Welcome back to the Fourth Wave podcast. Today, we are continuing our series on means and ends. Before we get into this episode, I want to recap since the last episode was a bit heavy. For something to have purpose, there must be three components present, a goal, an object, and a purposer. An object infused by a purposer with purpose becomes an instrument to be wielded towards some end or goal.

We discussed why materialism can't provide purpose humans due to mechanistic determinism and the laws of physics and the absence of a soul which can purpose the body towards some goal. As a Christian theist, my purpose then is found in submitting to my living in accordance with the purpose toward the goals for which I was created. Living in love, community, compassion, and all that good stuff is finding my purpose, so to speak. This is a bit similar to Augustine's notion or Augustine's notion of the highest loves and how true freedom is not the availability of choices, but rather the aligning of our choices with reality. So an example that I like to use is if there was a person who was not in the appropriate mental state and they contemplated jumping out of a tenth story window, right, they actually have more options available to them than I do because, I mean, physically, I could jump out of a tenth story window, but I could not make myself do that.

It's just not an option that's on the table for me. And so even though the insane person has more options on the table to them, options some of the options on the table to them are options which are contrary to their good and to their to normal human nature. It's just not fitting for them. And so even though they have more choices, they're actually less free. So therefore, rather than creating our purposes, finding our purpose and and understanding, what the means of God are are going to be important for helping us to understand, where we are bound by sin, even though that seems like the availability of choice, and where being constrained by God's love, in our purposes and and in being used as instruments is actually a freeing thing.

Alright. So what does all of this have to do with nonviolence and the continuation of our discussion from Yoder's The Politics of Jesus? Yoder's book was very heavy on the idea of our finding our purpose in the example and teaching of Christ. Philippians two, if you recall, was, I mean, one of the most important aspects of of summarizing Jesus' life and what we're to be like, and that's a passage that I came back to a lot in season one. Yoder pushed back very hard against a morality in which we tried to create our own purposes, whether that was conservatism, progressivism, Marxism, or any other ism, creating our own purposes and goals and moral systems, Yoder saw as compromise and and failure, even if your system includes a lot of well meaning Christians or Christians who think they're well meaning.

In fact, this is what Adam and Eve did in the garden. Right? They threw off God's definition of good to define their own good. So this concept of means and ends were a a central concept to the politics of Jesus. Ends are something Yoder argued should be left up to the purposer, which is God, and are not ours to determine.

As instruments, our lives are lived out in means and are to be concomitant with the ends pursued. I'm gonna use that word a lot because I just I feel like it it fits well. So concomitant just means that the means and the ends go together. They're fitting for each other. It logically follows one another.

So we are God's instruments, which were created to accomplish his ends, and our lives are the means whereby those ends are brought about and those ends are going to be of the same nature as the means employed. I don't remember where I got this quote from, it was an audiobook I was listening to recently, but it is such a fitting quote and I think it summarizes this concept extremely succinctly and clearly. It says, the means are the ends in the process of becoming. The means are the ends in the process of becoming. So means are like the seeds and the ends are the fruit which those seeds bear.

You can only grow a fruit in the nature of the seed you plant. It's very similar to my college president, doctor Bill Brown, who had, this saying that stuck with me. I think it was my freshman year he said it, but, he said, you will not become what you are not becoming today. And that's essentially the same thing. If I am not planting the seeds of hard work or discipline, prayer, whatever, if I'm not doing that right now, then I will never develop those things.

You only develop the things, you only develop the fruits, you only bear the fruits of what you plant. And if you're not planting, you're not going to develop. It's the same thing with means and ends. Right? The means that you plant or employ are going to be the things that bring about the ends that you say you desire.

So in this episode, I want to use Yoder's discussion of means and ends and the last episode's grounding of purpose. And I wanna jump into an argument for nonviolent violence, which in some ways is extremely simple, but in some ways it's a little bit esoteric as well. You have to think a little bit more, it's more philosophical and it's not going to be as provable. You'll either agree with kind of some of the presuppositions or or not. So let's jump into the topic and explore the means and the ends of God's peaceful kingdom.

A church father, a progressive African American, and a conservative presuppositionalist walk into a bar. That would make for a really bad joke, but it makes for a really good argument. Because if I can get someone who is close to Jesus from the distant past, a progressive minority and a conservative Calvinist to agree on something, that makes for a pretty strong case in my So let's first take a look at the early church father, Irenaeus, in his work Against Heresies 5.1.1. Irenaeus was born around 01/30 and is only two disciples removed from Jesus, as Irenaeus sat under Polycarp, who sat under John, the disciple of Jesus. Now, Irenaeus has a really long quote which I'm going to make a part of this cumulative case.

