Welcome back to the Fourth Wave podcast. Today, are going to do an episode from the reformed side of things. Now, know that at first, such a thought might seem a little bit oxymoronic because I I know that as a reformed believer myself, I have hardly anyone to look up to from my tradition in the nonviolent community. The first and only one that comes to mind at least, you know, that that would be more of a church father, not an ancient church father, but like somebody who's who's pretty much revered would be Charles Spurgeon. In modernity, the only reformed person that I know who's non violent would be Preston Sprinkle.

So that's not very many people to pick from. Pretty much everyone else in the non violent community is just about the opposite of reformed. And I've struggled with this a bit since I I do work within the reformed tradition, and I I tend to get a bit of pushback for some of my nonviolent views. I mean, topic doesn't come up that much, but when it does, I'm definitely the odd person in the room. But I also struggle with this because when I actually go to the reform documents and histories, there's actually some beautiful stuff there which I I think speaks powerfully into the non violent lifestyle, which has the capability of really bolstering a non violent lifestyle or bringing out more thinkers in Reformed traditions who can use Reformed structure to kind of support a Reformed life, a non violent lifestyle.

Just take for instance, total depravity and this recognition of sinfulness. That's something that should make us extremely wary of putting power in human hands, and it should be something that makes us recognize the great evil that's present and potentially present in all of us, that it's there, sin is in all of our hearts. And I know that everyone, every Christian would say that to a certain extent, but from the Reformed perspective, we really truly see sin as this powerful enemy and something that is ubiquitous in a way which others don't quite see it. Yet despite that possibility there, that recognition of sin and the possibility to be very cautious then with how we divvy out power. It's interesting to me then that my denomination is Presbyterian, which is named after our form of government where we have elders that lead a plurality, And we look down on denominations that have more monarchical governments where the head pastor calls the shots because we recognize when when we're all tainted with sin, it's better to have kind of like the US government where everybody's looking out after everybody else, it's better to have a plurality than it is to have have a monarch because of this understanding of total depravity.

Yet the Westminster Confession had for over a hundred years, the monarch as basically able to run the church by calling councils, determining heretics and and actually divvying out physical harm in order to purge the church of heretics. So despite, and and I feel like you see this a lot in in the Reformed doctrines, you end up seeing that there's this this beautiful potential and these logical outworkings which should follow, which oftentimes don't. And you're like, why how did we end up moving in a particular way when it seems like our path should have been significantly different based on our doctrine and what's at the core. But then again, you do see, even in Reformed circles, it can be kind of diverse. You do have this group that are called the Covenanters, which go back quite a ways in Reformed circles.

And I appreciate that they're consistent in this ideology because they recognize the moral inconsistency of supporting a party which promotes evil of any sort, and they recognize that they can't vote for Democrats or Republicans in a secular society. So they kind of do they are able to take some things in a direction that it seems more logical to go. However, they kind of go off some different cliffs because their conclusion is is kind of the opposite of mine in some ways too because while I would view governments as having always been a usurpation of God's kingship, and therefore a tool that's off the table for us as Christ is King and His politics is the church, covenanters are sort of dominion theologians and therefore they push for Christian states or theocracies. Theocracies where a human is essentially the king or the leader, right? Human leadership as opposed to Christ is the king.

And I'm sure they would nuance it differently, but whatever. Point is, there are some different routes that you can go in the Reformed community, and a lot of times people see them, see Reformed individuals, Reformed groups as kind of this monochromatic group, and we are monochromatic, we're mostly white, but I mean monochromatic, that's not the word I'm looking for. Monolithic, maybe, that's better. We're kind of monolithic our conclusions, and and we're just not. So I could go a number of different routes in this episode, but instead of kind of going off on all these rabbit trails and and differences and all that stuff, I wanna keep it simple.

I'm just gonna focus on Martin Luther and some of the Reformed Catechisms. And my goal will not be to show that the Reformers were pacifists at all, not my goal, because they weren't. But, I do want to show how first, I think there are pathways one can use to build a non violent theology out of the Reformers, or at least a largely non violent one. And second, that where the reformers do deviate from non violence, they often show inconsistency in theology or application. Let's start with the uncontroversial aspects here.

