A Faith Not Worth Fighting For (York and Barringer)

A Faith Not Worth Fighting For (York & Barringer)

Tripp York and Justin Bronson Barringer, eds.

A Faith Not Worth Fighting For: Addressing Commonly Asked Questions About Christian Nonviolence

Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2012

I sat here writing and rewriting a disclaimer for this book for thirty minutes before I came to the realization that if I have to write a disclaimer I’m probably just trying to hide my convictions to save myself some trouble. Lets be frank. I think there’s something convincing about Christian nonviolence. It’s hard to deny the force and centrality of Jesus’ teachings about nonresistance and love of one’s neighbors and enemies. That being said, I particularly liked what D. Stephen Long writes at the beginning of his chapter in this book:

In one sense I am uninterested in being a pacifist at all because I find so many kinds of pacifism unconvincing, if not silly. (18)

THANK YOU! Anyone who enlists pacifism as a badge of honor in some pollyannaish sentiment of good will is an idiot. (Full disclosure: I had to look the proper way to spell pollyannaish.) At the same time, the caricature of Christian “pacifism” as weak-willed, emasculated hippy-religion is equally false. Anyone sincerely interested in investigating the various ways in which Christians conceive, argue for, and practice non-violence would do well to start here. I hope that people read this book (or my representation of it) with an open, generous, but critical eye.

The Gist

The editors, York and Barringer, want this book to blend academic rigor with accessible language and thought to provide a balanced response to the common, constant questions posed about/against Christian nonviolence. The format of the book is what I thought was brilliant about it before I even read it. Each of the chapter titles (and content) are just basic questions that come up in discussions of Christian nonviolence.

What about protecting innocents? There’s a chapter for that. What about honoring those in the military? There’s a chapter for that. What about Hitler? There’s a chapter for that. Didn’t Jesus overturn the tables and hit people with a whip? There’s a chapter for that. What about fighting wild animals? There’s not a chapter on that—there’s got to be a page limit eventually I suppose.

One thing worth noting, as Stanley Hauerwas does in his preface, is that all of the perspectives here have been shaped powerfully by the theology of the late Anabaptist theologian John Howard Yoder. In many ways Yoder is the grandfather of Christian nonviolent thought in America. Anyone who is intrigued by these essays (positively or negatively) should go read some Yoder’s The Politics of Jesus and some of his lesser-known essays to get a fuller sense of the meaning, rationale, and practical implications of Christian nonviolence.

What Stuck

There are several qualities of the essays in this book worth commending. The biggest thread that seemed to continue throughout all the essays is that Christian nonviolence issues out of a faith that takes serious the claim that Jesus rose from the dead and conquered death. In that sense Christian faith, as it did in powerful ways in the first few centuries of its existence, must take seriously the fact that suffering and death are not horrific evils to be avoided at all costs, but rather effective ways to witness to the world the power of Christ that has overcome death and removed its suffocating sting.

Christian nonviolence is not the equivalent of becoming a doormat for all the vicious evils in the world. It is, in reality, an alternative and more powerful way of taking a stand against evil—indeed it is perhaps the only viable way in the long run, as Martin Luther King Jr. is famously quoted:

Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that

Memorable Quotes

Too often, past discussions of Christian alternatives for justifying Christian participation or nonparticipation in war or other forms of violence address their interlocutor as if he or she is tone deaf. By contrast, the authors of the essays in this book take seriously objections to their commitment to nonviolence. (Hauerwas, ix)

Nonviolence is not a stance that is to be limited to being against war, but rather nonviolence requires that every aspect of our lives be open to listening to those who differ from us. (Hauerwas, x)

The Christians of the first three centuries are known for their refusal to participate in violence, and the history of the church is replete with numerous examples of theologians, bishops, saints, mystics, monastic groups, historic peace churches, and all sorts of Christians committed to the practice of nonviolence. (York & Barringer, 3)

We may not have a faith worth killing for, we do have one worth dying for. (York & Barringer, 7)

I am a reluctant pacifist. In one sense I am uninterested in being a pacifist at all because I find so many kinds of pacifism unconvincing, if not silly. I once worked and lived in a seminary community where nearly everyone was a pacifist of some sort. Yet people would drive luxury vehicles and SUVs with bumper stickers that read “no war for oil,” and no one laughed. (Long, 18)

It was blithely assumed that war was perpetrated by vicious men who took delight in violence and destruction, and who had no ability to imagine any alternatives. I found this to be an inadequate analysis then as I do now. (Long, 18)

I wondered how Christian participation in war, for all its moral and intellectual seriousness, fit with Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount. That question still troubles me, and despite all the attempts, ancient and modern, to make it fit, Jesus’ words will always haunt the Christian church with the specter of pacifism. (Long, 20)

So the question put to pacifists at its boldest is, Are you willing to let your neighbors or other innocents die for the sake of your dogmatic theological convictions? And the first answer that must be given, before it then gets qualified, is yes. . . . If it makes pacifism immoral, the same must apply to the just war. For just war also recognizes that in any military action, “collateral damage” occurs. The innocent will be killed along with the aggressor. There is no way to wage war without this taking place. (Long, 28)