I'll read the whole quote for a bit of context, but I'll also put it in the show notes if you'd rather read it, as it might be a little bit heavy to listen to. After I give the quote, I'll reread a few sections and expound on them if you want to just skip ahead a few minutes to that portion. So here is Irenaeus' quote. For in no other way could we have learned the things of God unless our master, existing as the word, had become man. For no other being had the power of revealing to us the things of the father except his own proper word.

For what other person knew the mind of the Lord, or who else has become his counselor? Again, we could have learned in no other way than by seeing our teacher and hearing his voice with our own ears that having become imitators of his works as well as doers of his words, we may have communion with him, receiving increase from the perfect one and from him who is prior to all creation. We, who are but lately created by the only best and good being, by him also who has the gift of immortality, having been formed after his likeness, predestined according to the presence of the father, prescience of the father, that we who had as yet no existence might come into being and made the first fruits of creation have received in the times known beforehand the blessings of salvation according to the menstruation of the word, who is perfect in all things as the mighty word and very man who redeeming us by his own blood in a manner consonant to reason, gave himself as a redemption for those who had been led into captivity. And since the apostasy tyrannized over us unjustly, and though we were by nature the property of the omnipotent God alienated us contrary to nature, rendering us its own disciples, the word of God, powerful in all things, defective with regard to his own justice, did righteously turn against the apostasy and redeem from it his own property, not by violent means as the apostasy had obtained dominion over us at the beginning when it insatiably snatched away what was not its own, but by means of persuasion as became a god of counsel who does not use violent means to obtain what he desires, so that neither should justice be infringed upon nor the ancient handiwork of God go to destruction.

Since the Lord thus has redeemed us through his own blood, giving his soul for our souls and his flesh for our flesh, and has also poured out the spirit of the father for the union of the and communion of God and man, imparting indeed God to men by means of the spirit, and on the other hand, attaching man to God by his own incarnation and bestowing upon us at his coming immortality, durably and truly, by means of communion with God, all the doctrines of the heretics fall to ruin. Alright, let's take a look at that first important snippet again, this short section, read it again. God did righteously turn against that apostasy and redeem from it his own property, not by violent means as the apostasy had obtained dominion over us at the beginning, when it insatiably snatched away what was not its own, but by means of persuasion as became a god of counsel, who does not use violent means to obtain what he desires. So Irenaeus here identifies that the means of God used in redemption are different than the means whereby the apostasy, as he calls it, snatched us away from God.

The apostasy used violence whereas God does not. God used persuasion, and he does not use violent means to obtain what he desires. So Irenaeus seems to recognize that the ends are concomitant concomitant with the means. The second portion I want to identify is as follows. Irenaeus says, since the Lord thus has redeemed us through his own blood, giving his soul for our souls, his flesh for our flesh, and has also poured out the spirit of the father for the union and the communion of God and man, imparting indeed God to men by means of the spirit, and on the other hand, attaching man to God by his own incarnation and bestowing upon us at his coming immortality durably and truly by means of communion with God, all the doctrine of the heretics fall to ruin.

So here, Irenaeus identifies the means more explicitly. Jesus gave his blood, soul, and flesh for our blood, soul, and flesh. He poured out his spirit for the union as he has union with God through his spirit. He attached this spirit to humanity, linking man to God through the incarnation, which is the God man unification, but simultaneously through this God man unification, he attached God to man through that same thing. So Irenaeus is recognizing not only that God has moral standards, so to speak, or more precisely that there are certain actions which are outside of God's nature, and therefore actions which God can't or won't do.

But Irenaeus also shows that God recognizes the ends sought are to be obtained by appropriately implemented means. The apostasy, as Irenaeus calls it, conquered through violence and brought death, whereas Jesus conquered through incarnational sacrifice and imparted his life and communion to us. So here's a a good alternative summary of this from, an article called God and Nonviolence: Credo Theology and Christian Ethics. Quote, now insofar as father, son, and spirit work all things equally and harmoniously, we can say that the father and the spirit jointly consent in the son's kenosis. Why then did the son, in common consent with the father and the spirit, deny voluntarily to himself the sovereign prerogative of vengeance and so reject violence in his earthly career?

