The Beautiful Alternative

angelico

“Evil is to be overcome by forgiveness. As likewise is violence.”
-John Milbank, Christ the Exception

Jesus gives us an alternative to violence. Forgiveness. Jesus didn’t just theorize about it, he lived it. On the cross Christ made his message credible. He lived it all the way to the end. And calls us to follow him.

I believe most of us long for it to be true. We long for the Jesus way to be the beautiful alternative to the ugly way of violence. Romanticized violence can be appealing—imagined musketeers and Hollywood shoot ‘em ups—but real violence is always ugly. In a world awash in endless cycles of violence we know it’s appalling and we wonder if the beautiful way of Christ is a viable alternative.

What if?

What if the Jesus way is liveable? What if we could follow in the steps of Christ in the practice of radical enemy-love? What effect would a life of love modeled after the pattern of Christ have on those outside the Christian faith? Christianity might just find a new credibility and an interested audience. Of course we might also die in the attempt…which is kind of what taking up the cross and following Jesus is all about. As David Bentley Hart has observed in his magisterial The Beauty of the Infinite

Christianity must always obey the form of Christ, its persuasion must always assume the shape of the gift he is, it must practice its rhetoric under the only aspect it may wear if it is indeed Christian at all: martyrdom.

During the first three centuries of the church martyrdom was the ultimate rhetoric and the final endorsement of the Christian message. In the early church the model set forth was that a Christian would choose to die before he would depart from the Jesus way. I’m not committed to nonviolence as a social theory. I’m committed to Christ. And I look to Christ to see how he informs us on the subject of violence. But now is not the time to get into all of that. What I really want to do is share with you a story that makes my point. I have a friend who is living overseas in a Middle Eastern country. Saturday he sent me this little story:
__________________________________________________________________

I was invited by a friend this evening to have coffee with some friends of his. They were two Muslim brothers, early thirties maybe, one a dermatologist and the other an eye surgeon. Both were very bright and inquisitive and also, very kind. They brought their friend, who is a lawyer, also a Muslim. So, we had coffee with two doctors and a lawyer. Anyway, the younger of the brothers, the more outspoken, quickly directed the conversation toward a discussion about religious violence, which lead to a discussion about violence in general. He, the younger brother, is a non-religious Muslim, but I do not think he is an atheist, at least I don’t remember him saying so.

We were immediately engaged in a discussion about the message of Jesus and violence. He quickly took it there and I was a little taken back, not expecting the conversation to head in that direction. They had some questions concerning New Testament thought on the subject and, of course, we spoke about Christian history in the midst of that. They knew the version of popular Christian eschatology of today (and its fascination with violence) and brought that into the picture. At one point he said to me in response to the turning of the cheek, “But nobody has ever done that.” I said, “But Jesus did it.” He agreed and we spoke a bit more about the message of Christ in light of that. In any case, we spoke about Islam and again about Church History in light of violence. It was a nice conversation. But at the point that he spoke about the turning of the cheek, I kid you not, I could tell that deep down he really wanted to believe that it is possible to overcome violence in that way. I’m sure I will see them again.
__________________________________________________________________

“Deep down he really wanted to believe that it is possible to overcome violence in that way.”

Don’t we all.

And we who confess Christ should dare to believe it.

Because it’s part of believing in Jesus.

BZ

(The artwork is The Crucifixion by Fra Angelico.)

Tags: , ,



  • http://brianzahnd.com Brian Zahnd

    “The Kingdom of God means the complete and definitive elimination of every form of vengeance and of every form of reprisal in relations between men.” -René Girard, Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World

  • http://brianzahnd.com Brian Zahnd

    “Violence is the enslavement of a pervasive lie; it imposes upon men a falsified vision not only of God but also of everything else. And that is indeed why it is a closed kingdom. Escaping from violence is escaping from this kingdom into another kingdom, whose existence the majority of people do not even suspect. This the Kingdom of love, which is also the domain of the true God, the Father of Jesus, of whom the prisoners of violence cannot even conceive.” -René Girard, Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World

  • Jmw1455

    Does your church still employ armed security personnel and off duty police officers during each service? 

    Are they instructed in the ways of nonviolence or would they respond violently if God forbid a situation were to require it?