What disarms the aggressor is not our better ability to use and implement violence, but to be freed from the grip of fear it has over us. Life belongs to God. Its unjust ending cries out for justification, and we cannot but believe that God will somehow justify those who suffer such a fate. “We believe in the resurrection of the body.” (Long, 21)

Thus trapped between the “either” of ethical abstraction and the “or” of the desire for a poetically satisfying witness to love, the reader looking for answers in terms of a path to faithful action may have found far more frustration than moral clarity in these pages. In the end, to encourage persistence in that frustration is the clearest guide we can give. (Hall & Slade, 43)

So for all of you who have given up their lives in on my behalf, I say thank you for your courage and sacrifice, but to those of you willing to kill-for my freedom or any other reason—I simply ask that you please not kill for me. (Barringer, 106)

But the Good News is that the new aeon, the Kingdom of God, has broken into the midst of human history. The “present aeon” has not yet passed away, and it is as if the two are now overlapping. But the call of discipleship is to live according to the New, even while the old is yet languishing but sure to be defeated. (Camp, 141)

There is something that we must yield to “Caesar,” but only when whatever Caesar demands has not been previously demanded by the Creator. (Camp, 149)

To understand how God destroys evil, we must rely on the governing imagery that john of Patmos uses for Jesus—and that is the image of Jesus as the Lamb. . . . . when John looks up, he sees not a ferocious predator but a Lamb standing as if it had been slaughtered (5:6). This verse more than any other is the hermeneutical key to understanding violence in Revelation: admidst the chaos and war and destruction of our world, God has chosen to intervene in the form of a vulnerable Lamb. (Kraybill, 196-97).

As stated earlier, our witness is our best argument for ht existence of God. We must live in such away that if Christ were not resurrected from the dead then our manner of life would be unintelligible. We can see then how refusing to return violence for violence is, ultimately, evangelical. It is missional. It is, in the lives of those who do it, a reflection of Christ’s lordship. It is a per formative moment in truth. (York, 224).


This is a simple, straightforward, and helpful book. Its accessibility does not diminish its profundity. Many of its authors are well-respected ministers and theologians (sometimes both!) and regardless of reputation, all of them express a deep thought and deeper commitment to Christ—deep enough to struggle with themselves in front of the reader about the difficulties but necessities of Christian nonviolence.

If this book is not convincing to some, that’s okay. But maybe it makes violence of all kinds a little less easy to tolerate or engage in. That’s okay too. If anything I think this book does a great job at complicating violence and showing that it is not the obvious answer that many of us raised in American culture assume it to be. My hope is that everyone who reads this book will take seriously its arguments and challenges even if they remain unconvinced.

  4 comments for “A Faith Not Worth Fighting For (York and Barringer)

  1. March 30, 2015 at 1:58 pm

    Thank you. This was very well written and stimulating. Pacifism is certainly a very Christian preoccupation because it goes against natural human instincts, animals instincts, to retaliate and pre-emptively act to our own advantage. When I think of the problem of violence now though two passages in the Bible come to mind. First, in James where he urges us to “Go to widows and orphans in their distress” This seems like it could justify interventional violence perhaps. Or maybe there is a more faith based approached. In either case I suspect that Christianity requires that its practitioners protect the innocent, in as much as they can, from persecution. This of course is a challenging ideal to actually live. Secondly, the story where Roman soldiers ask Jesus what they should do and Jesus says “Don’t extort people and don’t give false accusations” (Luke 3:14) rather than something like “lay down your arms”.

    I suspect that maybe the important thing, besides specific pacifist or violent alternatives in any given situation, is to try to act with courage and faith in a sincere devotion to generosity and mercy.

    • bpierce04a
      March 31, 2015 at 9:07 am

      Yeah, I think your last sentiment is really good wisdom. What I love about the pacifist perspective is that it puts into sharp contrast all the particularly bad and uncritical narratives that support violent activity.

      If you pick the book up I’d recommend reading D. Stephen Long’s chapter first. I thought he really knocked it out of the park. at the end of the day pacifism is not a position we take up so much as a struggle with other tensions in life and the Gospel, but a struggle in the right direction nevertheless. I thought Long’s article did the best job at articulating these tensions and the vulnerability of pacifism the best.

      • March 31, 2015 at 10:41 am

        And that’s the main thing isn’t it? To remain sincere in the struggle to come to real understanding. Thanks for the recommendation. I will try to remember the name D. Stephen Long if I come across any of his work.

  2. vonleonhardt2
    April 28, 2015 at 2:04 pm

    Something to add to the reading list

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Church of Christ Theology

A Forum Promoting Theological Discourse in Churches of Christ for the Church and the Academy

Dishes of Orts

"My friends at least will accept them as such, whether they like their collective title or not." - George MacDonald


a podcast site for anyone looking to struggle with scripture

Reeves' Rhetoric

The longest way 'round and the shortest way home.

%d bloggers like this: