We run our website the way we wished the whole internet worked: we provide high quality original content with no ads. We are funded solely by your direct support. Please consider supporting this project.
Cross-like Love and Non-Violence
Though it seems to have been forgotten by many today, the cross wasn’t simply something God did for us. According to the NT, it was also an example God calls us to follow. Hence, after John defined love by pointing us to Jesus’ death on the cross on our behalf, he immediately added: “And we ought to lay down our lives for one another“ (1 Jn 3:16). This and a multitude of other passages make it evident that God’s will is for the cruciform love that defines his own, eternal, triune nature to be received by us and to transform us in order to flow through us so that this same love can transform and ultimately flow through others.
Paul makes the same point when he commands us to imitate (mimetai) the example given to us by God, in Christ, by walking “in the way of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us” (Eph. 5:1-2). Notice that for this author, to imitate God simply means one imitates and reflects the self-sacrificial love displayed on Calvary. According to Paul, the command to reflect this kind of love is to be placed “above” every other command.
It’s evident that for Paul, the centrality of the cross in defining God is reflected in the centrality of the cross in defining life in the kingdom, which should not be surprising given that our call is to simply reflect God’s character in all we do. This is simply what it means to be Christ-like or godly.
Amazingly, there isn’t one exception clause to any of the NT’s instructions about loving and serving enemies or about the refusal to resort to violence in response to aggressors. To the contrary, far from allowing for “justified” exceptions, Jesus strongly emphasized that his followers were to love indiscriminately – the way God loves and blesses the just and unjust by causing his sun to shine and his rain to fall on everyone, without any regard to whether they did or didn’t deserve it.
Even more remarkably, Jesus went so far as to claim that loving enemies was a precondition for being considered a child of God. “[L]ove your enemies,” he taught, “that you may be children of your Father…” (Mt. 5:44-45). And again, “love your enemies, do good to them…Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High…” (Lk 6:35).
The logic behind Jesus’ astonishing teaching is that, since God’s nature is reflected in his indiscriminate, self-sacrificial, non-violent, servant love toward enemies – the kind of love that would soon be unambiguously displayed in Jesus’ crucifixion — then only those who replicated this kind of cruciform love in their own lives could be considered to look like this God, and in this sense be considered the children of this God.
In this light, it’s hardly coincidental that the definitive proof Jesus offered Pilate that his kingdom was “not of this world” was that, if his kingdom had been of this world, he says, “my servants would fight to prevent my arrest…” (Jn 18:36). Jesus remark to Pilate thus suggests that a distinctive characteristic of all who belong to his kingdom, and that distinguishes his kingdom from the kingdoms of this world, is that they do not fight, even when they would be considered justified to do so.
In this light, it should be clear that, contrary to the way most Christians today view the matter, the call to manifest God’s indiscriminate, self-sacrificial love and to unconditionally refrain from violence cannot be considered an optional aspect of what it means to follow Jesus. Rather, as cruciform love is the most definitive distinguishing characteristic of God’s nature, so manifesting cruciform love must be considered the sine qua non feature of all who are the children of this God.
Category: General
Tags: Cruciform Theology, Discipleship, Enemy Love, Kingdom Living, Love, Non-Violence, Pacifism
Topics: Ethical, Cultural and Political Issues
Related Reading
Was Jesus Unloving Towards the Pharisees?
Some claim that Jesus spoke to religious leaders in ways that did not reflect the love of the cross. In his climatic encounter with the Pharisees in Matthew 23, Jesus’ words were undeniably harsh. He calls the Pharisees “hypocrites,” “blind guides,” “blind fools,” “snakes” and “a brood of vipers” (Mt 23:13, 15, 16,17, 19, 23,…
The Cruciform Center Part 2: How John’s Gospel Reveals a Cruciform God
In the previous post, we looked at how the Synoptics illustrate the centrality of the cross. While the Gospel of John varies in its structure and language from the Synoptics, the cross remains at the center. This centrality is expressed in a number of different ways. 1. The role that Jesus’ death plays in glorifying…
God’s Goal for the World
Helga Weber via Compfight In a world that is all about doom and gloom… In a time when we never seem to have enough… In the midst of messages that tell us that we don’t measure up… In an age when we are more interested in whether or not we can own automatic weapons than…
Sermon Clip: The Worst of Sinners
In this short clip, Greg Boyd discusses Paul’s definition of love. In the full sermon, Greg talks about how in this dog eat dog world, we’re programmed to judge others. But to love others with unsurpassable worth, we must ascribe worth to them at cost to ourselves. In this sermon, Greg talks about how to…
The Cruciform Trinity
As paradoxical as it sounds, if God is supremely revealed when he stoops to the infinite extremity of becoming his own antithesis on the cross, then we must conclude that stooping to this extremity out of love must, in some sense, be intrinsic to who God eternally is. And rendering this coherent necessitates that we…
How NOT To Be Christ-Centered: A Review of God With Us – Part IV
In the first three parts of this review of Scott Oliphint’s God with Us we’ve outline his attempt to reframe all God’s accommodations in Scripture in light of the Chalecedonian Creed. He, in essence, uses the mysterious union of God and humanity in Christ to justify asserting that the immutable God can really become mutable…