Some of the main catechisms of the Reformed faith have beautiful interconnected avenues towards peace. Let's take a look at the Westminster Larger Catechism one thirty five and one thirty six, which is also reflected in the Heidelberg Catechisms 105 through 107, and I I will link both in the show notes. Let's start with the Westminster Larger Catechism questions one hundred thirty five and one hundred thirty six. Question 135, what are the duties required in the Sixth Commandment? The duties required in the Sixth Commandment are all careful studies and lawful endeavors to preserve the life of ourselves and others by resisting all thoughts and purposes, subduing all passions, and avoiding all occasions, temptations, and practices which tend to the unjust taking away of the life of any.

By just defense thereof against violence, patient bearing of the hand of God, quietness of mind, cheerfulness of spirit, a sober use of meat, drink, physic, sleep, labor, and recreation, by charitable thoughts, love, compassion, meekness, gentleness, kindness, peaceable, mild and courteous speeches and behavior, forbearance, readiness to be reconciled, patient bearing and forgiving of injuries and requiting good for evil, comforting and succoring the distressed and protecting and defending the innocent. Question 136. What are the sins forbidden in the sixth commandment? The sins forbidden in the sixth commandment are: all taking away the life of ourselves or of others, except in case of public justice, lawful war, or necessary defense the neglecting or withdrawing the lawful and necessary means of preservation of life sinful anger, hatred, envy, desire of revenge, all excessive passions, distracting cares, immoderate use of meat, drink, labor and recreations, Provoking words, oppression, quarreling, striking, wounding and whatsoever else tends to the destruction of the life of any. You might have to go back over that a few times and you can also see it in the show notes there, it might be easier to really read it and reflect over it a little bit more in-depth.

But when you do, wow, does that dig deep. The sixth commandment has implications according to this Catechism at least, all the way down into how we use sleep and recreation. The command not to kill doesn't just extend to our anger, but it goes all the way to our other desires and vices. In everything we do, we are to contemplate how our actions may either foster a murderous spirit in our brothers and sisters, or how it could do so in us, how it makes us murderers in our hearts. And this shouldn't only be something that we evaluate personally, but on a national level as well.

How should our actions as a people be changed in order for us to prevent our own culpability in murder? When Iran or Al Qaeda participate in acts which kill our soldiers or citizens, are we not also by the standards of the Catechism potentially responsible for the murders of our fellow countrymen as well as those that we war against? While it's easy to point the finger of blame at others, we have to always ask ourselves according to this catechism, what have I done to make somebody murderous? And how have I precipitated murder? Are they murdering us because I, not with my hands, but with my actions, with the things done that I've done negatively or the things that I've left undone, like positive justices, have I murdered them which fostered a murderous spirit in them towards me, towards my countrymen.

As it's really easy in a culture like ours which is individualistically minded to blame the other for their actions in total, whereas it seems like the Catechisms ask us to reflect upon our own culpability and our own responsibility in the murders. The Catechisms don't call other murderers innocent, it doesn't excuse their actions, but in recognizing the depravity of humanity, the Catechisms help us to see our complicity with the guilty. We can't separate ourselves from the guilty. The Catechisms don't just have implications for when we tempt someone else to murderous action, it also has implications for the positive justices that we fail to do. Wasting our resources and failing to provide for another could be considered part of a murderous spirit depending on how you interpret the Catechisms.

For a long time, I thought that the catechisms were dry, legalistic sorts of documents and rightfully so because that's what they have largely become, right? They're just kind of somebody's spiritual answers to a question, well, the Catechism says this, yeah, but you're not doing anything about that, so what does it matter what the Catechism says? So that's kind of always how I viewed it, this just kind of arrogant one upsmanship that, you know, if you know the Catechisms, then you can look smarter and holier. But just like with the Bible, we might know them, but we ultimately follow them where we like them and we take exceptions where the Westminster Divines were just being puritanical sticklers. And just as we turn Jesus' words into metaphor, we turn the catechisms and our forefathers' words into metaphor.

They didn't really mean that we're going against the sixth commandment when we use our food and drink and recreation immodestly. No, they can't mean that. But when you really dig in and think about some of what they wrote, the implications are extremely convicting and very far reaching. Regardless of whether Christians of old or new follow what's been laid out, there's nevertheless a beautiful structure for us to consider, and one which if adhered to, would create a very peaceable church, if not a peaceable world. Okay, with with the Catechisms under our belt, I wanna briefly take a look at some other things that I I think we can consider as we look at the history of Reformed Theology in light of peace theology.