    If they did respond violently does their Christianity and Christianity as whole then lose credibility?

    In the same way Jesus instructed Peter to put away his sword, would your armed personnel be instructed to put away their loaded semi-automatic weapons were danger to befall Word of Life Church?

    You’ve gone on record denouncing pragmatism yet you advocate a very pragmatic approach with respect to violence and how Christians should respond to it.

  • http://brianzahnd.com Brian Zahnd

    I’m not an anarchist.

    (Which is how I would attack my position if I were prone to do so.)

    I do believe in a civil society.

    Which almost certainly necessitates a police force.

    The ethical dilemmas at this point are complex and not easily resolved.

    (I am well aware of this!)

    I can easily work myself into an ethical corner (even in my own mind).

    But I cannot use this as an excuse to simply dismiss the hand the teachings of Jesus regarding violence.

    We must struggle with how Jesus informs a society concerning violence.

    (And I do.)

    So the struggle continues…

    Living in the tension of the now and not yet.

  • Bruce Moon

    Which is why I cannot accept your position.

  • Bruce Moon

    Which is why I cannot accept your position.

  • http://brianzahnd.com Brian Zahnd

    I am not an adherent of Christian Anarchism (and, yes, there is a theology of Christian Anarchism — though it’s probably not what you think it is). Christian Anarchism is perhaps best represented by Alexandre Christoyannopoulos. Though I am much closer to Christian Anarchism than I am to Christian Militarism (perhaps best represented by people like John Hagee). My position is very much in line with John Howard Yoder, whose seminal work, “The Politics of Jesus”, I enthusiastically recommend.

    http://www.amazon.com/Politics-Jesus-John-Howard-Yoder/dp/0802807348/ref=pd_sim_b_2

  • http://brianzahnd.com Brian Zahnd

    The point is, Jesus DID teach nonviolence. There is no honest reading of Matthew 5:38-48 that does not incorporate nonviolence as a primary aspect of representing the nature of God; this is the point of verse 48. Christ calls us to “resist not the one who is evil,” not because it is a practical way of running the world, but because this is what God is like (again this is the natural progression of Jesus’ logic that crescendos in verse 48). Does this present complex ethical dilemmas (e.g. defending the helpless innocent, maintaining a civil society, etc.)? Yes. But the starting point for the faithful Christian must begin with an acknowledgement that Jesus DID teach some form of nonviolence. Those who simply site the the ethical dilemmas as a way of dismissing Jesus, are not being faithful to how Christ informs humanity on the subject of violence. Unfortunately dismissing Jesus by citing ethical dilemmas has been the modus operandi of the church from the Constantinian compromise onward. But things are beginning to change.

  • http://brianzahnd.com Brian Zahnd

    (I find it curious that some Christians regard a serious Christ-inspired conviction of nonviolence as something almost scandalous.)

  • Brad

    Why did Jesus tell Peter to put away his sword?  What was His purpose?  Why does He say that those who live by the sword die by it?

  • BMoon

    Is it it not more truthful to call it “romanticized pacifism” since even Brian admits it is not practical? Would Jesus give us commands that are not practicable? Is not acquiescing to evil and injustice, either nationally or personally, well, evil and unjust? Does not a policeman or soldier practice loving their neighbor far, far more by risking his life to defend theirs,  than a romantic pacifist does while trying to interpret Scriptures too literally, and yet ignoring their plight? Is that not straining at gnats and swallowing camels? 

  • http://brianzahnd.com Brian Zahnd

     <!–
    /* Style Definitions */
    p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
    {mso-style-parent:"";
    margin:0in;
    margin-bottom:.0001pt;
    mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
    font-size:12.0pt;
    font-family:"Times New Roman";
    mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
    mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
    p.Body1, li.Body1, div.Body1
    {mso-style-name:"Body 1";
    mso-style-update:auto;
    mso-style-parent:"";
    margin-top:0in;
    margin-right:0in;
    margin-bottom:10.0pt;
    margin-left:0in;
    line-height:115%;
    mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
    mso-outline-level:1;
    font-size:11.0pt;
    font-family:Helvetica;
    mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
    mso-bidi-font-family:Helvetica;
    color:black;}
    @page Section1
    {size:8.5in 11.0in;
    margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;
    mso-header-margin:.5in;
    mso-footer-margin:.5in;
    mso-paper-source:0;}
    div.Section1
    {page:SecThe cross is offensive to the
    unimaginative mind of pragmatism. Pragmatism sees the crossas a passive
    surrender. (Though it is anything but that!) Pragmatism believes the only way
    to change the world is to beat down the bad guys—either with ballots or
    bullets. But without even raising the thorny issue of who are the bad guys in
    the ever-escalating world of revenge, the philosophy of “beat down the bad
    guys” displays an appalling lack of imagination. But pragmatism requires little
    imagination, it only needs the will to power. Or pragmatism will trot out the
    oft quoted axiom from Edmund Burke: “All that is necessary for the triumph of
    evil is for good men to do nothing.” Which is true enough, provided we don’t
    misapply what it means to “do nothing.” I was once given Burke’s maxim as a
    counterargument after preaching on the Sermon on the Mount. As if living the
    Sermon on the Mount is “doing nothing.” Or worse yet, as if a Christian can
    call upon Edmund Burke to refute Jesus Christ!

    And why would we do this? Why would we
    sacrifice the beauty of the cross for something everyone knows is a far cry
    from beautiful? Why this obsession with conventional power? I think the answer is
    that we have a carnal obsession with outcomes. It’s the ugly specter of
    pragmatism. We want to see a clear and obvious way that our actions are going
    to result in the desired outcome. We want to do good, achieve good, bring about
    good, vote in good, legislate good, formulate good, enforce good. So we choose
    the means that appear most logical in achieving this outcome. But remember,
    Satan never tempted Jesus with evil, Satan tempted Jesus with good. Satan
    enticed Jesus to go ahead and do good and to bring it about by the most direct
    way possible. The temptation was to imitate the means and methods of the
    pharaohs and Caesars. Satan tempted Jesus to usher in a righteous world by a
    bloody sword. War is impatience.
    Obsession with outcomes and demanding to see a quick and logical way in which
    present action will bring about desired good is the way of Caesar, but it’s not
    the way of the cross. Obsession with outcomes is, among other things, an
    abandonment of faith.
    Christians all believe that Jesus achieved salvation through
    what he did on the cross. But on Good Friday how could anyone have seen a “logic” in Jesus’
    crucifixion? If Jesus’ intent was to save the world from the dominion of evil
    how could submitting to an unjust execution at the hands of an oppressive regime
    accomplish anything like that? It’s absurd! Salvation is ironic because there
    is nothing logical or practical or obvious about the cross. Fighting is
    practical. Fighting is logical. Fighting has a long history of (at least
    temporarily) achieving desired ends. Peter was ready to fight, and presumably
    so were many others who followed Jesus from Galilee. But Jesus told Peter to
    put up his sword. There would be no bloody revolution. No violent resistance.
    Not even an angry protest.  Instead
    Jesus went to the cross, forgave his enemies and simply died. In rejecting the way
    of Caesar Christ showed that the world was a text that could be read
    differently: according to the grammar, not of power, but love.

    In
    going to the cross Jesus was not being practical, he was being faithful. Jesus
    didn’t take a pragmatic approach to the problem of evil, Jesus took an
    aesthetic approach to the problem of evil. Jesus chose to absorb the ugliness
    of evil and turn it into something beautiful. The beauty of forgiveness.  Jesus bore the sin of the world by it
    being “sinned into” him with wounds. Jesus bore the sin of the world without a
    word of recrimination, but only a prayer of forgiveness. He bore the sin of the
    world all the way down to death.
    So that the Apostle Peter says, “By his wounds you have been healed.” This is the beauty of the cruciform. This is beauty being derived
    from pain, or as Bob Dylan says, “Behind every beautiful thing there’s been
    some kind of pain.”

