There's a way in which I was also surprised, in part because I kind of expected something like

what happened with the kidnapping of the president of Venezuela to be framed with the moral high

ground, like, here's why it is good and noble and right for this to happen

instead. Or maybe in addition to the moral high ground, it's like "We want the oil." I was surprised

by that too. So again, if servant means like following God's instruction, then we'd be like, hey,

Nebuchadnezzar says, I'll say yes, Lord, yes to your will and to your way, as our chorus goes. Then God

would say, Nebuchadnezzar, go wipe everybody out. But is it that or is it

God using this violence for judgment without

justifying the violence?

Before we begin today's episode, a little more context. We recorded this episode just before the

United States and Israel launched their current war against Iran. And in the last few weeks, we

have seen vividly the destruction that comes when earthly nations vie for power and domination. And

it makes the conversation in this episode all the more timely as we witness the chaos and

destruction that comes from war, we need to pray for God's mercy and for the light of Jesus to

spread around the world. So with that context, onto today's episode. So Jaran,

welcome back to the podcast. Jaran, you helped start Anabaptist Perspectives a number of

years ago and are very involved with things on the back end, responding to a lot of audience

feedback. And Marlin, you're the current director of Anabaptist perspectives, and one of the things

we like to do occasionally is an episode where it's the team here like that, that run Anabaptist

perspectives, engaging with different things that we're seeing, uh, especially in current events. So

that's something we're going to be talking about today. And also some of the things we hear from

our audience and so forth. So right now is kind of a wild time to observe

what's going on in the world. Just feels like a lot of confusion and the unexpected seems to be

happening. Uh, we want to engage with some of that and process. How do we reflect on these things,

respond to them in an appropriate manner? As Anabaptists, as, uh, within the framework of the two

kingdom concept and so forth. So, so I'll just use an example to kick us off and then we'll you guys

can take it from there. And that is Venezuela, January, uh, US military forces and the

president of America, um, essentially kidnap or whatever you want to call the president of

Venezuela on various charges and crimes. And I remember waking up to that just being like, whoa,

okay, that that just happened. That was a real surprise. And that's really in the air right now.

As we record this, it can be a little hard to know how do we reflect on something like that? It's

kind of unusual. I don't recall that happening recently or anything. It's the unexpected. And how

do we engage with that when the kingdoms of this world do these kinds of things as Christians,

what's the appropriate response? So I'd like to hear you all engage with that instance in

particular. But if you want to broaden it out to other principles as well. Um, so yeah, let's open it

up. That one hit me hard. Um, personally, and I think that

was because I had kind of followed the news on Ukraine and the Russian invasion of Ukraine

and so on, and. You know, kind of scandalized, like,

I think a lot of Americans are by just the, you know, Russia's kind of naked assertion of power,

like, we want this, it should be ours. We're going to get it from Ukraine. Um, but then to hear that

very same rhetoric from from the US and out loud like, okay,

you know, we want the oil. Like, lots of people have suspected that in lots of American dealings, right?

That oil money is really driving foreign affairs. Um, in this case, you have a president just

making posts like that on social media. It's the kind of naked assertion, well, we're

Americans, we're the big nation around. So yeah, we can go in and and do that and yes, alleging

corruption and so on, which I have every reason to think credible that there is corruption in the

government there. But okay, that's exactly what Russia said about Ukraine, right? This government

is so corrupt, we need to liberate people. So that's where it hit me, kind of viscerally, because

it's like the US very openly doing these things

that, you know, patriotic Americans would like to think the US doesn't do.

And even I as a US resident, you know, you hear the propaganda or whatever.

But anyhow, I was venting about that to Jaran one time and he was surprised that I was surprised. So

Jaran, why were you surprised that I was surprised. There's a way in which I was also surprised, in

part because I kind of expected something like what happened with the kidnapping of the president

Venezuela to be framed with the moral high ground, like, here's why it is good and

noble and right for this to happen instead. Or

maybe in addition to the moral high ground, it's like we want the oil. I was surprised by that too.

