistance of injury with injury. It has been held justifiable and necessary for individuals and nations to inflict any amount of injury which would effectually resist a supposed greater injury.

Derek: 12:05

The consequence has been universal suspicion, defiance, armament, violence, torture, and bloodshed. The earth has been rendered a vast slaughterfield, a theater of reciprocal cruelty and vengeance, strewn with human skulls, reeking with human blood, resounding with human groans, and steeped with human tears. Men have become drunk with mutual revenge, and they who could inflict the greatest amount of injury in pretended defense of life, honor, rights, property, institutions, and laws have been idolized as the heroes and rightful sovereigns of the world. Non resistance explodes this horrible delusion, announces the impossibility of overcoming evil with evil, and making its appeal directly to all the injured of the human race, and joins on them in the name of God, never more to resist injury with injury, assuring them that by adhering to the law of love under all provocations, and scrupulously suffering wrong rather than inflicting it, they shall gloriously overcome evil with good, and exterminate all their enemies by turning them into faithful friends. The term force.

Derek: 13:16

Having thus qualified and defined the term non resistance, it would seem proper to do the same with several others frequently made use of in this discussion of our general subject. One of these terms is force. Non resistance, like others, have been in the habit of using this and similar terms too loosely, thereby giving needless occasion for misunderstanding on the part of the uninformed and misrepresentation on the part of the interested opposers. The word force is thus defined by walker: strength, vigor, might, a violence, virtue, efficacy, validness, power of law, armament, warlike preparation, destiny, necessity, fatal compulsion. Now, if we should use the word Force as the contrary of non resistance, Without any qualification, the idea would be conveyed that non resistance was identical with absolute passivity and that it necessarily excluded all kinds and degrees of force under all circumstances whatsoever.

Derek: 14:20

The generic meaning of the term force is strength, vigor, might, whether physical or moral. Thus, we may speak of the force of love, the force of truth, the force of public opinion, the force of moral suasion, the force of non resistance. Or, we may speak of the force of gravitation, the force of cohesion, the force of repulsion, etc. Or in relation to the muscular force of human beings, we may speak of benevolent force, kind force, uninjurious force, meaning thereby various applications of muscular strength for the purpose of preventing human beings committing on themselves or others some injury. In which prevention, no personal injury is inflicted but real kindness and benefit done to all parties concerned.

Derek: 15:06

As non resistance is not identical with absolute passivity, but allows, implies, and requires various kinds and degrees of moral and physical strength according to circumstances, the term force must not be used as its converse, unless it be with such qualifications, or in such a connection as will give it some one of its conventional significations, so that it shall mean violence, warlike force, positive vengeance, destructive force, in fine, injurious force. Injurious force, of all kinds and degrees, between human beings, is incompatible with non resistance. Such are the qualifications with which the term forced will be used in this work. The term moral force will be understood from the preceding remarks as synonymous with moral power: the effective influence of moral strength, vigor, might. Physical force, as distinguished from moral force, is a term used to express the idea of material force the action of one body on another, compelling the weaker to yield to the stronger by mere animal strength and mechanical power.

Derek: 16:14

As moral force may be either good or evil, injurious or un injurious, according to its kind, its object, its spirit, or its manner of application, so may physical force be good or evil, injurious or un injurious, according to the same considerations. When a licentious man corrupts the mind of an innocent youth by bad examples, bad counsel, bad maxims, and other evil influences in which there is no physical force, he exerts a most injurious moral force. He demoralizes the principles and habits of one whom he ought to encourage, and confirm in virtue. When a good man converts a sinner from the error of his ways by good example, counsels, maxims, and other purifying influences, he exerts a most beneficent and salutary moral force. So when a man by physical force destroys or impairs the life, intellect, moral sentiment, or absolute welfare of a human being, he uses an injurious physical force.

Derek: 17:15

But in restraining a madman from outrage, or holding a delirious sick person on the bed, or compelling an ill natured child to desist from tearing out the hair of a weaker brother, or interposing his body and muscular strength to prevent rape, or any similar act wherein he does no one real injury, while he renders to some or all the parties concerned a real benefit, he uses a rightful, uninjurious physical force. The term injury. I use this term in a somewhat peculiar sense to signify any moral influence or physical force exerted by one human being upon another. The legitimate effort of which is to destroy or impair life, to destroy or impair physical faculties, or to destroy or impair the intellectual powers, to destroy, impair, or pervert the moral and religious sentiment, or to destroy or impair the absolute welfare, all things considered, of the person on whom such influence or force is exerted. Whether that person be innocent or guilty, harmless or offensive, injurious or uninjurious, sane or insane, composementis, or non compose, adult or infant, some of the lexicographers define an injury to be hurt, harm, or mischief, unjustly done to a person, thereby implying that any hurt, harm, or mischief done to one who deserves nothing better, or can be considered as justly liable to it, is no injury at all.

Derek: 18:50

I reject entirely every such qualification of the term. I hold an injury to be an injury, whether deserved or undeserved, whether intended or unintended, whether well meant or ill meant, determining the fact in accordance with the foregoing definitions. But, says the inquirer, what if it can be proved justifiable by the law of God to inflict personal injury in certain cases on the offensive and guilty? Then of course it will be proved that nonresistance is a false doctrine. What if it can be proved that the infliction of small injuries may prevent much greater evils?