    In
    order to do a beautiful thing, Jesus had to abandon outcomes. He had to entrust
    the outcome to his Father.  On Good
    Friday Jesus abandoned outcomes, embraced the cross and died. Jesus abandoned
    outcomes in order to be faithful and trust his Father. As we confess in the
    Apostles’ Creed, “He was crucified, died and was buried. He descended to the
    dead.” A lost cause. But then came Easter! The cornerstone of Christian faith
    is that on Easter Sunday God vindicated his Son by raising him from the dead.
    But until Easter Sunday no one thought of death, burial and resurrection as a
    logical means of achieving good. Even today most people cannot accept the
    “formula” of the cruciform as a viable means of bringing about good. We want
    something that makes more sense. Something quicker. Something practical. And
    what we get are the same old ugly ways of Pharaoh and Caesar. Our embrace of
    the practical and ugly over the faithful and beautiful exposes our unbelief. We
    are orthodox enough to confess that Jesus saves the world through his cross,
    but we don’t want to imitate it. So we choose the ugly forms of coercion over
    the beauty of the cruciform.

  • http://brianzahnd.com Brian Zahnd

    The cruciform is offensive to the unimaginative mind of pragmatism. Pragmatism sees the cross as a passive surrender. (Though it is anything but that!) Pragmatism believes the only way to change the world is to beat down the bad guys—either with ballots or bullets. But without even raising the thorny issue of who are the bad guys in the ever-escalating world of revenge, the philosophy of “beat down the bad guys” displays an appalling lack of imagination. Pragmatism requires little imagination, it only needs the will to power. Or pragmatism will trot out the oft quoted axiom from Edmund Burke: “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Which is true enough, provided we don’t misapply what it means to “do nothing.” I was once given Burke’s maxim as counterargument after preaching on the Sermon on the Mount. As if living the Sermon on the Mount is “doing nothing.” Or worse yet, as if a Christian can call upon Edmund Burke to refute Jesus Christ!

    Why would we do this? Why would we sacrifice the beauty of the cross for something everyone knows is a far cry from beautiful? Why this obsession with violent power? I think the answer is that we have a carnal obsession with outcomes. It’s the ugly specter of pragmatism. We want to see a clear and obvious way that our actions are going to result in the desired outcome. We want to do good, achieve good, bring about good, vote in good, legislate good, formulate good, enforce good. So we choose the means that appear most logical in achieving this outcome. But remember, Satan never tempted Jesus with evil, Satan tempted Jesus with good. Satan enticed Jesus to go ahead and do good and to bring it about by the most direct way possible. The temptation was to imitate the means and methods of the pharaohs and Caesars. Satan tempted Jesus to usher in a righteous world by a bloody sword. War is impatience. Obsession with outcomes and demanding to see a quick and logical way in which present action will bring about desired good is the way of Caesar, but it’s not the way of the cruciform. Obsession with outcomes is, among other things, an abandonment of faith.

    Christians all believe that Jesus achieved salvation through what he did on the cross. But on Good Friday how could anyone have seen a “logic” in Jesus’ crucifixion? If Jesus’ intent was to save the world from the dominion of evil, how could submitting to an unjust execution at the hands of an oppressive regime accomplish anything like that? It’s absurd! Salvation is ironic because there is nothing logical or practical or obvious about the cross. Fighting is practical. Fighting is logical. Fighting has a long history of (at least temporarily) achieving desired ends. Peter was ready to fight, and presumably so were many others who followed Jesus from Galilee. But Jesus told Peter to put up his sword. There would be no bloody revolution. No violent resistance. Not even an angry protest. Instead Jesus went to the cross, forgave his enemies and simply died. In rejecting the way of Caesar Christ showed that the world was a text that could be read differently: according to the grammar, not of power, but love.

    Did evil triumph because this good man did nothing? It certainly seemed so. But don’t forget the dying prayer of Jesus. “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.” I think we can understand Jesus’ prayer as something like this: “Father, I have obeyed you, I have shown the world your ways, but the world has rejected me and your ways. I forgive them, but I am dying. So now I entrust everything to you.” This is the way of the cruciform. It is the way of faith.

    In going to the cross Jesus was not being practical, he was being faithful. Jesus didn’t take a pragmatic approach to the problem of evil, Jesus took an aesthetic approach to the problem of evil. Jesus chose to absorb the ugliness of evil and turn it into something beautiful. The beauty of forgiveness. Jesus bore the sin of the world by it being “sinned into” him with wounds. Jesus bore the sin of the world without a word of recrimination, but only a prayer of forgiveness. He bore the sin of the world all the way down to death. So that the Apostle Peter says, “By his wounds you have been healed.” This is the beauty of the cruciform. This is beauty being derived from pain, or as Bob Dylan says, “Behind every beautiful thing there’s been some kind of pain.”