Here's one answer from the early church. God chose not to use violence through the incarnation, not because God had no prerogative or capacity for violence, but because violence would not have been fitting for God's purpose of salvation through the incarnation. God saves by persuasion, not force. And why are persuasive means more fitting than violent means for God's economy? Because violence would have been contrary to God's purpose to redeem humanity and restore creation in accord with God's own wisdom and justice.

Violence would destroy the order of creation God intends to restore and would only add to the injustice of the dominion of sin over creation. So God in his wisdom rejects violence as the means of salvation. In this way, the entire divine economy of salvation history is designed by God in order to gradually persuade humanity to the true way of God. End quote. Alright, so that was Irenaeus, our early church father.

Let's move on to our to Martin Luther King Junior. And today is special day for Martin Luther King, celebrating him. So I thought that this would be a good episode to make sure it landed on MLK Day. So Martin Luther King Junior, the black progressive. Here is a quote from him.

Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness. Only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate. Only love can do that.

Hate multiplies hate. Violence multiplies violence, and toughness multiplies toughness in a descending spiral of destruction. So when Jesus says love your enemies, he's setting forth a profound and ultimately inescapable admonition. Have we not come to such an impasse in the modern world that we must love our enemies or else? The chain reaction of evil, hate begetting hate, wars producing wars must be broken or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation.

King's quote is much shorter, but he recognizes the same thing that Irenaeus recognized, at least in part. King realizes that hatred and violence directed towards hatred and violence don't ultimately work. Sure. You win battles and defeat enemies with violence and establish your ways when you gain power, but that doesn't abolish hate. In fact, it entrenches it.

So as I mentioned several times throughout the show, one of the best movies that I think you can watch to see this is called The Kingdom, where you just see this cyclical nature of violence. So you should go check that out before you go any further. But anyway, you can ask any country who becomes occupied and secured by an invasion force if their hate waxed or waned after their defeat or after their family and friends were obliterated. Defeat by death and destruction don't tend to bring about true reconciliation and peace because they're of the same substance as the violence, oppression, and injustice, which has a foothold. Because of this understanding of means and ends, King was also able to identify his enemies as being of a different substance than the evil which inhabited them.

King frequently told his followers not to hate internally as that nullified any outward action of nonviolence. He also had had compassion for his enemies when he recognized that it was the evil they were fighting and not the human. Here's another wonderful quote from King on this. We must not seek to defeat or humiliate the enemy, but to win his friendship and understanding. At times, we are able to humiliate our worst enemy.

Inevitably, his weak moments come and when we are able to thrust in aside the spear of defeat. But this we must not do. Every wood word and deed must contribute to an understanding with the enemy and release those vast reservoirs of goodwill that have been blocked by impenetrable walls of hate. End quote. So conquering was not King's goal, but rather reconciling.

He realized that peace does not come through violence or victory, but through love. Bonhoeffer has a connection to a quote that I think resonates with something very similar. Bonhoeffer, this isn't a direct quote from Bonhoeffer, but actually from one of the documents from a draft that Bonhoeffer helped to, helped to create, at least this version of the draft from the Bethel Confession. And I got this from the book Bonhoeffer the Assassin. Here here is, the piece from the Bethel confession.

We reject the false doctrine that struggle or Kampf in the German is the fundamental law of the original creation, and that an aggressive attitude is therefore God's commandment arising from the original creation. Struggle presupposes the condition of being friend or foe. This condition arises only from the existence of good and evil. The goal of this struggle to annihilate one another is a consequence of the fall according to which good and evil are no longer separate in a human being. Therefore, no struggle with evil, that is with sin, may ever be aimed at the person who carries the evil for evil is at work on both sides.

The fight must be against evil as such. Just kind of a a little side note here. I found it really interesting that, you know, this German group was talking about struggle or Kampf, and, you know, I know, like, two German words. And but Mein Kampf is is a famous book, of course, by Adolf Hitler. It's just very interesting to me how two different groups or individuals can view struggle so differently and use it towards different ends.

I think Hitler's view of struggle and viewing other as enemy kind of shows you one route to take. And the Bethel confession, I think, highlights the importance of understanding the means in the end where it's a person can never be our enemy that we seek to destroy, but rather the sin that's in them. So just as our love for God was a result of God first loving us, I think King and Bonhoeffer and those of the Bethel confession hoped that a love for enemies would help to produce a mutual love within them. They probably weren't that idealistic, especially maybe not the the German group who had a pretty big task to go up against. Not that that king didn't either, but there was kind of a a trend moving in his direction, though it took a lot longer.

