What do you think?
Rate this book
Jesus the Pacifist: A Concise Guide to His Radical Nonviolence
Have you ever struggled to reconcile Jesus’s commands to not resist evil, turn the other cheek, and love your enemies with his use of a whip to clear the temple, his praise for the Roman centurion, his command to the disciples to buy swords, and his frequent warnings of violent judgment, not to mention Revelation’s prophecy that he will eventually return to kill God’s enemies with a sword?In this tightly packed volume, Fleischer provides a systematic, biblically based, and comprehensive overview of Jesus’s relationship with violence, one that may forever change how you view his ministry and your calling.“Easy-to-read and compellingly argued … masterfully demonstrated … a treasure trove of insights …” – Greg Boyd (from the Foreword)
168 pages, Kindle Edition
Published January 31, 2020
13 people are currently reading
43 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
May 16, 2021
An argument is only strong if it adequately rebuts the best objections of its opposition. Unfortunately, Jesus the Pacifist does not succeed at this.
At the heart of the book's problems lie its method of Biblical interpretation (i.e. its hermeneutic). While Matthew Curtis Fleischer is a competent theologian and expositor, a number of hermeneutical missteps undermine his argument.
The first misstep is his insistence on focusing on the character of Jesus isolated from the larger Biblical narrative. Now, there is a degree to which this is excusable given that this book is the second in a series of 3 books, the first of which already dealt with the Old Testament case for nonviolence. Nevertheless, its implicit in Fleischer's references to "the God of the Old Testament" and his general insistence on focusing on Jesus alone as our sole moral example that Fleischer sees some deal of discontinuity between God as presented in the Old Testament and God in the New Testament. For many readers of a more progressive persuasion this is unlikely to present much of an issue, but for the more theologically and politically conservative Christians, that Fleischer is certainly trying to reach, this is a death knell. This constant tension between Jesus and "the God of the Old Testament" exists in many of the book's arguments and is sure to leave a sour note in a conservative's mouth.
The second misstep is Fleischer's reliance on explaining away Jesus' actions by falling back on the "he needed to fulfill a prophecy" excuse. To illustrate this point, we can consider Fleischer's analysis in chapter 5 of Jesus clearing the Temple. This is a very famous example of Jesus seemingly engaging in some form of violent action, therefore, if one wants to win over a skeptical reader, it is critical to give a solid explanation of why this is not (or does not justify) violence. While Fleischer does make other points on this passage, the crux of his argument seems to be that this was primarily a symbolic action by Jesus which confirmed his identity as Messiah and sped up the coming of the Crucifixion. The problem with an argument like this is it makes Jesus' actions seem post-hoc, like he's got a schedule to keep and needs to fulfill X prophecy by time T, rather than prophecies being foretellings of things Jesus was going to do anyway. It strips actions of all underlying meaning and motivation and fails to account for the layered symbolism that exists at every point of the story of Jesus' life.
Both of these problems crop up time and again at crucial junctures and severely stagger the argument for any theologically conservative reader.
Let me say some good things about this book, though.
Fleischer is a competent writer. This work is accessible and can be read by most anyone who has a bit of time and patience. There are also some chapters where Fleischer shines. When writing about Revelation or the kingship of Jesus, the light of the Gospel glows brightly and the face of a pacifist servant King shines through. Fleischer is also diligent and thorough. Most every major passage is addressed and every major argument considered. Fleischer certainly changed my mind on the best interpretations of many important passages of scripture. Chapter 8, A New Kind of King, was a particular stand out. Were it a standalone essay, it would almost convince me on its own. It thoroughly anchors anti-politics and anti-violence near the heart of the Gospel and presents a better way of doing Christianity than the petty power struggles Western Christians have been swept up in over the past century.
Overall, a decent introduction to Christian pacifism with high highs and low lows.
At the heart of the book's problems lie its method of Biblical interpretation (i.e. its hermeneutic). While Matthew Curtis Fleischer is a competent theologian and expositor, a number of hermeneutical missteps undermine his argument.
The first misstep is his insistence on focusing on the character of Jesus isolated from the larger Biblical narrative. Now, there is a degree to which this is excusable given that this book is the second in a series of 3 books, the first of which already dealt with the Old Testament case for nonviolence. Nevertheless, its implicit in Fleischer's references to "the God of the Old Testament" and his general insistence on focusing on Jesus alone as our sole moral example that Fleischer sees some deal of discontinuity between God as presented in the Old Testament and God in the New Testament. For many readers of a more progressive persuasion this is unlikely to present much of an issue, but for the more theologically and politically conservative Christians, that Fleischer is certainly trying to reach, this is a death knell. This constant tension between Jesus and "the God of the Old Testament" exists in many of the book's arguments and is sure to leave a sour note in a conservative's mouth.