So I think surprise at what happened made sense to me. I think in the conversation you

and I had, we were talking about ways that Romans 13 and the role of the state

is understood by people such as Anabaptists who talk about this thing called the two kingdom

concept. And I don't always know what is meant by the two kingdom

concept. And I think the framing that I was offering to you in the conversation, as my

understanding of what is often meant by it, is different from what you understand the proper

framing to be. So the gist of what I understand to be in the air for how we understand this two

Kingdom concept thing, is that Romans 12 gives instructions for how the church ought to live,

among other ways, with peace and forgiveness. In contrast to Romans 12 and the

church, we have Romans 13, and the state where God gives us a different set of instructions for how

the state ought to operate. A piece of those instructions is use of the sword, which is not

borne in vain. So if the United States takes the sword to..

The United States is doing what we would expect from a

state to do. The state has the sword. The state takes the

sword to Venezuela. We have the state operating in congruence with what Romans 13 outlines for the

state, which is different from what the state different from what. Romans 12 instructs for the

church. So suppose that the Venezuelan forces would have

successfully repelled this kidnapping and..

Taken taking these invading American soldiers captive and executed them.

So now, which government was God's servant following instructions. This seems like a

fair question. I've never thought of that before. That is a great point. I don't know. But

where are you going with that? Like what's what? What's the. Because like. Like especially foreign

affairs when it comes to the nations of this world get really dicey because it's like, how do.

You. Like, parse all that out? Which is what I mean. That's the reason we wanted to do this podcast,

because I think people have lots of like, confusion really, you know, and different opinions

and whatever. But like, how do we walk this out? I mean, we're supposed to be in the world, but not of

it, you know, and, and all of these things. I mean, do we just put our heads in the sand and ignore all

this stuff that happens? Which part of me kind of wants to do that? Haha, yeah, I don't even know.

Where would you like to go with that though? You made it quite an interesting point. I'd like to go

a lot of places, but. Mhm. So Romans 13 I want to start with the basics. I don't think it's

addressed to instructions to government. It's still addressed to the church. It says this is why

you should listen to the government and pay taxes Because it's God's servant to execute wrath on

evildoers and to praise those who are doing good. And so we

got multiple governments. So if you have one government over here, you know, executing wrath

against murderers, and you have another government over here executing wrath against murderers,

and then no one government says, well, I'm going to send some soldiers over there because I think I

should be the one taking care of the murderers over there and not you. Like, what does Romans 13

say about that? Like, how do you get from well, we should listen to the government because they

throw murderers in jail and keep them from killing too many more people too. Well, it's really

good when one government goes out and tries to take over another government so that they can

deal with the murderers there instead of the government that was there, like, how do you get

there from Romans 13? But isn't that what the Roman Empire would have done. And isn't that the

empire that Paul would have been writing about when he says that? Just curious. Yes. Roman Empire

took over, put puppet kingdoms in. Acted a lot like the US. Likes to work. Likes to

act, you know, including in places like Venezuela. The US likes to put governments in that are

sensitive to it. So that's a geopolitical reality. But if you're reading Romans

13 is like instruction manual for governments, like how are you going to get there? Hmm.

I think these are fair questions. And so I'm curious, the perspective that you're presenting

here, Marlon, which is not really sympathetic to the notion that Romans 13 is authorization

for international war. How do you think that this perspective compares to what we talk about is the

two kingdom concept that is commonly spoken of in Anabaptist circles. Where Anabaptists used the two

kingdom concept. So I think historically, Anabaptists used the two kingdom

concept to say there's the Kingdom of God and the church, and that's what we're living in, and

there's the kingdom of this world, which is Satan. And then.