But regardless of the level of hope that they had of actually succeeding, nevertheless, they recognized that that success or not, the only true way to reconcile was going to be through love. It reminds me a little bit of the story of Daryl Davis, I'm sure you've probably heard of him even if you don't know his name, but he's the black man who converted over 200 KKK members out of the the clan by dialogue, by talking with them, and getting to know them and loving them. And, of course, that doesn't happen to everyone. And for every Daryl Davis, there's probably somebody who's gotten killed or mouthed off to or persecuted by the clan. So it's not to say, Hey, look at Darrell Davis' success.

See, if you love, you'll be successful too. No, if you love, you'll probably bear cross. Davis is probably an exception. But that is the only true way to reconcile. Alright.

Let's move on to our our third person. This is an author, K. Scott Oliphant, and he wrote a book called Covenantal Apologetics, which probably absolutely nobody in listening to this has read. Nobody of the Anabaptist persuasion has ever read. And most people, in my own persuasion, reformed circles, have likely never read it either.

But I read it, and I found a gem in it that we can discuss. Oliphant would probably despise me using this quote to make the case that I'm making because I can't imagine that he's a pacifist. I just I think that's that's highly unlikely. However, I think there's a portion of his book in Covenantal Apologetics which shows him making the argument that I'm trying to make here in this episode, which is that means and ends must be concomitant. Now, Oliphant doesn't directly argue about violence, but he uses the same principle of means and ends.

So a little bit of background. A lot of the book is set up in dialogue format, where the author portrays what a mock conversation might look like between a presuppositional apologist, Christian apologist, and an unbeliever, whether that's an atheist or Muslim or whatever. So here's a portion of one of those dialogues where Oliphant is representing what a believer could argue to make a strong case for the existence of God through human reason, particularly the existence of the human mind. So here's the quote from the book. Surely, one can recognize, given the basic construal of cause and effect, that what is the effect is best understood as coming from its cause.

But you propose to ignore what is in the effect, that is, the human mind, so that your algorithms won't be called into question. There's no explanation of the human mind except the mind of the one who made it. There's no scientific evidence that the rational has come from the non rational. None whatsoever. It seems delusional, it seems delusional might just defiably be ascribed to such notions.

So Olyfant is arguing that the human mind, reason, sentience, self reflection, all those things, but primarily he argues rationality, only be explained by a rational being, which Olefant would say is the the god of Christianity. Why is that? Well, because mere matter cannot create minds. The irrational cannot create the rational. Only another mind can do that.

Only the rational can do that. Like begets like, so to speak. Now Oliphant is saying that what one finds in the effect, in this case the human mind, must also be present in the cause. In this case another mind, the mind of God. So once again we get back to this idea that means are the ends in the process of becoming.

Or we can turn that around and say that the ends are the means come to fruition. Now if Oliphant wants to apply that to something like the mind, the rational can only come from the rational, I would want to ask how can peace come from violence? They seem to be of two different different substances. Irenaeus seemed to say something of the same extent and Martin Luther King Junior. And now, according to Oliphant's logic, it seems like he would be backed into a corner to either agree with Irenaeus and King, or give up the argument that he's using against the atheist here.

So where does that lead us now? In terms of nonviolence, I think the following quote by Adolfo Perez Escaval sets us up on a good trajectory. Here's his quote: Nonviolent action implants by anticipation within the very process of change itself, the values to which it will ultimately lead. It does not sow peace by means of war. End quote.

So that's Eskovall's basically just saying, hey. Look. Nonviolence expects the ends of peace, and in its expectation of the ends of peace, it works by means of peace, planting peace. Or a longer quote from Bonhoeffer in the book, Bonhoeffer the Assassin. Quote, war in its present day form lays waste to God's creation and obscures the view of revelation.

As little as one can justly torture as a means of justice out of the necessity of justice, one can just as little justify war as a means of strife out of the necessity of strife. The church forsakes obedience whenever it sanctions war. The church of Christ stands against war in favor of peace among the peoples between nations, classes, and races. However, the church also knows that there is no peace unless justice and truth are preserved. A peace that violates justice and truth is no peace, and the church of Christ must protest against such peace.

There can be a peace that is worse than struggle, yet it must be struggle out of love for another, a battle that comes from the spirit, not from the flesh, end quote. In essence, if the value sought is peace, reconciliation, or any any other thing whose substance is light, then the means whereby the light can be obtained is only through using means of light. Let's start connecting some of the dots now from our previous episodes this season. Think back to our example of the rock in the desert from the last episode who needed some entity outside of itself to purpose it. A rock just sitting in the desert has absolutely no purpose, but a rock purposed by another becomes a purposed instrument unto some goal.