The second misstep is Fleischer's reliance on explaining away Jesus' actions by falling back on the "he needed to fulfill a prophecy" excuse. To illustrate this point, we can consider Fleischer's analysis in chapter 5 of Jesus clearing the Temple. This is a very famous example of Jesus seemingly engaging in some form of violent action, therefore, if one wants to win over a skeptical reader, it is critical to give a solid explanation of why this is not (or does not justify) violence. While Fleischer does make other points on this passage, the crux of his argument seems to be that this was primarily a symbolic action by Jesus which confirmed his identity as Messiah and sped up the coming of the Crucifixion. The problem with an argument like this is it makes Jesus' actions seem post-hoc, like he's got a schedule to keep and needs to fulfill X prophecy by time T, rather than prophecies being foretellings of things Jesus was going to do anyway. It strips actions of all underlying meaning and motivation and fails to account for the layered symbolism that exists at every point of the story of Jesus' life.
Both of these problems crop up time and again at crucial junctures and severely stagger the argument for any theologically conservative reader.
Let me say some good things about this book, though.
Fleischer is a competent writer. This work is accessible and can be read by most anyone who has a bit of time and patience. There are also some chapters where Fleischer shines. When writing about Revelation or the kingship of Jesus, the light of the Gospel glows brightly and the face of a pacifist servant King shines through. Fleischer is also diligent and thorough. Most every major passage is addressed and every major argument considered. Fleischer certainly changed my mind on the best interpretations of many important passages of scripture. Chapter 8, A New Kind of King, was a particular stand out. Were it a standalone essay, it would almost convince me on its own. It thoroughly anchors anti-politics and anti-violence near the heart of the Gospel and presents a better way of doing Christianity than the petty power struggles Western Christians have been swept up in over the past century.
Overall, a decent introduction to Christian pacifism with high highs and low lows.
February 16, 2020
I bought three or four copies of "The Old Testament Case For Nonviolence" to give out to people - that's how much I loved it. Today, after reading the advance copy of "Jesus the Pacifist" I bought three paperback copies to share - Fleischer did it again!
Fleischer expertly handled many (if not all) of the toughest challenges to the notion that Jesus was a pacifist, and, by implication, so too must his followers be. Some challenges he hit head-on by devoting entire chapters to them, like, for example, the argument that the book of Revelations proves violence is acceptable (which actually got two chapters). Others he expertly weaved arguments into larger narratives, like when he took on the famed 'Render unto Caesar' incident; the larger narrative that Fleischer was working on was Jesus' opposition to political power, and one proof of it being that instead of engaging in political arguments (like whether or not it's right to pay the imperial tax to Caesar) he purposely highlighted the idolatry being ignored by the question so that he could redirect such a political question back to His own Kingdom building. There's only one true King!
The one real bummer for me is that after becoming increasingly convinced of Jesus' pacifism the question became: Well, how does that apply to me? Would I have to stand by and watch my wife get raped? Must I simply pray for murderers rather than wanting them restrained?; and the answer was never delivered, at least not yet. Fleischer eludes to a possible future book that will attempt to answer that very question. In the meantime, this book offers plenty to think and pray on.
Fleischer expertly handled many (if not all) of the toughest challenges to the notion that Jesus was a pacifist, and, by implication, so too must his followers be. Some challenges he hit head-on by devoting entire chapters to them, like, for example, the argument that the book of Revelations proves violence is acceptable (which actually got two chapters). Others he expertly weaved arguments into larger narratives, like when he took on the famed 'Render unto Caesar' incident; the larger narrative that Fleischer was working on was Jesus' opposition to political power, and one proof of it being that instead of engaging in political arguments (like whether or not it's right to pay the imperial tax to Caesar) he purposely highlighted the idolatry being ignored by the question so that he could redirect such a political question back to His own Kingdom building. There's only one true King!
The one real bummer for me is that after becoming increasingly convinced of Jesus' pacifism the question became: Well, how does that apply to me? Would I have to stand by and watch my wife get raped? Must I simply pray for murderers rather than wanting them restrained?; and the answer was never delivered, at least not yet. Fleischer eludes to a possible future book that will attempt to answer that very question. In the meantime, this book offers plenty to think and pray on.
March 23, 2020
Here is a concise, yet thorough, summary of Jesus’s ethics toward violence. This book is more accessible than many of its inspirations, yet it is also structured for systematic thinkers who would rather work through the whole discourse than just nibble at its edges. This book is an excellent starting point for those who are just beginning to question the nature of violence (and are looking for a comprehensively Christian response to it). But even though I have already read many books in this vein, I still found myself learning and appreciating new ideas. For one, I’ve avoided the word “pacifism” itself because the term has been redefined by its critics. But this book has brought me back around! Christians who want to follow the self-sacrificing way of Jesus do not have to be on the defensive. As Fleischer shows, Jesus was the definitive pacifist.
Our expression of the Kingdom is not just some violence-avoiding, anemic passivity. Instead, those who follow the peaceful way of Jesus are *anti*violent. And perhaps this book is part of a larger sweeping trend–where those who claim to follow Christ will have to work much harder to justify their militance.
Our expression of the Kingdom is not just some violence-avoiding, anemic passivity. Instead, those who follow the peaceful way of Jesus are *anti*violent. And perhaps this book is part of a larger sweeping trend–where those who claim to follow Christ will have to work much harder to justify their militance.
February 9, 2020
Matthew Fleischer did a great job surprising me with his previous book, The Old Testament Case for Non-violence. He follows the same methodology of considering New Testament texts of violent nature in their context and against the explicit teachings of Jesus in this new book while fairly considering other interpretations and following them to their logical ends.
I may have much in common with Fleischer especially being a big fan of Jesus. However, I'm no longer a fan of verse by verse argumentation. I used to do that. Not only am I tired of it but I can no longer ignore the humanity beset by time bound mores and prejudices wrapped up in these texts. Fleischer carries a burden I won't, which is every verse is God-breathed, even the terrible ones, while he tries to defend Jesus' pacifism. I arrive at the same conclusion, but my route is shorter than his. If the reader is of the "biblical christianity" background and persuasion, this is a book to wrestle with. If the reader is of the "mystical christianity" persuasion then this book may come across as tedious. Let the reader be warned.
I love this observation.
"From the start, Jesus expresses a clear preference for nonviolent characteristics. Every one of those attributes is incompatible with using violence. He does not praise the powerful, the rulers of history, or the enforcers of justice. It is the humble, gentle, peaceful, submissive, sympathetic, forgiving, righteous, and persecuted who inhabit his kingdom, not those who wield force on his behalf."
Stuff like this is why I'm still a fan of Jesus. The sermon on the mount is so revolutionary. Turn the other cheek...bless your enemies....serve those who abuse you! These are the teachings Gandhi employed to liberate India from England.
Flesicher starts from Jesus' foundational teachings to force the reader to re-evaluate some of Jesus' parables using violent characters and the call to acquire a sword and the cleansing of the temple. He then turns his focus to the John's Apocalypse with it's four horsemen, Jesus in a bloody cloak and a sword coming out of his mouth, and all sorts of catastrophes. He spends three chapters on the Revelation. They are a well condensed summary of many sources found in his end notes. I appreciate the effort he made in all his research and I hope his readers who have not considered pacifism on biblical grounds will be forced to reexamine their assumptions.
I do have one area of disagreement with Fleischer. I do not know if he is anabaptist but the discussion of the Revelation does veer into participation in politics. I think it an unfortunate conflation of pacifism and political non-participation. Gandhi was pacifist and political. Martin Luther King Jr. was a pacifist and political. It's important to me to note these counter examples now as it is black history month in the US. If politics were not involved then black men would still be lynched to the cheers of white mobs. If politics were not involved then black children would not have made it into white schools if not escorted by armed officers of the law. I hope Fleisher will consider some of these examples in his next book.
I may have much in common with Fleischer especially being a big fan of Jesus. However, I'm no longer a fan of verse by verse argumentation. I used to do that. Not only am I tired of it but I can no longer ignore the humanity beset by time bound mores and prejudices wrapped up in these texts. Fleischer carries a burden I won't, which is every verse is God-breathed, even the terrible ones, while he tries to defend Jesus' pacifism. I arrive at the same conclusion, but my route is shorter than his. If the reader is of the "biblical christianity" background and persuasion, this is a book to wrestle with. If the reader is of the "mystical christianity" persuasion then this book may come across as tedious. Let the reader be warned.
I love this observation.