    In order to do a beautiful thing, Jesus had to abandon outcomes. He had to entrust the outcome to his Father. On Good Friday Jesus abandoned outcomes, embraced the cross and died. Jesus abandoned outcomes in order to be faithful and trust his Father. As we confess in the Apostles’ Creed, “He was crucified, died and was buried. He descended to the dead.” A lost cause. But then came Easter! The cornerstone of Christian faith is that on Easter Sunday God vindicated his Son by raising him from the dead. But until Easter Sunday no one thought of death, burial and resurrection as a logical means of achieving good. Even today most people cannot accept the “formula” of the cruciform as a viable means of bringing about good. We want something that makes more sense. Something quicker. Something practical. And what we get are the same old ugly ways of Pharaoh and Caesar. Our embrace of the practical and ugly over the faithful and beautiful exposes our unbelief. We are orthodox enough to confess that Jesus saves the world through his cross, but we don’t want to imitate it. So we choose the ugly forms of coercion over the beauty of the cruciform.

    But things are beginning to change.

    What I setting forth here is not pacifism, but Christianity. It’s not romantic, but it is beautiful.

  • BMoon

    Briefly……The problem with your posit is that it presents a false dichotomy or false dilemma – either unforgiveness or pacifism. It assumes the false premise that  a soldier or policeman, or a Christian who advocates the use of force against evil,  somehow does not forgive the criminal before him that he must subdue with force, when his job and the issue we are dealing with has NOTHING to do with forgiveness of sins. It has to do with loving your neighbor, defending the weak, protecting the defenseless, and holding back evil through the institution of government and law. indeed, I do not think God has no concern for outcome anymore than you would watch your family getting abused if you had the means to stop the physical abuse. 

    “The Bible is clear here: I am to love my neighbor as myself, in the
    manner needed, in a practical way, in the midst of the fallen world, at
    my particular point of history. This is why I am not a pacifist.
    Pacifism in this poor world in which we live — this lost world –
    means that we desert the people who need our greatest help.” – Francis Schaeffer, 1984

  • http://brianzahnd.com Brian Zahnd

    I’m not a pacifist either. I reject the label.
    You tag me with that label so you can dismiss me (as Kierkegaard observed)–
    But I reject it.
    I’m a Christian. I accept that label.

    From that starting point I allow Christ to inform me on the subject of violence.

    Read chapter 6 of Unconditional? (Forgiveness and Justice)

    Here’s my question: You’ve told me what Matthew 5:38-48 does NOT mean and where it does NOT apply. But Jesus IS saying something. So tell me, when DO we turn the other cheek and when DO we resist not the one who is evil?

    You have WAY oversimplified war.

    A practical question by way of example: Which side was loving their neighbor by the use of force in the Boer War? Or WWI for that matter!

    And when atomic bombs were dropped on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (killing over 100,000 civilian men, women and children!) was that “defending the weak, protecting the defenseless, and holding back evil through the institution of government and law”?  — Or was that killing THEIR weak and defenseless for the sake of OUR weak and defenselessness?…and telling ourselves that Jesus was cheering us on! (And don’t forget that General Eisenhower was against the bombings and thought it was [quote] “completely unnecessary to hit them with that awful thing.”)

    Yes, I support a police function.

    But to extrapolate police function into full-on endorsement of war is naive and absurd and the bane of the human race.

    I know this much, if one wants to justify the use of violence for the sake of war….they always find a way to do it. Always.

  • BMoon

    Brian, I do not think it is helpful to try to explain one false dilemma by introducing a slew of new ones. Saying you are either a Christian or a  non-pacifist is not helpful. That is engaging in a bit of deck-stacking and question-begging, to say the least. We both equally believe our positions are Christianity so can we dispense with such contrived either/ors? Yoder called his position “pacifism” I believe. You say yours is based on Yoder, so, what’s wrong with simply using the name which best describes your position?