So if you want rest, to rest your body or legs from traveling, it means you sit on the rock and you take your body out of the process of moving. But if you want to rest your mind or your thoughts, it means that to take your mind out of the equation, you're gonna have to sleep. So you might try to use the rock as a pillow, which won't go too well. If you want physical safety, you might be able to use the rock to hide under it from enemies. But if you want social safety, like from mean people on Facebook or whatever, then physically hiding under the rock, you can do that.

You can try to purpose the rock for that, but it's not really gonna help you to hide from what goes on on the Internet. Humanity has incorrectly believed for all of its history that peace looks like the annihilation of enemies and threats, when in reality, violence merely creates rifts, perpetuates animosity, and causes cyclical violence. We're trying to purpose something that doesn't truly lead to the ends that we want to obtain. Violence produces in the person who does violence a character, the type of person who is not peaceful nor can sustain a world of peace, and it produces in those around the one doing violence an understanding of who that person really is and what they're willing to do in order to resolve conflict. We see this very thing in many stories where nonviolence is successful or compelling.

Oftentimes, clearly unarmed individuals are not attacked. And if they are, as in the instance of the children being attacked in the civil rights movement or the unarmed Indians who failed to lift a hand when they were beaten over the head with metal clubs by the British soldiers, it turns people against the aggressors. Using violence to obtain peace is like trying to purpose a rock as a pillow to get some sleep or as physical shelter to avoid all the mean things people are saying about us in social media. We're purposing violence to do something for which its structure is not suited. If you want to dig a little bit deeper to see why this is the case, why violence purposed for peace just doesn't work, I think there are at least two things that I can point out that I think helps us to understand why this is the case.

So first of all, violence is indiscriminate and I don't mean that it's indiscriminate in who it attacks because usually it's very discriminate in that regard, but rather in how it attacks. Violence to me seems a lot like chemotherapy, not like a scalpel. It kills the good and it kills the bad. When you use violence against an enemy, you annihilate the actions of your enemy, which is is your goal to stop the threat. But you also annihilate the potential for love or goodwill, which may have been present in your enemy, or you may even annihilate your enemy himself with your force, one created in the image of God.

At the same time, you're annihilating the goodwill of others around your enemy, and they may have desired to extend blessings to you until they saw what you did. You are annihilating an image bearer of God. You are in yourself taking on darkness, which is why we've talked so much about the undeniable reality of moral injury in our armed forces and police force. Violence doesn't only destroy darkness, it also destroys light and creates darkness in the one who is doing violence. So in that regard, violence is indiscriminate.

It might kill some of the bad. It might destroy some of the bad. It might stop some of the bad and subdue it, but it kills a lot of the good and it creates other bads. Number two, when we believe that we need violence to accomplish love and peace, we are making violence stronger than love. You know, love is is lasting, but violence is only able to maintain its power while while it or its threat is present.

So now I use leverage for a screw or to lift a weight, if I use a lever to lift a weight or a pulley. And I use a lot of force and I create a lot of tension in that rope as I pull the pulley or in that lever as I push push it down to lift an object up. And I create a lot of gravitational potential energy. The more I pull, the more tension. I can create a lot of potential energy.

As long as there's tension in the system, it holds up. But when I remove the force, when I remove that tension, the object falls with as much force as I've used to lift it. And in fact, due to the way momentum works, it will fall with more force. Not more force, but the result of that weight sitting on the ground, on that piece of ground, will have a much different effect than if I lift it off the ground and drop it as it speeds towards the ground. And sometimes, violence creates permanent division.

When I use a wedge or a blade to cut something, I can divide it into chunks, but chunks which will forever be divided or fractured. The tool that I use to do a job does its job well, but is unable to do its opposite. Violence is the same. We can use it to leverage or prop up a dictator or support our enemy's enemy like we did in Afghanistan back in the eighties. We can use it to divvy up lands, but violence as a means does not produce the fruits of peace and is antithetical to them.

The only time violent means are good and work when they're against the objects which impede relationships. As as King identified, we're fighting against the evil, not against people. And I till the soil, I damage the soil to plant the seeds. I don't damage the seeds. Right?

It it's the the non living thing. It's the the soil that needs to be tilled. So we can root up hatred and bitterness in our lives. We can burn our pornography, which I guess nobody would do that anymore because that would be mean burning your phones and laptops. We can tear down civil war monuments, represent oppression to minority groups.