The governments of the world, whatever they are, they have their place inside this kingdom of

Satan, like that kingdom. Hmm. And I think that is different than

I think now. Anabaptists often talk about the two kingdoms in a way that it's like

church does, this state does this, and there's these different states. So the different

states, different nation states do different things. Um, but they're certainly present in

Anabaptism in a bigger sense that no, like the two kingdoms or the Kingdom of God. The kingdom of

Satan. Warfare. All this. The stuff. All the violence of the state. Well, ignore traffic lights

and, you know, road design and things like that. Um, for now, which, you know,

somebody has to set up traffic patterns at work when you have a lot of cars. We'll grant that. Um,

but the the violence, the sword. Um, I think we said, well, that's the kingdom of Satan

as opposed to, well, you know, church as an institution, government as an institution. But I

don't feel like that is. I don't feel like that's maintained as well in

contemporary Anabaptism or circles. Mhm. You know, like I mean we can use a myriad of

examples but like another one that's immediately current, which it'll be interesting to see where

the story is when we actually release this. But perhaps the largest or one of the largest buildup

of American armed forces off the coast of Iran, you know, and and really making a statement of, hey,

do what we like or like, there's going to be serious trouble here. Um, the threat of the sword

is very obvious and apparent right now on the geopolitical stage in the Middle East and in

other parts of the Middle East. But that's the one that came to mind as I was prepping for this to

make sure I'm tracking with you. You're you're saying, like we see the the empires of this world

the beasts to use language from Daniel seven or, you know, Revelation. Uh, that's what the beasts of

this world will do is those kinds of things exert power, overthrow a government maybe that they

don't like, invade somewhere, war, etc., etc.. Is that essentially what you were laying

out? I'm trying to fit it with maybe another case besides Venezuela, so we can kind of triangulate

how to think about this. And then, of course, Jaran, I'd like to hear you. What you think too, but go

ahead, Marlin. Yeah, I think so. I mean, we will talk about empires a little

bit. And and. Empires in God's plan or how God's people look at them? Uh,

but specifically, I'm just trying to to poke a little hole in that thing that says, well, Romans

13 is instructions for how the state should operate. Mhm. Number one, time a while a number of

years ago, before there was an Anabaptist Perspectives, I was talking to Jaran and I think a

couple of other people associated with Anabaptist perspectives and pressing them on this a little

bit. And it's like, well, Romans 13 says, you know, the the

sword, you know, is a servant of God, the one who the authorities who carry the sword or servants

of God don't want to be God's servants. And somebody said, well, you know, let's go be

God's ministers. Somebody's like, well, not ministers of wrath..

I never thought of that either. So I thought that was a good answer.

Reflections. Jaran, what are you seeing here? I want to press you a little bit on the exegesis of some

verses that I think probably often come to mind for us when we talk about these things. Romans 13:3

for rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one

who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant

for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain, for he is a

servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Are you

disagreeing that the work of the state

in sword bearing is not authorized by God? So what do you mean by

authorized? Well, I don't I don't know what I mean by authorized. um, whatever's going on

with what Paul says about the rulers being a servant of God, including the

sword bearing. Whatever that means. So maybe, maybe the author definition of authorization is, is

exactly the question. Right? I mean, so Jesus tells Pilate, like, you wouldn't have authority over me

if you didn't have it from God, didn't come from God, and so on. Right. Like God is over you.

Um, but and I'm talking here from within a perspective of nonresistance. So we where we have

said the Christian isn't doing it and we can talk about that later. But so like what seems to happen

in our Mennonite Amish circles is we're like, well, we shouldn't do this,

but we recognize that God's using it, which I agree, it's a servant of God, I agree. But

then it seems to be like, well, this is the servant of God, in the sense that somebody could go to God

and get their instructions from God that say, execute wrath. So my

question is like, if this is supposed to be like directions that the government is supposed to

follow, like how are they supposed to get the memo? Because so first of all, if this is a

person who wants to obey God, right, then they're going to follow Jesus. And since we're not

resisting, we think, well, if they're following Jesus, they're going to know that they're not

supposed to be carrying out wrath. They're supposed to leave it to God. So it can't be

somebody who's following Jesus who comes to the Bible to get this instruction. So are we supposed

to assume that somebody that's not a Christian is like coming to the Bible to look what the

government is supposed to do? Like, that's the thing I get confused about, like, well, the Bible

says what the government's supposed to do. Well, okay. But if they listen to the Bible, then they're

not going to be part of the government. And so like, how is these instructions supposed to get

conveyed? Like I don't. That's what I can't make sense of. In our kind of Mennonite. Things like.