"From the start, Jesus expresses a clear preference for nonviolent characteristics. Every one of those attributes is incompatible with using violence. He does not praise the powerful, the rulers of history, or the enforcers of justice. It is the humble, gentle, peaceful, submissive, sympathetic, forgiving, righteous, and persecuted who inhabit his kingdom, not those who wield force on his behalf."
Stuff like this is why I'm still a fan of Jesus. The sermon on the mount is so revolutionary. Turn the other cheek...bless your enemies....serve those who abuse you! These are the teachings Gandhi employed to liberate India from England.
Flesicher starts from Jesus' foundational teachings to force the reader to re-evaluate some of Jesus' parables using violent characters and the call to acquire a sword and the cleansing of the temple. He then turns his focus to the John's Apocalypse with it's four horsemen, Jesus in a bloody cloak and a sword coming out of his mouth, and all sorts of catastrophes. He spends three chapters on the Revelation. They are a well condensed summary of many sources found in his end notes. I appreciate the effort he made in all his research and I hope his readers who have not considered pacifism on biblical grounds will be forced to reexamine their assumptions.
I do have one area of disagreement with Fleischer. I do not know if he is anabaptist but the discussion of the Revelation does veer into participation in politics. I think it an unfortunate conflation of pacifism and political non-participation. Gandhi was pacifist and political. Martin Luther King Jr. was a pacifist and political. It's important to me to note these counter examples now as it is black history month in the US. If politics were not involved then black men would still be lynched to the cheers of white mobs. If politics were not involved then black children would not have made it into white schools if not escorted by armed officers of the law. I hope Fleisher will consider some of these examples in his next book.
September 6, 2021
Having read Fleischer's "The Old Testament Case for Nonviolence," I was expecting this new book to be in the same vein. However, I thought "Jesus the Pacifist" was much better. The new book seems to be better organized, have a better flow, and there isn't really any section where I got bored or bogged down. It feels as though every chapter and section progresses the discussion and are integral to the book.
"Jesus the Pacifist" will likely not be new material for you if you've spent a lot of time looking at pacifism. However, from someone who has read A LOT on the topic, I still found this book quite helpful. The book focuses exclusively on the Biblical case (and NT specifically) for pacifism and organizes it beautifully and succinctly. The author goes into the common passages about turning the other cheek and such, but he also spends a lot of time (rightfully, I believe) grounding ideology in the greatest commandment - love.
One of the sections which I found most interesting, and which may be new even for seasoned readers of pacifist material, is the section on Revelation. While the author's explanation of Revelation was relatively standard for a pacifist interpretation, he didn't hold back from moving into some of the more radical questions and implications that Christ's teachings, and specifically Revelation, have for our dealing with governments. Though the author raises some difficult questions he doesn't answer (and rightfully so, since that would be a detour from the case he's making and it would require its own book), I appreciated that he followed the case to the hard questions it should lead us to ask.
Overall, I highly recommend this book. I enjoyed it and it helped me to reorient my thoughts on the biblical case for pacifism. However, I think this book's sweet spot would be for individuals who are Bible affirming and are anti-pacifist, or newcomers to the the pacifist position. This book will challenge them, interest them, and will succinctly organize the case for nonviolence from Jesus and the New Testament.
"Jesus the Pacifist" will likely not be new material for you if you've spent a lot of time looking at pacifism. However, from someone who has read A LOT on the topic, I still found this book quite helpful. The book focuses exclusively on the Biblical case (and NT specifically) for pacifism and organizes it beautifully and succinctly. The author goes into the common passages about turning the other cheek and such, but he also spends a lot of time (rightfully, I believe) grounding ideology in the greatest commandment - love.
One of the sections which I found most interesting, and which may be new even for seasoned readers of pacifist material, is the section on Revelation. While the author's explanation of Revelation was relatively standard for a pacifist interpretation, he didn't hold back from moving into some of the more radical questions and implications that Christ's teachings, and specifically Revelation, have for our dealing with governments. Though the author raises some difficult questions he doesn't answer (and rightfully so, since that would be a detour from the case he's making and it would require its own book), I appreciated that he followed the case to the hard questions it should lead us to ask.
Overall, I highly recommend this book. I enjoyed it and it helped me to reorient my thoughts on the biblical case for pacifism. However, I think this book's sweet spot would be for individuals who are Bible affirming and are anti-pacifist, or newcomers to the the pacifist position. This book will challenge them, interest them, and will succinctly organize the case for nonviolence from Jesus and the New Testament.