All that stuff. Do violence to objects of evil or objects represent evil, but not to people. Because violence works through destruction, violence can facilitate peace and reconciliation when it is directed at the true object which hinders peace. Just King and Bonhoeff recognized as evil and not other. Ultimately, we need to understand that imposing darkness on light doesn't give off light.

It only makes the need for light more apparent. If the goal is peace, then violence is an antithetical means to grow peace. The presence of violence might help us to see the need for peace, but it doesn't facilitate and grow it as does forgiveness, reconciliation, respect, self sacrifice, etcetera. That might lead us to the next question now, would be, okay. All this talk about violence, but what about God?

Doesn't God use violence? Throughout this podcast, I presented arguments for both a conservative and liberal understanding of pacifism. This argument today would obviously not be compatible with a conservative view which would see God as using violence at times. Or I suppose you might be able to maintain a conservative view and hold to this argument if you thought that God was able to use violence just like Irenaeus said, not as a part of the redemptive the redemption process. Because I think Irenaeus is a bit specific there like that one summary of him said.

But in general, this means an end's argument is going to work better with or easier without caveats with a more liberal view. So as the liberal view would argue, God does not and cannot use violence, or the conservative would argue, God cannot or does not use violence in redemption. God might allow violence apart from his intervention in order that the need for peace be felt more clearly or that the means of violence be exposed as futile, so he might allow it. But as a means, which is antithetical to peace, love, reconciliation, etcetera, as Irenaeus said, God cannot and will not. So that being said, God does not take part in darkness that the need for light be made known.

Though he may choose to shine his light in the darkest places and at the darkest times. For God to impose the darkness of violence on others would not only be antithetical to who God is, it also not be concomitant with the ends since the God who wants reconciliation would be the source of imposed darkness. God does not take on darkness, but rather always shines light, and that light shines most brightly in the darkest places. You see this concept quite frequently in nonviolence. One of the principles to nonviolence is that it is often this churroscuro of good versus evil, which wakes people up to injustice.

With Gandhi, it was when the Indians walked head on into the British troops and took blows to their heads without lifting a finger to defend themselves. With civil rights movement, big break came when the nation saw that the violence that the police were willing to do to children, young children with fire hoses and dogs. While the cross of Jesus is multifaceted, one aspect of the cross was definitely a creating of this chiaroscuro. Right? It exposed the powers.

Jesus in his absolute servanthood submission and self imposed weakness bore the cross. He uncovered the true nature of the powers that be while also uncovering how we can live that same kingdom life now. Jesus' pointless life, where he refused to take the reins of government, religion, the masses, or anything that produced any effectiveness at all, has ended up being the most influential life on peace in human history. Jesus showed us the cruelty and the vanity of violent power and manipulation. He showed us what it truly looks like to walk in the light as a true human.

He brought that kingdom, and we can live in it now. It is only in so much as we represent this light of the world by shining our light, not our darkness, that others will be able to glimpse the kingdom and follow Jesus. In that light, I wanna close with a quote from Bonhoeffer the assassin about what that might all mean for us. Quote, the most practical consequence of Bonhoeffer's discussion of the church in this context is that it specifies the context of formation. The formation of those addressed by the form of Christ takes place in and through the church.

Christ's form summons or addresses all of human nature, though only some respond. Christ's form illuminates all of human reality, though only some perceive the form and receive illumination. The entire world has been accepted, judged, reconciled, and redeemed, but not all know that this is the case. Thus, one way to think of the church is as an epistemologically privileged community that exists for all of humanity. The knowledge given in the formation undergone enabled the church to act as a vicarious representative for all humanity.

So the church is the picture of reality, but that picture of reality becomes marred when we use improper means and we take darkness on ourselves or when we do darkness ourselves. We are a vicarious representative of the kingdom for all of humanity just as Jesus was. Jesus brought the kingdom and represented the kingdom, and we are the body of Christ. We unmask the futility and terror of the powers that grip most of humanity, the false idols of money, sex, government, materialism, and any other thing which promises power but uses force, manipulation, and objectification. We expose that the power these idols have over humanity is a power of horror and injustice, and that it doesn't have to be that way.

Our job, if we truly seek the end, which is a peaceful kingdom, is to live concomitantly with those ends in our in our means and to be peaceful people. You will not become what you are not becoming today, nor will the end be anything other than the means born to fruition. That's all for now. So peace, and because I'm a pacifist, when I say it, I mean it. And I means it.