Well, we expect these people to, you know, read the Bible and not find out that they're supposed to

be non resistant like us Mennonites, but to find out that their job is to be

wrath agents. And it's like we think, well, okay, if a politician comes to God,,

he's not going to become nonresistant. He's going to hear God say, now you what I want for you is go

out and carry out wrath. Right? But if we're nonresistant in a classical

Mennonite sense, like we can't believe that that's what God would say to anybody that sincerely goes

to God and asks them what to do and gets direction from Scripture. So that's where I get

confused with how people talk about this. Hmm. So

the servant language is probably part of it, because that's how we normally think of servants,

right? A servant goes to the master and gets explicit instruction and carries it out. So when

we hear, well, the government is God's servant, it does bring that picture up. So I'll grant this

right. When you hear the government as God's servant, it brings that picture up of, okay, well,

here's somebody that's taking orders from God. Um, I'll give away what I think, and then

I'll go to the Old Testament and steal the Bible back from you to to illustrate it in classic

Mennonite fashion. Mennonites keep bringing these, these verses up. Um, I think it's a servant when it

says that they're God's servants, it's asserting that God is using them, not that they are taking

instructions from God the way he wants. Um, so, Jeremiah, a

very long book, and Jeremiah the prophet had a job of

trying to persuade God's people and the kingdom of Judah that they shouldn't be resisting the

King of Babylon. So there. Okay, there. We do have some international relations, right? We have the

king of Babylon coming in and taking over stuff, and Jeremiah is trying to persuade them. He does

talk about Nebuchadnezzar being God's servant. I'm going to read a section here

from Jeremiah 27. God tells Jeremiah to go and talk to

the King of Edom, the King of Moab, the King of Ammon, the King of Tyre, the king of Sidon. He'll

send ambassadors back there from Jerusalem. So here he's talking about what Nebuchadnezzar is

doing to- gonna do to all these kingdoms. And he other places. You know, Jeremiah is applying this

to Israel. Just he says, submit yourselves to Nebuchadnezzar. Thus says the Lord of hosts, the

God of Israel. It is I who by my great power and my outstretched arm have made the earth with the

men and animals that are on the earth, and I give it to whomever it seems right to me. Now I have

given all these lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon my servant. And

I have given him also the beasts of the field to serve him. All the nations shall serve him, and his

son and his grandson until the time of his own land comes. Then many nations and great kings

shall make him their slave. But if any nation or kingdom will not serve this Nebuchadnezzar king

of Babylon, and put his neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon, I will punish that nation with

the sword. Famine. Pestilence, declares the Lord. So basically telling everybody, Submit to

Nebuchadnezzar. I'm. I control the whole world. I'm giving everything to him. So

he's my servant. So again, if servant means like following God's instruction, then we'd be like, hey,

Nebuchadnezzar. Nebuchadnezzar says, I'll say, yes, Lord, yes to your will and to your way, as our

chorus goes. Then God would say, Nebuchadnezzar, go wipe everybody out. But is it that.

Or is it? God using this violence

for judgment without justifying the violence? And there's a little sneak

preview. Even in what I read, there's the little thing says until his own time comes and other

nations will make him slave. And then we get nearer to the end of this large

book of Jeremiah. Back in the chapter, you know,50 51 and you've got whole oracles against

Babylon, and it's talking about how another kingdom is going to come.