Derek: 19:27

Then it will be proved that we may do evil that good may come, which will forever keep the world just where it is. What if it can be shown that the person who inflicts an injury honestly intended it for a benefit? That will only prove him honestly mistaken, and so undeserving of blame. What if a man inflicts death or any other injury according to established human laws, but does it without malice or revenge or any malevolent intent? Then he does an anti Christian act without conscience as its real nature.

Derek: 19:59

The act must be condemned he must be credited for his motives due allowance must be made for his misapprehension of duty and light poured into his mind to super induce a better conscience, that he may be brought to act the Christian part. But in no case must we lose sight of the inquiry whether an injury has been done. And in determining this, we must not ask whether the recipients were guilty or innocent, whether the things done were well or ill intended, whether it were done in a right or wrong spirit. If it be in fact an injury, it is contrary to the doctrine of Christian non resistance, and no person, knowing it to be such, can repeat it under any pretext whatsoever, without violating the law of God. This is the sense and signification of the term injury, injurer, injurious, etc, and used in these pages.

Derek: 20:54

The objector may here interpose critical queries with a view to test the soundness of my definition. He may suppose that a man's leg, hand, or eye is so diseased as to require amputation in order to save his life. But such member is one of his physical faculties, which must not be destroyed or impaired because that would be an injury. I answer: The diseased member is already lost. The question is not whether the friendly surgeon shall destroy or impair it, but only whether he shall amputate it in order to preserve the life and remaining faculties.

Derek: 21:27

No injury but an absolute benefit is proposed. This case is clear, but suppose the minister of the law is ordered to amputate a sound like hand or eye as a punishment for an example to deter others from the commission of a crime. This is absolute injury, done under good pretexts indeed, but on the account, nonetheless, an injury. Again, a child dangerously sick requires some medical application, very disagreeable, yet indispensable to his recovery, which can only be applied by physical force. Or an insane adult is in the same circumstances, or a person infected with hydrophobia and subject to terrible, paroxiums of the disease needs to be confined, and yet, for want of judgment, even in his intervals, refuses to be.

Derek: 22:21

Or man subject to violent impulses of propensity or passion, rendering him dangerous to all around him when excited, needs to be excluded from general society or otherwise watched and restrained by keepers in order to prevent serious mischief to others, and yet he resents and resists all entreaties to submit to such restriction. Or a wicked man is exceedingly alarmed, disturbed, and offended by a truthful exposure of his iniquitous proceedings, by the faithful remonstrances and rebukes of some good man. Now in all such cases, the will must be crossed, the personal freedom abridged, and the feelings pained. Must it not be an injury to coerce, restrain, expose, and reprove such persons, however necessary to their and the public good, and however kindly executed? Is it not generally more intolerable to be crossed in one's will and wounded in one's feelings than to be beaten, maimed, and otherwise mistreated?

Derek: 23:19

It is not man's imaginations, thoughts, and feelings that determine what is is not injurious to him? Love itself may heap coals of fire on a man s head. Truth may torment his mind. The most benevolent restraint may be painful to his feelings. He may be made for a while quite unhappy by crossing his evil will.

Derek: 23:41

He may prefer to be smitten and mutilated rather than be exposed in his secret iniquities or endure the faithful reproof of the upright. Such persons often prefer an injury to a benefit. They are not, for the time being, in a state of mind to understand and choose what is best for them. Therefore, their wills, feelings, and opinions are not the indices of their own good, much less that of others. Is it good for a capricious, obstinate child to be indulged in opposing a necessary medical application?

Derek: 24:15

Is it good for an insane or delirious sick adult to have his own will, even to the commission of murder and self destruction? Is it good for a man to have unlimited freedom when he will almost certainly make it a curse to himself and others by gross involuntary outrage or uncontrollable passions? Is it good for a wicked man under specious, hypocritical disguises to perpetrate the most atrocious mischief unexposed and unreproved? These things are not good for mankind. On the contrary, it is good for them to be crossed, restrained, coerced, and reproved by all un injurious moral and physical forces which benevolence prompts and wisdom dictates.

Derek: 24:57

To cross their wills and pain their feelings by such means under such circumstances is not an injury, but a substantial good to them, and all who are connected with them. It may be said, these things cannot be done uninjuriously it would be impracticable. Cannot unreasonable children be nursed, delirious adults controlled, dangerously distempered people prevented from doing themselves and others harm, outrageous non compost persons restrained, hypocrites exposed and sinners reproved without inflicting injury at them? Then can nothing good be done without doing evil? Imperfection is indeed incidental to all human judgment and conduct, and therefore it is probable that some mistakes and some accidental injuries might happen.

Derek: 25:44

But the reason and common sense of mankind, once fairly pledged to the true principle of action, would seldom fail to discharge all these duties to general dissatisfaction, to general satisfaction. Still, it may be asked, what is to be done if an injurious force should prove inadequate? May life be sacrificed, limb broken, and flesh mangled, or any other injuries allowed in extreme cases? Never. The principle of non injury must be held inviolable.

Derek: 26:16

It is worth worlds and must be preserved at all hazards. What cannot be done uninjuriously must be left undone. But these extreme cases are mostly imaginary. The truth is that what cannot be done uninjuriously can scarcely ever be done at all, or if done, had better have been let alone. Experience in the case of the insane has already proved that incomparably more can be done by an injurious force, scrupulously and judiciously employed, than by an admixtures of the injurious element.

Derek: 26:50

Presuming that my definition and use of the term injury injurer injurer, injurious, etc. Cannot be misunderstood, I move on. The term Christian Nonresistance. Once originated the term Christian nonresistance, Nonresistance comes from the injunction Resist not evil from Matthew five thirty nine. The words resist not being changed from the form of a verb to that of a substantive give us nonresistance.

Derek: 27:23

This term is considered more strikingly significant than any other of the principles involved, and the duty enjoined in Our Savior's Precept, hence its adoption and established use. It is denominated Christian nonresistance to distinguish it as the genuine primitive doctrine from the philosophical, sentimental, and necessitous nonresistance. Literally then, Christian nonresistance is the original nonresistance taught and exemplified by Jesus Christ the bearings, limitations, and applications of which are to be learned from the Scripture of the New Testament. And what are those bearings, limitations, and applications? I've already given an imperfect view of them in the previous definitions, but I will be more explicit.

Derek: 28:10

What I aim at is to carry the obligations of non resistance just as far and no further than Jesus Christ has. It is easy to go beyond or to fall short of its limits. Ultra radicals go beyond him. Ultra conservatives fall short of him. Even those of both these classes who profess to abide implicitly by his teachings construe and interpret his language so as to favor their respective errors.

Derek: 28:35

The ultra radicals seize on strong figurative, hyperbolic, or intensive forms of expression, and make him seem to mean much more than he could have intended. The ultraconservatives ingeniously fritter away and nullify the very essence of his precepts in such a manner as to make him seem to mean much less than he must have intended. There is, however, a general rule for such cases, which can scarcely fail to expose the errors of both classes in respect to any given text. It is this: Consider the context. Consider parallel texts.

Derek: 29:09

Consider examples. Consider the known spirit of Christianity. Any construction or interpretation of the recorded language of Christ or of His Apostles in which all these concur is sound. Any other is probably erroneous. The Key Text of Nonresistance Now let us examine Matthew five thirty nine: I say unto you, resist not evil.

Derek: 29:36

This single text from which, as has been stated, the term nonresistance took its rise, if justly construed, furnishes a complete key to the true bearings, limitations, and applications of the doctrine under discussion. This is precisely one of those precepts which may be easily made to mean much more or much less than its author intended. It is in the intensive, condensed form of expression and can be understood only by a due regard to its context. What did the Divine Teacher mean by the word evil? And what by the word resist?

Derek: 30:11

There are several kinds of evil: pain, loss, damage suffered from causes involving no moral agency or natural evil and two: sin in general or moral evil three) temptations to sin or spiritual evil and four) personal wrong, insult, outrage, injury, or personal evil. Which of these kinds of evil does the context show to have been in our Savior s mind He said resist not evil? Was He speaking of fires, floods, famine, disease, serpents, wild beasts, or any other mere natural evil agents? No. Then of course, He does not prohibit our resisting such evil.

Derek: 30:54

Was He speaking of sin in general? No. Then of course He does not prohibit our resisting such evil by suitable means. Was He speaking of temptations addressed to our propensities and passions enticing us to commit sin? No.

Derek: 31:09

Then, of course, He does not prohibit our resisting the devil, withstanding the evil suggestions of our own carnal minds, and suppressing our evil lusts. Was He speaking of personal evil personally inflicted by man on man? Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: but I say unto you that ye resist not evil. The word evil necessarily means in this connection personal injury or evil inflicted by human beings on human beings. But what did Jesus mean by the words resist not?

Derek: 31:49

There are various kinds of resistance which may be offered by personal injury when threatened or actually inflicted. There is passive resistance, a dead silence, a sullen inertia, a complete muscular helplessness, an utter refusal to speak or move. Does the context show that Jesus contemplated pro or con any such resistance in his prohibitions? No. There's an active righteous moral resistance, a meek firm remonstrance, rebuke, reproof, protestation.

Derek: 32:22

Does the connection show that Jesus prohibits this kind of resistance? No. There's an active firm compound, moral and physical resistance, un injurious to the evildoer and only calculated to restrain him from deadly violence or extreme outrage. Was Jesus contemplating such modes of resisting personal injury? Does the context show that He intended to prohibit all resistance of evil by such means?

Derek: 32:47

No. There's a determined resistance of personal injury by means of injury inflicted, as when a man deliberately takes life to save life, destroys an assailant's eye to save an eye, inflicts a violent blow to prevent a blow, or as when, in retaliation, he takes life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, etc. Or as when by means of governmental agencies He causes an injurious person to be punished by the infliction of some injury equivalent to one he has inflicted or attempted. It was of such resistance as this that our Savior was speaking. It is such resistance as this that He prohibits.

Derek: 33:27

His obvious doctrine is, Resist not personal injury with personal injury. I shall have occasion to press this point more conclusively in the next chapter when presenting my scriptural proofs. Enough has been said to determine the important bearings and limitations of the general doctrine. It bears on all mankind in every social relation of life. It contemplates men as actual, actually injured or in imminent danger of being injured by their fellow men, and commands them to abstain from all personal injuries, either as a means of retaliation, self defense, or suppression of injury.

Derek: 34:03

If smitten on one cheek, they must submit the other to outrage rather than smite back. If the life of their dearest friend has been taken, or an eye or tooth thrust out, or any other wrong been done to themselves or their fellow men, they must not render evil for evil, or railing for railing, or hatred for hatred but they are not prohibited from resisting, opposing, preventing, or counteracting the injuries inflicted, attempted or threatened by man on man, and the use of any absolutely uninjurious force, whether moral or physical. On the contrary, it is their bounden duty by all such benevolent resistances to promote the safety and welfare, the holiness and happiness of all human beings as opportunity may offer. Necessary Application of Nonresistance. The necessary applications of the doctrine are to all cases in human intercourse where man receives aggressive injury from man, or is presumed to be in imminent danger of receiving it, to all cases wherein the injury of man upon man is either to be repelled, punished, or prevented.

Derek: 35:14

There are four general positions in which human beings may stand to resist injury with injury: as individuals, as a lawless combination of individuals, as members of allowable voluntary associations, and as constituent supporters of human government in its state or national sovereignty. Standing in either of these positions, they can resist injury with injury, either in immediate self defense, in retaliation, or by vindictive punishments. As individuals, they may set immediately by their own personal energies, or they may act through their agents Persons employed to execute their will. Connected with a lawless combination, they may act directly in open cooperative violence, or clandestinely, or through select agents, or in a more general manner through their acknowledged leaders. As members of allowable voluntary associations, they may exert a powerful influence without any deeds of violence by means of speech, the press, education, religion, etc.

Derek: 36:14

To delude, corrupt, prejudice, and instigate the evil, to evil the minds of mankind one towards another. Thus, designedly to stimulate, predispose, and lead men to commit personal injury under pretense of serving God and humanity is essentially the same thing as directly resisting injury with injury by physical means. The mischief may be much greater the moral responsibility, certainly no less. As constituent supporters of human government, whether civil or military, or a compound of both, in its state or national sovereignty, men are morally responsible for all constitutions, institutions, laws, processes, and usages which they have pledged themselves to support, or which they avowedly approve, or which they depend upon as instrumentalities for securing and promoting their personal welfare, or in which they acquiesce without positive remonstrance and disfellowship. Thus, if a political compact, a civil or military league, covenant, or constitution requires, authorizes, provides for, or tolerates war, bloodshed, capital punishment, slavery, or any kind of absolute injury, offensive or defensive, the man who swears, affirms, or otherwise pledges himself to support such a compact, league, covenant, or constitution, is just as responsible for every act of injury done in strict conformity thereto as if he himself personally committed it.

Derek: 37:43

He is not responsible for abuses and violations of the Constitution, but for all that is constitutionally done he is responsible. The army is his army, the navy his navy, the militia his militia, the gallows his gallows the pillory his pillory the whipping post his whipping post the branding iron his branding iron the prison his prison the dungeon his dungeon and the slaveholding his slaveholding. When the Constitutional majority declares war, it is his war. All the slaughter, repine, ravages, robbery, destruction, and mischief committed under that declaration, in accordance with the laws of war are his. Nor can he be exculpate himself by pleading that he was one of a strenuous anti war minority in the government.

Derek: 38:34

He was in the government. He had sworn, affirmed, or otherwise pledged himself that the majority should have discretionary power to declare war. He tied up his hands with that anti Christian obligation to stand by the majority in all the crimes and abominations inseparable from war. It is therefore his war. Its murders are his murders.

Derek: 38:55

Its horrible injuries on humanity are his injuries. They are all committed with his solemn sanction. There is no escape from this terrible moral responsibility, but by a conscientious withdraw from such government, and an uncompromising protest against so much of its fundamental creed and constitutional law as is decidedly anti Christian, he must cease to be its pledged supporter and approving dependent. What a Christian non resistant cannot consistently do. It will appear from the foregoing exposition that a true Christian non resistant cannot, with deliberate intent, knowledge, or conscience voluntariness, compromise his principles by either of the following acts: Number one: He cannot kill, maim, or otherwise absolutely injure any human being in personal defense, or for the sake of his family, or anything he holds dear.

Derek: 39:54

Number two: He cannot participate in any lawless conspiracy, mob, riotous assembly, or disorderly combination of individuals to cause or countenance the commission of any such absolute personal injury. Three. He cannot be a member of any voluntary association, however orderly, respectable, or allowable by law, and general consent, which declaratively holds as a fundamental truth, or claims as an essential right, or distinctly inculcates a sound doctrine, or approves as commendable in practice, war, capital punishment, or any other absolute personal injury. Number four: He cannot be an officer or private, chaplain or retainer in the army, navy, or militia of any nation, state, or chieftain. Number five: He cannot be an officer, elector, agent, legal prosecutor, passive constituent, or approver of any government, as a sworn or otherwise pledged supporter thereof, whose civil constitution and fundamental laws require, authorize, or tolerate war, slavery, capital punishment, or the infliction of any absolute personal injury.

Derek: 41:05

Number six: He cannot be a member of any chartered corporation or body politic whose Articles of Compact oblige or authorize its official functionaries to resort for compulsory aid the conducting of its affairs to a government of constitutional violence. Seven. Finally, he cannot do any act either in person or by proxy, nor abet or encourage any act and others, nor demand, petition for, request, advise, or approve the doing of any act by an individual, association, or government, which act would inflict, threaten, to inflict, or necessarily cause to be inflicted any absolute personal injury as herein before defined. Such are the necessary bearings, limitations, and applications of the doctrine of Christian nonresistance. Let the reader be careful not to misunderstand the positions laid down.