    The other false dilemma you seem to be presenting is to be a non-pacifist you have to accept the justifications of every war ever fought? Is that really fair? Is that helpful to understand the issues and for dialogue? (Trust me, I am fully aware of the Mex-Am. War having lived in Mexico 23 years. I used to live one block away from the San Patricio Batallion’s monument where they were hung for joining the Mexican Army due to their sense of the injustice of the American invasion.)

    So while you seemed intent on cherry-picking the very worst wars imaginable to strengthen your point (in logic, that is called the Straw Man Fallacy), you seemed to gently tiptoe around WW2, the Civil War, the American Revolution, to name some, and perhaps with good reason. I believe there are cases of good guys vs. bad guys…and no it is not based upon watching “The Three Musketeers” as a kid. While yes most wars are stupid and immoral, there are cases where war is justified in self-defense, as well as in stopping abuse and violence upon another population by an illegal, unjust government. 

    “”Pacifism is objectively pro-fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side, you automatically help out that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, ‘he that is not with me is against me’ – George Orwell, writing of Britain’s pacifists in 1942″The pacifist thinks that the alternative to war is peace; it is not. Sometimes the alternative is oppression. Sometimes certain God-given rights and liberties can be preserved only by resistance to that which would destroy them. And to defend certain basic God-given rights and liberties is not immoral but righteous.” –Fulton John Sheen (1895-1979) _A Declaration Of Dependance_ [1941]

  • Jesus

    You have heard it said, “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” But I say, do not resist the evildoer. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. You have heard it said, “love your neighbor and hate your enemy.” But I say, love your enemies and pray for those who attack you, so that you may be like your Father in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. Be merciful like your Father is merciful.

  • janitor

    Jesus,  :)

    Thank You!

    Our human nature cannot help but observe and conclude through our own self interest and self centredness.

    The only certain truth to be found on this side of life, is to see through You… Your heart.. Your Word.. Your actions…

    Your thoughts and ways are infinitely higher than ours..  to follow Your way of Love,  is the one thing i am certain of.

    Thank You, again  (to say the very least.)

  • http://brianzahnd.com Brian Zahnd

    Bruce,

    I simply do not believe Jesus would endorse any of those wars. Not at all. Perish the thought! The Kingdom of God is the beautiful (and radical!) alternative to the long bloody history of humanity, and not a mere moral tweak of the city of Cain.

    I mentioned the wars I did simply because they highlight the issue of ambiguity (or they just happened to be the ones I thought of in the moment).

    And yes, WWII, presents a unique challenge.* But in the end I agree with Karl Barth (the primary architect of the Barmen Declaration) who said, “Hitler is not the ultimate exception to the Sermon on the Mount, but the ultimate test case.”

    (* All modern objections to Jesus’ teaching on nonviolence essentially take two forms: Hitler and home invasion.)

    I find the quotes from George Orwell and Fulton Sheen entirely at odds with what Jesus taught.

    I understand Just War Theory; but I don’t believe it is consistent with the teachings of Christ.

    (Actually, your position, as I understand it, is not consistent with Augustinian Just War Theory; it seems rather to be a kind of Christian militarism.)

    I don’t expect you to agree with me, and, no doubt, we have reached an impasse. I’m sure you hold to your position sincerely. As I do to mine. So I’ll leave it at that.

    I wish you well.

    BZ

  • http://www.facebook.com/jeremiah.boldt Jeremiah Boldt

    I am curious what your opinion is on Luke 22:36 (I am not trying to bate an argument, I am just curious what your thoughts are)

  • http://www.facebook.com/jeremiah.boldt Jeremiah Boldt

    I am curious what your opinion is on Luke 22:36 (I am not trying to bate an argument, I am just curious what your thoughts are)

  • http://brianzahnd.com Brian Zahnd

    Jeremiah,

    A simple and insufficient reply:

    I regard it as Christ acknowledging the necessity of some sort of police function for the maintenance of a civil society.

    Of course, in the end Christ takes the sword away from Peter.

    Peter had been given the keys, and he was not to wield the sword.

    The state will wield the sword in a police function (hopefully it will be done justly and mercifully).

    But the church is bequeathed, not the sword, but the keys (forgiveness).

    Woe unto the church when it sets aside the keys to reach for the sword.

    BZ