Another empire is going to come take care of Babylon. And there's a comment 51 verse

24, I will repay Babylon and all the inhabitants of Chaldea before your very eyes. For all the evil

that they have done in Zion, declares the Lord. Behold, I am against you, O destroying mountain,

declares the Lord, which destroys the whole earth, and keeps going and going and going

on that kind of thing. Um, and this is something our people. I don't have the direct

quotes, but I know that I have seen Mennonite thinkers reference this multiple times with

regard to Romans 13, just like yes, servant Nebuchadnezzar was a servant. God

even instructed his people like, don't resist this servant. He's carrying out judgment, so

go along to Babylon. But that doesn't keep the prophet from saying

later, um, actually, these things have happened to Babylon. They're God's judgment for those very

things you did as God's servant. So in other words, just because the government does something and

it's God's servant doesn't mean that it's something how something good and like God

instructed him to do it. It might be something they're punished for. Jaran I'd like to hear you

respond to that in the context of what you've seen of the Mennonite response to these things

and how Romans 13 is thought about. And, yeah, reflect on on those points there and the

Marlins making. At one point, you said that you were confused by the perspective that I was

trying to represent, and I'm honestly confused too. But I'm trying trying to understand what

we mean and doing some reading to prepare for this episode, I was reading, um, some of the

news lines sections from recent issues of Sword and Trumpet and the January

issue. Um, has the Newsline section, which is always written by Hans Mast. And he

he gets into his understanding of these things. And I thought it was interesting because he puts

words to things that and I think he articulates it well. Some of the

perspectives that I've felt in the air in, in places I've been and observed these

conversations. So what I'll be reading from is from the January issue of Sword and Trumpet,

from the Newsline section, and also from a talk that he links to in the January

issue of a presentation he gave at Center Amish Mennonite Church, which I watched and found it to

be interesting. So I will I will read some from Hans's article

and give some comments along the way, but I would also encourage your audience to go read the

article for yourself. I don't want to misrepresent him or present it. I'm giving a comprehensive

overview of his perspective. So go read his article and, um, process it for yourself. But

he says, I've believed since childhood that Jesus calls his church to love enemies, turn the other

cheek and lay down the sword. Early Anabaptist said it plainly in the Schleitheim confession of,,

the sword is an ordering of God outside the perfection of Christ. In the perfection of Christ

only the ban without the death of the flesh. Menno Simons added, the regenerated do not go

to war nor fight. They are children of peace. I affirm that calling. At the same

I believe God intends church and state to play good cop bad cop roles. The state bears the

sword to administer, to administer his retributive justice, while a church offers mercy and

forgiveness to the repentant. So I think I hear him saying that God has intentions for the state,

and one of these intentions is to bear the sword to administer God's retributive justice. He

goes on to say, the church does not wield that sword, but we also dare not deny the God ordained

role of the magistrate and God himself to forcefully and fatally restrain and punish evil.

To do so opposes God, and his plan. When we try to impose the sermon on the Mount standards for

the church onto the government. It has the appearance of self-sacrificial mercy like Jesus

taught, but in reality it's an inversion of God's intended roles, and it's a misapplication of the

command to love our enemies. Romans 12 through 13 lays this whole dichotomy of roles very

succinctly and clearly. So again, trying to make some deductions in summaries of what he's saying.

The God ordained role of the state is to function forcefully and fatally, in a manner that does not

align with the sermon on the Mount. So in this article, he linked to a

talk that he gave at Center Amish Mennonite Church, um, called Reconciling Nonresistance with

God's Justice. He had a PowerPoint slide in that presentation where he lists

in bullet points some of his perspective. One government is divinely

appointed. Two government is supposed to use violence and death or the sword.

Three government should hold terror for evildoers. Four governments are agents of wrath to

bring punishment on evildoers. Five governments are God's servants carrying out his

plan. Six governments are supposed to protect good people. Seven

when we oppose God's plan for government, we oppose God. So again, this is my commentary on

what's being said here. But I think I see him saying that by affirming the role of the church

as something other than the role of the state. We should expect members of the church to respect

the violent operations of the state. It's not our business to participate in acts of violence.

Um, and Hans says a baptized disciple cannot participate in war or lethal force as an agent of

the state. However, it is our duty to respect the state and its agents for doing

it. Now, one thing that I wondered about is that Hans does not comment on. He doesn't give

a nuance of the different recipients of government orchestrated violence. And maybe this

is something you were getting at. So you were saying, Marlin, that it's a Romans 13 should maybe

be thought of as a narrow, narrowly applied to law enforcement. But Hans, I don't think makes

this distinction, which I think leaves out open the door the possibility for God ordained,

government orchestrated international war. Perhaps reading between the lines

In that talk, he says. Hans Mast says, I think in general, the Scriptural

warning tonight would be to be careful not to get in the way of truly guilty people getting

punishment, because you might be working against God's design. So in that statement, he is seeing

Romans 13 as explicitly regarding the government's relationship

to criminals. Anyways, it's an interesting talk, an interesting article.

Um, and I think, I think one that represents, well what I think I've heard in the air

about our understanding of, uh, the two kingdoms in Romans 12 and 13.

So first of all, there's no disagreement there on the. On the fundamental

issues we're looking at. The things I want to parse out are.

Are going to feel like, and I think in a lot of ways are more subtle questions. I think they're

worth spending a bit of time on. Christians reject violence. We're not going

to, you know, and Christians aren't going to be agents of the state. Hmm. No disagreement. Right.

There's a fundamental Anabaptist, um, agreement there. The

sword is an agent of God's retributive

justice. I think that's fair. I think the normal English translation of the Greek words there are

vengeance. Um. I think retributive justice and vengeance could fit together. Um, so that

not a point of disagreement. These things are ordered

of God outside the perfection of Christ. Schleitheim,

no disagreement there, you know. But as I listen to what you read and the thing that I keep thinking

about is. What's our definition there of ordained or

ordered? So ordered in what sense? And I made my case for thinking it's ordered of

God in the sense of God's providential control. God's using it. Um, but

not necessarily in the sense that God sanctions it. Um, so I actually want to read

a little bit from Paradise Lost, uh, by Milton. I've been reading through

this route with two of my high school students, and we're almost done with it and came across.

Interesting section. Milton is not an Anabaptist. I don't know that he embraces Nonresistance or that

kind of thing, but I found very interesting comments about his role, of his view

of how God uses governments to judge. And so he talks about how he talks

about tyrants. I don't know the answer. He thinks all governments are tyrants, but something about

tyrants using force to control other people. And he says, well, tyrants only rule because human

beings have we've surrendered listening to to reason and virtue in God. And we've been driven

about by our appetites and passions. And so God had to allow tyrants to

control us. So he says, therefore, since he since man permits

within himself unworthy powers to reign over free reason, God in judgment

just subjects him from without. To violent lords

who oft as undeservedly and thrall his outward freedom. So this is judgment.

But it is God's judgment to subject themselves to violent lords from outside. And of course, we read

about violent lords. Nebuchadnezzar was quite a violent lord. Um, and then along came the

violent Medes and Persians, and got rid of that empire a few generations later. And then

here's the kicker from Milton. Tyranny must be, though, to the tyrant,

thereby no excuse. So that is how I think about government violence. It is there for God's

judgment. Um. It is an essential part of God's ordering a fallen

world outside the perfection of Christ. But not to excuse

violence on the part of the government as somehow justified. That being said, the qualifier

that I do want to add to there right away is. We can appreciate

relative differences, so we can appreciate that it is better when governments punish evildoers

and commend people doing well than when governments do the opposite. Thoughts about

putting God's moral sanction on on the violence. Um, I think we

can we can recognize differences. We can recognize the difference between a, you know, well-ordered,

lawful, lawful in the sense of rule of law government that has protections against

abuse and tries not to punish the innocent. And all of that, we can say that, you know,

that's better than the alternative. And that, you know it is a bad thing when a nation that has

rule of law starts to disintegrate into

impromptu executions and sham trials and all of that. Um,

but I, I just I don't see the coherence of how you basically bless these

actions. But now I want to acknowledge another tension there, because one of the last lines.

In there was talking about, you know, getting in the way of, you know, God's

intention for government to execute vengeance. Um.

I'll say the sense in which I don't agree with that. And then I'll say the sense in which I do

agree with that, the sense in which I don't agree with that is I don't think we should ever be

scared to ask for mercy. And, you know, maybe especially when we have a personal

connection and maybe somebody has wronged us in particular

and we have forgiven them. I don't think there's any inconsistency with requesting

mercy from the government, saying, look, I don't want to. I'm not pressing charges. I would like to

see this person restored. I think that should be our heart to all people. But then the

sense in which I agree with not getting in the way is and Mennonites have tried. We

have Mennonites. Conservative Mennonites have tried to thread this needle for, I think at least

the last, you know, half century, probably more than that.

Um, to thread this needle because we. have wanted to differentiate ourselves and I think rightly so,

and say, well, no, we're not naive people who think we can run a pressure campaign and

get the government to embrace Christian values and so on. You know, we recognize

nonresistance only works if you're willing to die. Like, we don't have this naive view that, you know,

will make a peaceful society or something pressure the government. And we have tended to see

a lot of pressure on the government is actually engaging in the same form of violence. If we are

going to go out there, we're going to lobby, we're going to march, we're going to press this law

through, get this person in. We have tended to say, well, look, then you're actually

playing the same game. You say you're doing it for Jesus ethics, but you're playing the same

political power game at the end of the day and the same pragmatic approach.

So I do think that is one reason why Mennonites often talk about, well, we don't want. We're not

trying to say the government should have Christian ethics. And I think that does have a

root. Um, we're not naive about. Well, let's just press this through, and all of

a sudden there won't be evildoers and whatever, or there won't be violence. Like we know the violence

is going to exist. Uh, we know we won't always be protected. Our

nonresistance isn't kind of limited by, you know, does society work? It's a trust in God.

So, like, I recognize that thread. I guess what it feels like to me is.

You know, we try to to thread ourselves away to explain why we're not

naively optimistic peacenik folks who do political action to get the right government

policies. And then it becomes easy to

start, you know, blessing the violence of the state.

Or it feels like we slide from one to the other, sometimes in subtle ways.

And that's part of my concern with articulating this the way I have..

Well,I, I think that you are presenting something pretty compelling here, Marlin, and giving me a lot

to muse on. I'm curious if you could comment on what the what I quoted

from Hans's talk, where he says, I think the general warning Scriptural warning

tonight is to be careful not to get in the way of truly guilty people getting punished because you

might be working against God's design. So you you've talked about the need to define what do we

mean by ordained. He uses the word God's design here.

Um, can you comment on that framing? Yeah. So I've already wrestled a little bit with that thing of,

you know, what do you mean by getting in the way of God's design here and said, well, I think we

should ask for mercy and seek redemption. Um, but I'm not in favor of trying to use political

force to abolish punishments or something like that. Um, but yeah, but my other concern with that

language, uh, you know, it's God's design and where it's not tempered with, well, it's God using

imperfect things. Um, but where we start to think of if we start to think of it as this is

really what God wants. It's not just, you know, God making use of violence or in Milton's thing, you

know, tyranny must be. But that is no excuse to the tyrant where it starts, where we start to put a

really positive vibe on it, like, yeah, this is God's instruction. It's really good.

But we as Christians don't do it. That gets really hard to communicate.

Um, because, you know, a rising generation or people outside or somebody with just a

different framework of Biblical interpretation is like, wait, so you're really admitting, like, God

wants this done, but his people shouldn't participate in it? Like, that's that's just a

really tough sell. And that generates. That's a good point. That just generates a tension that. Mm

can be very hard to get around and can be very hard to explain to a energetic and zealous young

man for instance. Mhm. And that's why I think it is important to to dig into

there like. Okay, how is God using it? And to

use even those passages from the Old Testament? Because I don't

think that the prophet Jeremiah intended to say, look, Nebuchadnezzar was my servant, destroying all