Derek: 42:01

The platform of principle and action has been carefully founded, and its essential peculiarities plainly delineated. Let it not be said that the doctrine goes against all religion, government, social organization, constitutions, laws, order, rules, and regulations. It goes against none of these things per se. It goes for them in the highest and best sense it goes only against such religion, government, social organization, constitution, laws, order, rules, regulations, and restraints, as are unequivocally contrary to the law of Christ, as sanction taking life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, as are based on the assumption that it is right to resist injury with injury, evil with evil. The principle and sub principle of non resistance.

Derek: 42:56

This chapter may be profitably concluded with a brief consideration of the doctrine under discussion, with respect to the principle from which it proceeds to the sub principle, which is its immediate moral basis, and to the rule of duty in which all its applications are comprehended. What is the principle from which it proceeds? It is a principle from the inmost bosom of God. It proceeds from all perfect love, that absolute, independent, unerringly, wise, holy love, which distinguishes the divine from all inferior natures, and which, transfused into the natural sentiment of human benevolence, super induces the highest order of goodness. Of this it is said, love worketh no ill to his neighbor therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

Derek: 43:48

Whereas the amiable John expressed it, He that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him. This love is not mere natural affection nor sentimental passion, but a pure enlightened conscientious principle. It is a divine spring of action, which intuitively and spontaneously dictates the doing of good to others, whether they do good or evil. It operates independently of external influences, and being in its nature absolutely unselfish, is not affected by the merit or demerit of its objects. It does not inquire, Am I loved?

Derek: 44:26

Have I been benefited? Have my merits been appreciated? Shall I be blessed and returned? Or am I hated, injured, cursed, or condemned? Whether others love or hate, bless or curse, benefit or injure, it says, I will do right.

Derek: 44:42

I will love still. I will bless. I will never injure even the most injurious. I will overcome evil with good. Therefore, its goodness is not measured by or adjusted to the goodness of others, but ever finds in itself a sufficient reason for doing good and nothing but good to all moral agents.

Derek: 45:04

Jesus in whom flowed the full current of this divine love, the sublime efflux of the heavenly nature, laying hold of the great commandment, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, drew it forth from the ark of the Mosaic testament, all mildewed and dusky with human misapprehension, and struck from it the celestial fire. The true principle was in it, but men could not clearly perceive it, much less appreciate its excellency. He showed that the neighbor intended was any human being, a stranger, an enemy, a bitter foe, anyone needing relief or in danger of suffering through our selfishness, anger, or contempt, the greatest criminal, the various wretch of our race. Hence, knowing that the entire wisdom of this world had justified injury to injurers, hatred to enemies, and destruction to destroyers, he reversed the ancient maxims, abrogated the law of retaliation, and proclaimed the duty of unlimited forbearance, mercy, and kindness. Imperfect religion, worldly minded philosophy, and vindictive selfishness had concurrently declared, There is a point beyond which forbearance ceases to be a virtue.

Derek: 46:24

He swept away this heartless delusion with a divine breath, and sublimely taught obedient and everlasting adherence to the law of love, as well toward offenders, injurers, and enemies, as toward benefactors, lovers, and friends. I say unto you, take not life for life, eye for eye and tooth for tooth. Smite not the smiter to save thine own cheek. Give to him that asketh, and turn not the borrower away. Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you, that ye may be the children of your Father in heaven.

Derek: 47:02

For he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love and salute and do good to them that love you, what are ye better than the publicans? Be like your father in heaven. Such is the true light radiated from the bosom of the infinite father and reflected on this benighted world from the face of Jesus Christ. What are the puerile sentimentalisms of effeminate poets, or the gossamer elaborations of the world's philosophers, or the incantations of solemn but vindictive religionists compared with the divine excellency of truth as it distilled in the language of the Messiah.

Derek: 47:42

All perfect, independent, self sustaining, unswervable love, divine love, is the principle from which Christian non resistance proceeds, what is the sub principle which constitutes its immediate moral basis? The essential efficacy of good as the counteracting force with which to resist evil. The wisdom of this world has relied on the efficacy of injury, terror, evil to resist evil. It has trusted in this during all past time, and has educated the human race to believe that their welfare and security depended mainly on their power to inflict injury on offenders. Hence, it has been their constant endeavor to possess a sufficiency of injurious means to overawe their enemies and terrify their encroaching fellow men.

Derek: 48:31

Their language has been, keep your distance, touch not my property, insult not my honor, infringe not my rights, assail not my person, be just and respectful, yield to my convenience, and be my friend, or I will let slip the dogs of war. You shall feel the weight of my vengeance. I will inflict unendurable injuries on you. Death itself, torture, imprisonment in a loathsome dungeon pains and penalties shall be your portion. I will do you incomparably greater evil than you can do me.

Derek: 49:03

Therefore, be afraid and let me alone. And so perfectly befooled are the children of this world, with faith in injury as their chief ultimate security, that scarcely one in a thousand will at first, thought, allow the non resistance doctrine to be anything better than a proclamation of cowardice on one side and universal anarchy, lawlessness, and violence on the other. As if all mankind were so entirely controlled by the dread of deadly, or at least tremendous personal injury, that if this were relinquished, a man's throat would be instantly cut, his family assassinated, or some other horrible mischief inflicted. Very few know how entirely they trust for defense and security in this grim and bloody god of human injury. They have enshrined him in the sword, the gibbet, and the dungeon.

Derek: 49:54

They worship him in armies, navies, militia organizations, battleships, forts, arsenals, penal statutes, judicial inflictions, pistols, daggers, and bowie knives. And if we propose to lay all these evils aside and go for nothing but uninjurious, beneficent treatment of mankind, never transcending, even with the most outrageous, the limits of firm but friendly personal restraint, Lo, they cry out with alarm. These have come hither that turn the world upside down, torment us not before the time. Great is Diana of the Ephesians. Great is the sword, the halter, the salutary power to kill or injure sinners at discretion.

Derek: 50:38

What would become of human society if war, capital, and other injurious punishments should be abolished? On this altar, they have sacrificed human beings enough to people 20 such planets as the Earth with no other successes than to confirm and systematize violence throughout the whole habitable globe. And yet, injury is their God, and at His glory altar of revenge and cruelty, they resolved forever to worship amid the clanger of deadly weapons and the groans of a bleeding world. But the Son of the Highest, the Great Self sacrificing Non Resistant, is our Prophet, Priest, and King. Though the maddened inhabitants of the earth have so long turned a deaf ear to His voice, He shall yet be heard.

Derek: 51:29

He declares that good is the only antagonist of evil which can conquer the deadly foe. Therefore, He enjoins on His disciples the duty of resisting evil only with good. This is the sub principle of Christian non resistance: evil can be overcome only with good. Faith then, in the inherent superiority of good over evil, truth over error, right over wrong, love over hatred, is the immediate moral basis of our doctrine. Accordingly, we transfer all the faith we have been taught to cherish in injury to beneficence, kindness, and uninjurious treatment, as the only all sufficient en engineeri of war against evildoers.

Derek: 52:12

No longer seeking or expecting to put down evil with evil, we lift up the cross for an ensign, and surmounting it with the glorious banner of love, exalt in the divine motto displayed on its immaculate folds: resist not injury with injury. Let this in all future time be the specific rule of our conduct, the magnetic needle of our pathway across the troubled waters of human reform, till all men, all governments, and all social institutions shall have been molded into moral harmony with the grand comprehensive commandment of the living God. Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, then shall love be all in all. The earth so long a slaughter field shall yet an Eden bloom. The tiger to the lamb shall yield and ward send the tomb.

Derek: 53:02

For all shall feel the savior's love reflected from the cross, that love, that non resistant love, which triumphs on the cross. Man, I forgot how amazing Balu was. That that first chapter where a lot of what he's doing is setting up terms. I mean, it's so jam packed with good stuff. And I'm gonna try to keep it brief because we're already almost at an hour here.

Derek: 53:38

But do wanna pull out some important things. A lot of these things are themes that we've seen throughout, you know, throughout this podcast, but also maybe some some new things here. So first of all, I do want to notice that a lot of what this comes down to, again, and you're gonna you're gonna see this, you might not know the term if you haven't listened to season two, but a lot of this is consequentialism. Balu is saying, Hey, look, you guys, you know, you trust in violence and all this stuff because you say it works. You know, what do we mean by works, and does it really work, and we can get into all that.

Derek: 54:11

But he said, Look, we're called to obey God, and God tells us to love our neighbors, and you know what? Jesus kinda makes pretty clear who our neighbors are, and that's everybody who's a human. So how are we expecting to go out and injure and kill people who Jesus said are our neighbor, and we're supposed to love our neighbor? Do we trust God, or did God really say? Are we going to determine good and evil for ourselves, which is what Adam and Eve have done, and what our tendency all throughout time has been.

Derek: 54:42

And, you know, my group conservatives are frustrated with, you know, whatever redefining marriage or gender and all these things, and they say, Well, look at the natural order. Didn't God really say? God said marriage is between a man and a woman, or God said I created them male and female, and that's the way it should be, and no matter how you feel, we can't go against that because this is what God says. We can't redefine morality. We aren't relativists.

Derek: 55:08

And then we get to nonviolence, and what do you know? We are relativists, consequentialists. So, Balu, Balu hits on that all over the place here. It is important to note how he starts out. He does start out by identifying different types of nonviolent resistance groups.

Derek: 55:31

So we get into this in the episode we do on C. S. Lewis, where C. S. Lewis is, in his famous speech about against pacifism, you know, he's fighting a particular definition of pacifism or a particular group, the secular pacifists.

Derek: 55:45

And Balu, right at the beginning, he's very clear that, yeah, there are different types of non resistors and each of these kind of has some pitfalls to them. And so, let me tell you what those types are, and then let me kind of round out what I'm really talking about. And if you just read the very first few pages of Baloo's chapter one, you're gonna see kind of the different caricatures that can be made of of non violence. And then if you hear Balu out, you can you can hear how he avoids those pitfalls as he describes what he is. One of the big things that that Balu points out is that, one of the caricatures is that non resistance is passive, and this is one you hear all the time like, well, so what?

Derek: 56:30

Somebody comes into your house and you're just not gonna do anything? And Balu is like, it doesn't mean moral non resistance. Like, you guys are just taking this to the extreme. It doesn't mean I can't fight a fire because you know? Right?

Derek: 56:43

That's not what non resistance means. And it's ridiculous how just I don't know. I don't I guess I don't want to ascribe false motives to people, but, it seems like people are very disingenuous when they when they, level the the passivity argument, against nonviolent Christians. But definitely takes that down. Around the twelve minute mark, Balu does what I consider one of his, like, first unmaskings throughout the chapter of what violence really is.

