The nonviolent love of enemies was the revolutionary ethic first taught by Jesus 2000 years ago. "Love your enemies" was the most quoted phrase from the Fathers of the Church during Christianity's first 200 years. Christian pacifism was the norm, and the refusal to harm another child of God (for the human person was the temple of God here on earth) meant that Christians didn't join Rome's military. Christian martyrdom was regarded as a common statement of social responsibility. And professing Christianity was a capital crime for much of the first 3 centuries.

And yet, modern mainstream Christianity espouses an ethic of justified violence, contradicting the Agape teachings of Jesus. This seems surprising, but it is certain that Christian nonviolence was not heresy in the early church. If anything, it was dogma.

The first "just war theory" in the Roman empire was articulated by the pagan Cicero. St. Ambrose borrowed some of Cicero's concepts in his own writings on the matter. Later in the 4th century St. Augustine, who was Ambrose's student, wrote the first Christian Just War Theory. Ever since, Christian theologians have used Augustine's writings to defend and justify the full participation of Christians in war. Military homicide has become so passe in western cultures that Christians seem to have discarded the notion that killing for one's fatherland could be a sin. And the church is almost completely silent on the matter.

Throughout the 1700 years since the Emperor Constantine paved the way for Christianity's becoming the state religion, theologians have been modifying the original nonviolent teachings of Jesus, allowing the church to guiltlessly send their sons and daughters off to have their bodies and psyches destroyed in "kill or be killed" battlefields.

Many Protestant denominations have depended on the 16th century reformation leaders for much of their doctrine. Among those doctrines is the Augsburg Confession, a statement of faith written at the request of the Emperor Charles V, who had called a meeting of the princes and representatives of free cities in the empire to discuss and settle religious differences and so that a war against the Turks could be waged from a united front.

Philip Melancthon wrote the Augsburg Confession, Martin Luther blessed it, and seven princes and two free city representatives signed it. The 16th Article deals with Civil Government and, for many Christians, contains wording that rankles. It states:

"...that Christians may, without sin, serve as princes and judges, render decisions and pass sentence according to imperial and other existing laws, punish evildoers with the sword, engage in just wars, serve as soldiers, etc."

Later in the article, it says that "Christians are obliged to be subject to civil authority and obey its commands and laws in all that can be done without sin." The final sentence then makes a statement that confuses the interpretation of all of the above by saying: "But when commands of the civil authority cannot be obeyed without sin, we must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). So is the condemnation to death of fellow children of God (capital punishment) allowed for the Christian or not? Is the killing of the enemies of the state in wartime allowed for the Christian or not? Is Article 16 heresy or dogma?

But what is heresy? For that matter, what is the Peace Plan of God?

Heresy is defined in Webster's as: 1) A religious or doctrinal belief contrary to those of an established body or authority. 2) Any similar unorthodox or controversial belief. 3) Adherence to such beliefs. A heretic is 1) One who maintains a heresy, esp. a religious heresy. 2) One whose views are unorthodox and controversial.

The spirit of Article 16 is dogma for many Christians and has been for centuries. But it is a stumbling block for those believers that know that nonviolence was the foundation of original Christianity. And for much of the last 1000 years, the Christian pacifist stance of conscientious objection to war and killing has been punishable as treason or heresy.

That Jesus espoused nonviolence is no longer debatable. He was a pacifist; an active, nonviolent resister of evil and an aggressive, nonviolent, merciful, agapeistic lover of sinners. He commanded his followers to "love your enemies," "return good for evil," "turn the other cheek" and "love as I have loved you," meaning unconditionally, mercifully, forgivingly, sacrificially and nonviolently. There is no question. Jesus taught an ethic of unconditional love of friends and enemies, forbade vengeance if the Christian was violated and taught the disciple to be willing even to suffer rather that retaliate. Jesus taught to love even without receiving love in return, the essence of Agape. This if the Peace Plan of God, as revealed by Jesus. How could it be heresy?

My denomination's clergy, at the time of their ordination, are required to profess their allegiance to and place their signatures on the Book of Concord within which is the Augsburg Confession. At the moment of ordination, no mention is made about what Jesus said about violence and whether or not that should have any precedence over what was written on the subject by Philip Melancthon or Martin Luther -- or even St. Paul, for that matter.

Clearly, on the issue of Christian nonviolence vs. justified violence, Constantinian Christianity has a serious problem. But so does Sermon on the Mount Christianity, for the mutual exclusivity of the two choices requires the rejection of one and acceptance of the other. Does one view serve man, money, fear, and a deity of cruelty and the other the God of love? Which side is which seems clear. Only one can be heresy in the spirit of Christ.

Martin Luther is best known for his statement of rock solid faith, uttered when he was asked to recant of his heresy: "Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me." His courage, however, was not applied universally when he dealt with other matters later in his career. You see, Luther didn't understand Christian nonviolence. He was a product of 1200 years of Constantinian Christianity. And how could he be blamed? He was supported by the rich, privileged, pro-violence, propertied princes, whose wealth had been amassed on the suffering backs of generations of peasant-slaves. Luther had to ignore the "love your enemies" commandment in order to survive politically, which he did. He felt that the church had to ignore Christ's clear prohibitions against homicide and violence if it was going to survive economically, and it did. He was unequivocally anti-semitic later in his career and urged the burning of Jewish synagogues and the deprivation of their livelihoods. He urged the killing of peasants during the Peasant's War, who were rising up against their oppressor-princes -- Luther's benefactors -- because they couldn't stand the suffering anymore.

Luther was primarily a Constantinian Christian, not a Sermon on the Mount Christian. He knew both stances and may have had painful spiritual struggles over the matter. But none amongst us can throw the first stone. We would have been likewise blinded by the heat of the era.

But the dilemma for the modern church in dealing with violence is clearer, for it is obvious that violence only multiplies when used. The questions are: Will the church profess obedience to God or man; to the Sermon on the Mount or Article 16; to nonviolence or the just war tradition? If the former, then the church has to recant of its 1700 year old commitment to justified violence. It has to aggressively plan new strategies, including resuming the proclamation of the full, nonviolent Gospel of Jesus Christ in the seminary, pulpit, Sunday School and family.

So what about the title question? Depending on your point of view, the answer is BOTH. Christian Nonviolence is both heresy and Peace Plan. But is there a solution to the contradiction?

First of all, the church, by prayer, study and deliberation, must affirm as its primary agenda item the spirit of the Sermon on the Mount. Then the church must reconcile with the multitude of departed or silenced "heretics" -- especially the poor, the hungry, peacemakers and other outcasts. Then it must fashion a new nonviolent partnership with all the children of God, friend or enemy, churched or not, same denomination or not, same religion or not, same skin color or not, same nationality or not, same economic class or not, same gender or not, same sexual orientation or not -- heretic or not.

And then it must strive to unite, nurture and convert by example the entire community of friends, neighbors and enemies by refusing to cast the first stone, by turning enemies into friends, by doing good to those who persecute, by refusing eye-for-eye retaliation and by loving as Christ first loved -- aggressively, unconditionally, mercifully, forgivingly and nonviolently. And by living the Christ-like life minute-to-minute according to the Peace Plan, the church and the followers will find the elusive way to attain the Nonviolent Kingdom of the Lamb which is already within each of us.

And there will be no burning at the stake, for the heretics are us.

© Gary G. Kohls, MD, 1306 E.8th St., Duluth, MN 55805 Ph/fax (218) 728-9756, email: gkohls@cpinternet.com, Midwest Coordinator for Every Church A Peace Church (http://www.ecapc.org).