these. Therefore you should enlist in Nebuchadnezzar's army, you know, and help him raid

your own people or whatever. Now he did say, make the most of it. When you're in Babylon, seek its

welfare, presumably not by helping it, you know, plunder other people, but by like, planting gardens

and growing things. Hmm. I guess that's my plea. Recognize the that governments play this certain

function. Well, one government will eventually get judged by another government and so on, and

we're in a order of redemption. So if we were to boil this

all down for listeners that are, you know, maybe they're watching this and they're saying,

okay, so what should we do? Like, like what do we do with this information now? How do we make this

practical? Like what is the lived experience look like? Like could you give us some pointers for

this going forward? Really, we started the whole episode with saying, how do we respond and engage

with these things happening in our world that are maybe confusing or. Well, I'm not sure. Is that good?

Is that bad? Is what what do we do? I think there's quite a lot of that within the church, and

I think probably within the audience listening to this. Give us some practical pieces. I mean, at the

end of the day, that's why we're pragmatic. You got a government. It's doing something. They want some

money. Okay. You can have it. They tell us not to do something that we'd maybe kind of like to do,

but they're not going to be happy if we do it. Okay. We recognize it. And God's using you.

Um, And, you know, international affairs. You know, I think, you know, for the sake

of the witness of the church and missions and so on, I think it is important to be pragmatic, like,

but never to wish for. Never to wish for evil like you talked about

the the build up with Iran. And maybe by the time this is released, it'll be a full fledged

military action for all we know. Well, we shouldn't be like cheerleading and hoping

something drastic happens. If this comes to our mind is on our mind, I think we should pray for

the most peaceful resolution possible, not knowing how that's going to be.

And then, you know, we think about this, that's going to shift doors for who can get into Iran

and who can't. Some people have a harder time getting in there, or they'll have an easier time

getting if you can use that for the gospel, that's great, but not if it's like, "hey,,

"the great righteous Americans have now, you know, brought the truth

to Iran" and so on. You gotta be really careful. I do think, hey, if you hold American passport and

does something, that means that you have access to the country and can use that in good

ways for the gospel, I think you should do that. But you do have to be very careful that you're

not becoming an agent or extension of, you know, an

imperial system that gets missionaries in trouble a lot. I mean, so for me, it's

pragmatic, like, well, we'll do whatever good we can, however we can, and we'll work around the

government's work around the governments or under the governments or whatever. Jaran, what do you

think? I agree with that. That's wisdom. I think also we should remember that Jesus is Lord and

Jesus King. When we talk about the governments of this world, um, we might be tempted to forget that

Jesus is King and he is Lord. So let's keep that in focus. Um. Well, thank you all

for sharing on this. This is a complicated topic in many ways, of trying to navigate living

in the world, but not being of it. To quote Jesus. Uh, it I don't necessarily think that's a very

easy thing sometimes, and it can be hard to know how we should relate to various governments,

empires and and so forth. Uh, y'all definitely gave us a lot to think about here. And there's a myriad

of current events that people can be thinking of that this all applies to. And so this is pretty

pertinent stuff. Um, but I like your point. You know, we should be praying for these things. Uh,

definitely. And what you ended with there during that. Yeah. Jesus is king. It's pretty easy to

forget sometimes in the 24/7 news cycle, and all the chaos seems like it's going on, um, to rest in

that. So thank you both for sharing. I appreciate it. Thanks for listening to this episode on how we

should think about current events and relating to the government and so forth, an episode which we

did a bit of a deep dive into the American military industrial complex we released recently

with Vince Lewis, and you can find that link in the description below. He was deeply part of that

world before he became an Anabaptist, and has since learned many lessons on what that means to

live a nonresistant stance in relation to the government and to the military. I think you'll

find that really interesting. Another thing, we mentioned the Schleitheim confession in this video, and

we did a whole documentary series on the early Anabaptist movement, and that's its own series, and

we'll be linking that channel in the description below. So make sure you're subscribed there as

well. Thank you so much. And we'll catch you in the next episode.