Derek: 57:19

So he said, okay, so you guys who aren't nonviolent, you say, well, need violence. Like, we need it. We rely on it. It's how we bring about good in the world. He said, okay, under this this presence of violence, here's what you've really done.

Derek: 57:34

You have allowed violence to just it basically defines history. You go through history. What defines history? The wars, the the famines and things caused by violence. Like, history pivots around violent events.

Derek: 57:51

And who are the heroes of history? Leaders, and in general, leaders with military power who have killed lots of people. I mean, even if you think that they killed bad people, we've made violence into the focal point of history. And our heroes are violent, and we worship violence. And that idea of worshiping violence is gonna be be fleshed out as we move through Balu.

Derek: 58:20

Around the twenty two minute mark, Balu is gonna bring up something that I think is is kind of difficult when you talk about nonviolence, and that is he talks about restraining different types of people. And again, so he's going to say, Look, we it doesn't mean when he uses the term non resistance, it doesn't mean that you can't restrain somebody. It means non injury. And so to restrain somebody for their own good is something that Balu thinks is okay to do. And you will find people who say, No, no, no, you can't even restrain people.

Derek: 58:58

And there might be others who go further than who say, Well, you can like punch them. You like hit their legs with a baseball bat to incapacitate them. And there are varying degrees of nonviolence. But Bali would say, Yeah, we can restrain people. And so then people would respond to him, Well, what do you mean you can you can restrain people?

Derek: 59:20

Like, that's using physical force on them. He does a really good job of of showing a lot of the different ways that that the term force can be used. And here, when he talks about like restraining a madman or something, he said that, yes, Google, what you have to understand is that if I restrain, let's say, a madman from jumping out of a window, a 10 story window, I'm actually preventing his injury. I'm not doing injury to him to prevent the injury of himself or somebody else. I am actually providing a benefit to him and preventing any injury.

Derek: 01:00:01

Because he said, whether it's through delusion, whether it's through sin, whether there are many times that, for whatever reason, human nature prefers injury to benefit. And so he doesn't see, you know, to prevent a rape to go and restrain somebody. That is not you are actually you're not only helping the rape victim when you go and restrain her aggressor, but you are also helping the rapist because he is desiring something that is absolutely evil and immoral, and that is going to hurt him, mar his soul, mar his life because he's going to go to prison or whatever else. I mean, he'll still go to prison for attempted rape, but when you restrain him, you are actually bringing him benefit and preventing injury to him as well. And then, of course, other ways, jumping in front of a bullet or something, right?

Derek: 01:01:04

There are lots of different ways that you can be non resistant and that you can prevent harm to others, but then also in restraining the victimizers, you are preventing harm to them, to themselves. Around the twenty seven minute mark, I I love how how Balu brings in this idea of how we interpret scriptures. And he he does such a good job. I guess it was true in his days, just as true then as it is now, but said the liberals, they want to go and they want to like read Jesus one way. And then the Conservatives want to turn everything into metaphor, which we've talked about that a lot.

Derek: 01:01:47

Yeah, my group turns things into metaphor that are really inconvenient for us. And we keep the things we like. But Bali says we have to look at context, we look at parallel texts, we look at other examples, and we look at the spirit of Christianity. So the context of Matthew five, when Jesus is talking about being non resistant, clearly, He's talking about being nonresistant to other human actors who are seeking to do you injury. Clear context.

Derek: 01:02:13

And also within Matthew, right there, you have this idea that God loves peacemakers, and they will those will be called the children of God, and God causes the rain to fall on the just and the unjust. So there's all that context in there. Then you also look at parallel texts. You can go to Romans twelve and thirteen, and you can see Paul talking about feeding your enemies, and stuff like that. When Paul is attacked, he doesn't strike back.

Derek: 01:02:41

When Stephen is stoned, he doesn't strike back. And at the house of Jason, they don't fight back. We see examples of that. We see examples in the early church as well, which I guess you wouldn't wouldn't bring into Biblical text. But I guess you you sort of could to show that that's probably they probably picked that up from the apostles.

Derek: 01:03:02

But then also the spirit of Christianity. Is is killing your enemy in the spirit of Christ? I mean, if if we disagree on that one, I I don't that seems like a pretty fundamental disagreement, and I don't know how to show you that Jesus is enemy love, other than He died for you when you were His enemy, at the hands of His enemies. I mean, I I just don't know how to how to show that that's the spirit of Christianity if if you don't come to that conclusion. But I I hope Balu Balu helps to, to draw that out.

Derek: 01:03:40

Alright. The thirty two minute mark. This is something that we talked about in one of our episodes, and I forget exactly which. And Bali doesn't say it maybe explicitly, but I he says this, and I just want to make sure that it gets drawn out, which is the idea that so we know that the idea of an eye for an eye is is no good. Somebody goes to prison, or let's say some because we have guns, it makes things less interesting.

Derek: 01:04:08

So let's pretend we're in like Samurai sword Japan or, you know, broadsword Europe, whatever, and one guy attacks another guy and slashes off his arm in the fight. Okay? If that happens today, we wouldn't say, Well, that guy needs to go to prison and we're going to slash off his arm to make it evil, even, right? We don't think that eye for an eye, tooth for tooth is good. But we do, we really do.

Derek: 01:04:37

Because if that guy was attacking me, and I had a sword, if I could slash off his arm to prevent my arm from being slashed off, I'd do it. And that would be legitimate. It would be legal, and we'd say, Oh yeah, that was justified for you to slash off his arm, he didn't slash off your arm. So before the fact, eye for an eye for people who aren't nonviolent, eye for an eye before the fact, the Lex Talionis Preemptivis, I don't know what you'd call it, but we're good with that. Right?

Derek: 01:05:10

We do believe in an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, just not after the fact. And nonviolence is just saying, now you know, Jesus' rescinding of the Lex Talionis there, His clarification of it, that actually works all the time, not just post facto. Moving on to the the thirty six minute mark, Balu brings in because he knows, I guess, that, you you get people all the time who are very letter of the law people and try to be like, Well, you know, I'd never attacked anybody. And he says, Look, we've got violence at our heart and we can institute violence in a number of ways. And he brings up things like propaganda or employing people, like employing security guards with guns to shoot people who trespass or whatever, right?

Derek: 01:06:08

So propaganda and employing other people and that kind of stuff. Like, we can do injuries. We can put injury in the hearts of people by saying mean things about other people. And this is actually in the Westminster Confession. If you listen to the, to one of the episodes we did about being reformed and not violent, you look in the Westminster Confession or you look in like some of Luther and Calvin's writings, and, one of the catechisms actually says it talks about all of the ways that we do violence to people that encourages people to violence.

Derek: 01:06:47

And you're like, Woah, that's like super strict. That sounds very non violent esque. Like where it's there are all ways that all kinds of ways that we propagate evil. And lying and the way that we speak are definitely some ways that we do that. And so that as you think through nonviolence, don't just think, Well, I don't have a gun in my home, and I'm gonna try not to shoot somebody if they come in.

Derek: 01:07:13

But it's also, how do you cultivate peace in the world, and in your life, in your relationships? How do you encourage the cultivation of peace? Do you, do you what types of news articles do you put forward? Do you repeat? Do you pass on?

Derek: 01:07:30

Do you dwell on? What does that do to your heart? What does it do to other people's hearts? I mean, non violence is very active because it recognizes the network of sins and roots of evil. Fruit of evil comes from very deep roots.

Derek: 01:07:46

And we need to be evaluating our lives all the time on that. Right around the thirty six minute, thirty six thirty mark, one of my favorite extended quotes from Balu where he he gets into government, and he basically says, Hey, look. If you're participating in a government who has a constitution a slavery in their constitution, you got a problem. If you participate, and they're doing violence, they're doing war all over the world, they're imperialists, you've got a problem. You are responsible for whatever your government is doing constitutionally.

Derek: 01:08:24

And if you say, Well, you know, I tried. I went in as an anti war guy, and I voted against the war, but, you know, the majority won, and what could I do? Balu's like, What are you, giving up your Christian principles for the majority? Like, that's not how that's not how this Jesus following thing works. You can't say, Well, everybody else is doing it.

Derek: 01:08:44

I guess I had to kind of go along. If if something is incompatible with your Christianity, then it's incompatible. It's not majority rules here. You don't give up your morality for majority rules. It's really go back and and write around the 36, 30 mark, something around there, listen to that section by Balu.

Derek: 01:09:03

I remember the first time I read it, and I was like, I don't know, that's a little bit of a stretch. But the more I I think about consequentialism, having read Balu again here, and and just just really dwelling on this, it seems so clear to me that that, engagement there in government and our government, the United States government, is is 100% a compromise, at least on the legislative level and and some of those those higher levels. Now, Balu does go on to say, Hey, look, I'm not against all government per se. He does mention that, this is really as it is practiced out in his government. And honestly, you're not going to find a government that doesn't do these kinds of things, I don't think.

Derek: 01:09:53

So in a fallen world, it's probably one of those things that you will your government will always be inappropriate for you to be in. But in theory, it is possible that there was a government where it was possible, right, to for you to participate. Alright, last last thing, around the fifty one mark, fifty one minute mark, I loved how Balu kind of sets, the the violence violent, position up as basically having faith in in the God of war, having faith in in injury and violence. Right? They they put their faith in violence because that is what they think works.

Derek: 01:10:44

And they show it. They show that they're willing to compromise their Christianity to accept violence. And Balu asks, what has that gotten you but a history where all the all the people that have died from violence, we could populate 20 other Earths with that. Right? What is has violence really achieved what you said it's going to achieve?

Derek: 01:11:05

You say that nonviolence would be so horrendous. What could be more horrendous than the history that you, the violent, have given us? Maybe it's time that we try another way. Maybe it's time that we try a way that our God of love, who we proclaim, showed us and told us to follow. So that's chapter one of Balu's work.

Derek: 01:11:34

Amazing, amazing work. I'm so glad I'm doing this because I get to read it again, and it's more amazing the second time through. I know it's probably hard to listen to. Pick it up. It's like on you can get it e documents of this stuff, I'm sure, all over the place.

Derek: 01:11:53

But pick it up and read it, even chapter one, just chapter one. So good. Looking forward to putting chapter two out next week. That's all for now. So peace, and because I'm a pacifist, when I say it, I mean it.

Derek: 01:12:30

This podcast is a part of the Kingdom Outpost Network. Please check out the links below to find other great podcasts and content related to non violence and Kingdom Living.