Specifically, I want to touch on a few parts of Martin Luther's life. I'll be drawing from an article I'll link in the show notes as well, as directly from Martin Luther's Large Catechism. If you've never read Luther's catechism, you should do it by the way. I think that there are often things we assume about reformers and our religious heritage that either aren't true, or that have been kind of softened or dumbed down for us. I think I just pointed out one case where we see that once we dug into the Catechism, and I think the same thing's going be true when we take a look at Luther's Catechism.

When you look at Luther's Catechism, you notice that when he talks about the Sixth Commandment, which he labels for some reason as the fifth, I don't know, but you notice that Luther sees killing as far more than just a mechanical act killing includes or stems from. I mean, Luther talks about things like desires unchecked, responses of anger and a failure to prevent anger in our brothers, failure to help the poor and commute their inevitable death sentence. There's a section under the fifth commandment which which Luther puts very beautifully and I'll I'll quote it at length here. Quote, secondly, under this commandment, not only he is guilty who does evil to his neighbor, but he also who can do him good, prevent, resist evil, defend and save him so that no bodily harm or hurt happen to him and yet does not do it. If therefore, you send away one that is naked when you could clothe him, you have caused him to freeze to death.

You see one suffer hunger and do not give him food, you have caused him to starve. So also, if you see anyone innocently sentenced to death or in like distress and do not save him, although you know ways and means to do so, you have killed him and it will not avail you to make the pretext that you did not afford any help, counsel or aid thereto for you have withheld your love from him and deprived him of the benefit whereby his life would have been saved. Therefore, God also rightly calls all those murderers who do not afford counsel and help in distress and danger of body and life and will pass a most terrible sentence upon them in the last day as Christ Himself has announced when He shall say, I was hungry and you gave Me no meat. I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink. I was a stranger and you took Me not in.

Naked and you clothed Me not. Sick and in prison and you visited me not. That is, you would have suffered me and mine to die of hunger, thirst and cold, would have suffered the wild beast to tear us to pieces or left us to rot in prison or perish in distress. What else is that but to reproach them as murderers and bloodhounds? For although you have not actually done all this, you have nevertheless, so far as you were concerned, suffered him to pine and perish in misfortune.

It is just as if I saw someone navigating and laboring in deep water and struggling against adverse winds, or one fallen into fire and could extend to him the hand to pull him out and save him, and yet refuse to do it. What else would I appear even in the eyes of the world than as a murderer and a criminal? Therefore, it is God's ultimate purpose that we suffer harm to befall no man, but show him all good and love, and as we have said it, especially directed toward those who are our enemies. For to do good to our friends is but an ordinary heathen virtue as Christ says. End quote.

Somehow, most of us have moved away from not only avoiding murderous spirits in our lusts and greed, but we've also avoided to do the positive justice to which the sixth commandment should drive us. There are a few other things I I want to pull out from Luther which kind of connect off of this. It's ironic to me that two things my modern conservative group is known for is self defense and revolution against government. We uphold July 4 and celebrate it more as much or more than than most of the nation, and we are just very vocal about this being pro Second Amendment. These things, celebration of July 4 and the Second Amendment, are staples not only of what it means to be a US citizen, but my group thinks it means to be a Bible believing Christian.

How could we not uphold the both of these things? And in this podcast, I've highlighted numerous times how such a view contradicts Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, and others in in their assessment of justified violence in various places. But here's another chance to try to hit this home. Rebellion against the government and individual self defense are not staples of Christianity, and in fact, have largely been antithetical to it in the minds of many church fathers and Christian thinkers. We can see this quite clearly in in someone like Luther.

First, when we talk about self defense, we can go straight to Luther's Catechism. In his Catechism, he says the following, quote, Therefore, God and government are not included in this commandment nor is the power to kill which they have taken away. For God has delegated His authority to punish evil doers to the government instead of parents who a fore time, as we read in Moses, were required to bring their own children to judgment and sentence them to death. Therefore, what is here forbidden is forbidden to the individual in his relation to anyone else and not to the government. Now this commandment is easy enough and has been often treated because we hear it annually in the Gospel of Saint Matthew, where Christ Himself explains and sums it up, namely, that we must not kill neither with hand, heart, mouth, signs, gestures, help, nor counsel.