February 23, 2020
This book picks up nicely where Matthew's previous book, The Old Testament Case for Nonviolence, left off. If you have ever had trouble reconciling Jesus' peace teachings in the Sermon on the Mount, which He consistently modeled in His own life right up to the cross, with some of the seemingly violent passages in the New Testament, then this is a great book for you to read. From the temple cleansing, to conversations with a Roman Centurion to the John's bloody apocalyptic vision, Matthew systematically addresses each one and more by dismantling the seemingly violent contradictions one may have arrived at when reading them.
More importantly, Jesus the Pacifist rightly places the conversation on violence and nonviolence at the heart of the gospel, it shows us what following Jesus looks like, it reveals the heart behind enemy love and shines a spotlight on how the kingdom of God operates, making it highly relevant to anyone seeking to walk in the Nazarene's footsteps.
More importantly, Jesus the Pacifist rightly places the conversation on violence and nonviolence at the heart of the gospel, it shows us what following Jesus looks like, it reveals the heart behind enemy love and shines a spotlight on how the kingdom of God operates, making it highly relevant to anyone seeking to walk in the Nazarene's footsteps.
April 24, 2020
Understanding Jesus’ pacifism does not need to be difficult. Unfortunately, many Christians have got the wrong idea of who God is, making of Him a violent character. God through Jesus reveals Himself as a true pacifist. This does not mean He is passive, but that He is actively non-violent. There are many big names out there that have provided a solid interpretation of pacifism in the Bible, but Matthew has accomplished with this book (and his previous one) what many others have not: make it easy to understand. If you are a pacifist, this is a good addition to your non-violent arsenal. If you are not, this book might be an eye-opener.
April 10, 2020
Matthew deals with this complex subject in a very clear and concise way. After reading this book, I am completely convinced that pacifism is indeed Jesus' way. The author sets out his thoughts in a readable manner for any one interested in this subject. Definitely 5 stars!
May 17, 2021
I’ve long considered the idea of pacifism in the Christian life. It seems obvious to me the American church is a little too blasé about violence while the bible trends towards a peacemaking, nonviolent worldview. However, on the whole, I have found it difficult to read all of scripture and conclude the Christian is to be 100% pacifistic.
I approached this book with an open mind, but was let down. I figured it was coming to scripture from a different angle than me and would challenge me. Unfortunately, the writer lets the cat out of the bag on page 5: “All justification for violence must come from [Jesus’] life and teaching, and nothing else.” The cat is an unapologetic progressive view of scripture, demonstrated here by the rejection of the notion that all scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching (2 Tim 3:16). Jesus’ words can often serve as an interpretive key to understanding more difficult passages. However, if all scripture is God-breathed, meaning the verbal plenary approach to understanding the bible’s authorship, then every single word in its original language is exactly what God wanted. This means we cannot pick and choose how to defend our preconceived notions; we need to approach all of scripture and let it speak for itself.
The writer also plays fast and loose with terms like “gospel.” He quotes another writer, saying that nonviolence is “the essence of the gospel.” Words mean things. This is especially important when reading 2,000-year-old texts. The gospel is we are sinners against God, our maker; We cannot repair that relationship ourselves; Jesus’ atoning death resolves this for believers. “Gospel” isn’t anything we want it to mean.
There is also a simplistic take on love—that love is always non-violent. What about when love means making a choice? If a kidnapper grabs my five-year-old daughter and I have the ability to stop him with violence, do I withhold that violence out of “love” for him, my enemy? That would seem like the very opposite of love towards my daughter, whom I’m also to love and have a duty towards. In this writer’s worldview, it would be loving to not use force to allow the kidnapper to take my daughter, likely into a life of abuse. That’s the logical conclusion of this writer’s worldview, and he refuses to even address the matter in this book (page 158).
There are various other issues in this book. For one, the writer gives his definition of violence early on, but then ignores it when explaining why Jesus wasn’t violent when he cleansed the temple. Another is a very sloppy attempt to explain away Jesus explicitly telling his disciples to buy swords. There is also the obsession with the Romans—that Jesus came to overturn their political power. This becomes such a focus it’s as if Jesus’ role was not to conquer death and sin, but simply government structures. To that point, the writer’s logical conclusion regarding Christians and politics/government would be that no Christian should serve in an elected office. I would disagree.
Like other progressive Christian books I’ve read, the writer starts off with a good idea we all should get behind. Here, the American church is too obsessed with violence and is often unwilling to assess its own view of violence. Unfortunately, the writer takes a pure pacifist stance, and fails to back it up. Rather, the book is cherry-picked, includes shifting definitions, and downplays God’s wrath, among other issues. Certainly it challenged me to study the topic, but if this is the best pacifist argument, I’m not buying it.