End quote. So Luther, at least in his early ministry, did not support individual self defense. The sword was given to authority and suffering was given to the individual saints. It was not an individual's place to usurp authority or to do violence. So whereas Augustine recognized that individuals couldn't kill in love due to their passions, Luther at least initially recognized that the authority to kill wasn't given to individuals.

It seems like he's kind of on side of Augustine, maybe not for the same reasons, but has similarly he has concluded things very similarly. Another interesting aspect of Luther is that he initially recognized that subordinates should not rebel against their higher authorities. That means Luther was strongly against rebellion, whether that was peasants against their prince, or princes against their emperor. Luther was very much for speaking truth to power and airing grievances, but the path for subordinates was to disobey unto suffering, not rebel unto revolution. The article in the show notes summarizes Luther well.

It says the following, While today we may understand how Luther's teaching on the two kingdoms limits temporal government's authority, we must also recognize that this teaching limits individual Christians' actions in society. Individual Christians may refuse to obey unjust laws, but unless they hold a specific office, these Christians should not resist with force. Luther absolutely rejected violent rebellion to overthrow social order. In numerous cases throughout the fifteen twenties, he stated that Christians must suffer the cross of unjust persecution or choose to flee their home and province. He advised the common people and any soldiers given an unjust command to do this.

End quote. Luther and the Catechisms are interesting to consider for this podcast. In many ways, they provide us some wonderful glimpses of peace or potential peace. Obviously, Luther didn't go all the way to peace, he still thought that governments could bear the sword and Christians should be in government, and therefore Christians, through government, could bear the sword. Nevertheless, their view of peace and roadmap to it was significantly different than what we think probably, but definitely how we we live our lives out.

The Catechism lays out in a very structured way the depth of depravity and sin which contribute to murder, and how all of us are implicated in that. Early Luther also shows us how suffering is to be a part of what the Christian expects as his or her lot, and rebellion is not an option. Unfortunately, like the American Christians who altered the Westminster Confession out of convenience after the revolution, Luther, in my opinion, altered some of his viewpoints not out of godliness, but out of pragmatic compromise. Some of his views shifted on the as to the ability of subordinates to rebel and the ability to do violence, but they weren't kind of across the board changes, they were kind of dependent on whatever circumstance Luther was in at the moment. And in my opinion, Luther was caught up in a desire to be relevant, to be effective, and we've had a whole season on consequentialism and almost every time you're gonna see sin, you're gonna see major problems and compromises is gonna be because consequentialism is present.

Somebody wants to be relevant or try to do what they think God must want them to do and define good and evil for themselves. And I think you see that throughout Luther's life. For the reformers, taking up the sword and rebellion became very promising to them because some of the reformers like Zwingli and Luther, they recognized that they had some powerful allies and princes who would back them up and then they ended up co opting the government to rebel upwards and also to suppress downwards. They co opted the government to enforce their views through violence. Within a very short time, many who had stood with integrity right next to the magisterial reformers were being burnt at the stake or drowned as the reformers threw off in practice their beautiful doctrines centered around the sixth commandment.

They ended up writing oppression and murder against heretics into the Westminster Confession, right alongside the beautiful catechisms we discussed in this episode. Reformed history is a very, very rocky one, and one that my group doesn't want to do too much looking at the dark side of. My Reformed friends tend to only ever see the beauty, and my Anabaptist friends tend to only ever see the evil. But as with all of us individuals, our group history is more complex than it is simple. And what's sad to me is that while my Reformed friends only ever see the beauty, they don't really see a lot of times the ultimate beauty.

The things that we're talking about today, the true nature of the life that the Catechisms call us to, that's beautiful because it's almost like you're reading the Beatitudes again. It's like you're reading this Heart of the Law that is coming out in the Catechisms and that's not my group, that's not the beauty that my group tends to land on. We end up being focused more on structure and that kind of stuff. And so it's sad to me that my Reformed friends who see beauty don't see the truly beautiful things most of the time. And when we can't show off what is truly beautiful, it's no wonder that my Anabaptist friends tend to not be able to see what's beautiful.

And so in the end, I think you can find more than a spark or a thread of avenues to peace in the Reformed tradition. And hopefully, I've pulled on that thread a little bit and expanded the vision for that today for those who may, like me, be Reformed peacemakers seeking reform. That's all for now. So peace, and because I'm a pacifist, when I say it, I mean it.