I approached this book with an open mind, but was let down. I figured it was coming to scripture from a different angle than me and would challenge me. Unfortunately, the writer lets the cat out of the bag on page 5: “All justification for violence must come from [Jesus’] life and teaching, and nothing else.” The cat is an unapologetic progressive view of scripture, demonstrated here by the rejection of the notion that all scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching (2 Tim 3:16). Jesus’ words can often serve as an interpretive key to understanding more difficult passages. However, if all scripture is God-breathed, meaning the verbal plenary approach to understanding the bible’s authorship, then every single word in its original language is exactly what God wanted. This means we cannot pick and choose how to defend our preconceived notions; we need to approach all of scripture and let it speak for itself.
The writer also plays fast and loose with terms like “gospel.” He quotes another writer, saying that nonviolence is “the essence of the gospel.” Words mean things. This is especially important when reading 2,000-year-old texts. The gospel is we are sinners against God, our maker; We cannot repair that relationship ourselves; Jesus’ atoning death resolves this for believers. “Gospel” isn’t anything we want it to mean.
There is also a simplistic take on love—that love is always non-violent. What about when love means making a choice? If a kidnapper grabs my five-year-old daughter and I have the ability to stop him with violence, do I withhold that violence out of “love” for him, my enemy? That would seem like the very opposite of love towards my daughter, whom I’m also to love and have a duty towards. In this writer’s worldview, it would be loving to not use force to allow the kidnapper to take my daughter, likely into a life of abuse. That’s the logical conclusion of this writer’s worldview, and he refuses to even address the matter in this book (page 158).
There are various other issues in this book. For one, the writer gives his definition of violence early on, but then ignores it when explaining why Jesus wasn’t violent when he cleansed the temple. Another is a very sloppy attempt to explain away Jesus explicitly telling his disciples to buy swords. There is also the obsession with the Romans—that Jesus came to overturn their political power. This becomes such a focus it’s as if Jesus’ role was not to conquer death and sin, but simply government structures. To that point, the writer’s logical conclusion regarding Christians and politics/government would be that no Christian should serve in an elected office. I would disagree.
Like other progressive Christian books I’ve read, the writer starts off with a good idea we all should get behind. Here, the American church is too obsessed with violence and is often unwilling to assess its own view of violence. Unfortunately, the writer takes a pure pacifist stance, and fails to back it up. Rather, the book is cherry-picked, includes shifting definitions, and downplays God’s wrath, among other issues. Certainly it challenged me to study the topic, but if this is the best pacifist argument, I’m not buying it.
May 23, 2024
I jived with much of the book but it jumped to conclusions that I didn’t think were well supported. The author did a great job analyzing nonviolence in Jesus’ ministry, in Revelation, and in Christian theology. He didn’t spend a lot of time on Old Testament violence, but then again, he wrote another book on the topic and this was about Jesus specifically. However, the author took things a bit far IMHO when he purported that the ethic against nonviolence mean’s Christians can’t participate in government in ANY capacity. He suggests that even trying to do good with the existing government is helping Satan. That seems a little strong, something I’ll need to chew on.
October 15, 2022
Good, well thought out book. But when he got to the question that I wanted answered towards the end he just said he would deal with that in the next book! I was so disappointed.
September 22, 2023
It's interesting that I cracked open this book feeling 9/10 a Christian pacifist. But by the end, I was definitely not a pacifist. This book actually helped me better understand what I trust the Bible to teach and how it doesn't line up with pacifism. Jesus can't possibly be a pacifist if God instructed the Israelites to battle and kill. Not to mention, God himself striking down the entire world with a very violent, catastrophic flood. This book should have addressed the idea that Christians shouldn't be violent, EXCEPT when it is required (self-defense, for example, which Jesus clearly taught by telling his disciples to get a sword and if they didn't have one, sell your cloak and go buy one! Hardly the "don't-even-own-a-gun-Christian", of which I, up to this point, have been.
Nathan and Tony's thorough reviews of this book completely sum up how I felt about this book and it's theology. The book falls short, but I'm thankful that it helped solidify how I feel about my warrior God who is fierce and justly violent in His good ways.
Nathan and Tony's thorough reviews of this book completely sum up how I felt about this book and it's theology. The book falls short, but I'm thankful that it helped solidify how I feel about my warrior God who is fierce and justly violent in His good ways.
September 25, 2024
Honestly not a bad primmer on the topic.
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews