Episode 71 - Should I Stay or Should I Go

 In this episode of Teleios Talk, Wendell Martens opens with a provocative question rooted in personal experience: what does true Christian peacemaking look like when violence threatens those we love? From high-school memories of non-resistance to reflections on nationalism, Remembrance Day, and loyalty to the state, we dig into the deep tension between cultural expectations and the way of Jesus. Can a disciple of Christ both honour soldiers and still reject the sword? Or must we choose between defending ourselves and embracing sacrificial love?

We explore how nationalism shapes Christian identity, and how Remembrance Day, war history, and modern politics complicate the believer’s allegiance. Looking at Scripture, the early church, and Anabaptist heritage, we reflect on how followers of Jesus have historically responded to war, violence, and national duty. From Roman soldiers to WW2 conscientious objectors, from Calvin to Charlemagne — the question stands: does our loyalty belong to the nation, or to Christ and His Kingdom?

Together we wrestle with a difficult but necessary question — Should I stay or should I go? Should Christians defend their nation with force, or lay down the sword and walk the road of peace? We’ll examine “swords into plowshares,” Biblical shalom, pacifism across denominations, and the calling to be ambassadors of reconciliation. Join us as we challenge idols of power and rediscover the cross-shaped pattern of Christlike peace in a world of militarism and nationalism.

Check out our books and small group studies: 

"Eating with God", https://a.co/d/exc23Hz

“Perfect God, Impossible Me”, https://a.co/d/14mVNRC

and "Six Good Questions" https://a.co/d/ez96HkL

Here is our Children’s book “West Coulee Banks”

https://a.co/d/6eG3fVJ

Transcript

SHOULD I STAY OR SHOULD I GO

Introduction

When I was in grade 12, I had a teacher who had an absolutely insane view of what it meant to be a peacemaker. When asked if he would defend his wife being raped at the hands of thieves who had broken into his home, he responded, “Jesus calls us to peace, so I would pray for my enemies.” 

Being that the school I attended was based on the Anabaptist tradition, the idea of non-resistance and peacemaking was one which was instilled in us as students. But what of his comment? Would he truly stand by and watch his wife get raped, would he truly not attempt to defend her? Perhaps his response was crafted to get a response from us, and perhaps it was a response which reflected the values of the educational system he taught under, however, It struck us all as callous piety.

Conversely, I’ve heard stories of soldiers who served under Charlemagne who kept one hand out of the water at the time of their baptism so that they would be free to use it to kill whoever they needed to kill. The idea was that because their bodies were God’s through baptism, their fighting hand belonged to the king. 

John Calvin, in a letter to Farel wrote, “I am persuaded that it is not without the special will of God that, apart from any verdict of the judges, the criminals have endured protracted torment at the hands of the executioner.” His torture and murder of Christians was supported by his own misuse of Scripture to advance his agenda of theologically reinforced vengeance.  [Calvin's letter to Farel on 24 July (for more words directly from Calvin’s pen, read Selected Works of John Calvin)]

Today we’re looking at Violence, Nationalism, and Peacemaking. November 11th in Canada is known as Remembrance Day. As a country we are called to remember those who have died in war, serve those who soldiered, and contemplate peace, sacrifice and the cost of violence.

Over the last few months we have also seen a rise in nationalism as well. For Christians in Canada, this complicates how we think about loyalty to nation, to church, and to Christ. I think this is because of how we observe nationalism in the U.S. and how it has been tied to a federal Christian identity. Should we stay in the national fold and defend it (and by extension, defend ourselves), or should we go with the way of Jesus, which often means surrendering the sword, rejecting the embrace of state-violence, and orienting toward the Kingdom of God?

The purpose of today’s podcast is wrestling with the question “SHOULD I STAY OR SHOULD I GO”. This is not simply a political question, but a theological one. It’s about Lordship (Jesus vs. nation/state), discipleship, community, allegiance, and eschatology (what the Kingdom of God looks like).

The Pride of Nationalism

For many Christians in Canada, the influence of U.S. Christian nationalism seems to be gaining traction. This is interesting as Canadian nationalism has developed a distinctly anti American flavor to it.     Across the border, nationalism is essentially the idea of defending “freedom,” protecting “our way of life,” or defending against “enemies”. But does that flavor of nationalism pull Christians into a national-military identity rather than a Kingdom identity?

During Remembrance Day ceremonies and times of reflection, we remember many of those who served because of patriotism, national loyalty, and a sense of duty. We often forget the use of conscription, threat of incarceration, and social pressure which accompanied these events .I find myself asking, how does serving in a military force square with the cross of Christ, that is, with loving enemies, and non-resistance?

There is a difference between choosing soldiering, conscription, and being coerced — but for the Christian, the question remains, does the sword belongs to the state or to God. We know that many first century Christians served in the military. In the time of Jesus, the Roman Empire exercised military conscription, whether that was legionary service or local garrisons. Jews had varied responses to the Roman occupation, some cooperated, some resisted, and some accommodated.

The question of violence arises in the Gospels, when Peter cuts off the ear of the high-priest’s servant (John 18:10). The response we get from Jesus is His rebuke of the use of the sword (Matt 26:52). But is He saying Christians should not protect themselves, or is He saying that a violent response is not in keeping with the teaching the disciples had heard?

Interpreting the teachings of Christ through an Anabaptist lens, we see that the early church largely understood discipleship as non-violent. And when we read what the early Anabaptists believed in the 16th century, we find their understanding followed this tradition. For example the Schleitheim Confession (1527) affirmed that true Christians could not use the sword but must be prepared to endure suffering. (www.macsphere.mcmaster.ca/bitstream/11375/10262/1/fulltext.pdf)

This belief system raises the question of what “belonging” to the state means versus belonging to Christ. This also creates tension for modern Christians, as we consider what it means to be in service to our country. To look at it another way, how do we understand the metaphor “soldiers of Christ” (2 Tim 2:3)? Is this allusion to warfare the same as national warfare? Ephesians 6:12, says, “our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.” Paul seems to have a distinct understanding of what the disciples were taught. But let’s not forget that Jesus never rebuked, avoided, or discriminated against those believers who were working in service to Rome. 

And could we equate the Roman soldier to the nationalist of today? As it is portrayed, nationalism elevates the nation (or culture) as an ultimate allegiance; but discipleship elevates Christ as Lord over every earthly authority (Acts 5:29), and these two ideals are most certainly in contradiction.

Let’s look closer to the idea, and practice, of self-defense. Many would argue that defense of self, family, and nation is a moral obligation. The story in the introduction about my teacher frames a challenge; when our loved ones are under assault, is our obligation simply prayer, or action? The Christian ethic of self-defense is a contested one. Some Christian traditions hold to “just war,” others to “non-resistance,” no violence, no sword, no vengeance. (www.mharchives.ca/bibliography/pacifism/?utm_source=chatgpt.com)

It is low hanging fruit, but I think we could reflect on WW2 and the existential evil of the Nazi era. Some theologians, such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer, argued that self-defense of the innocent required force. For many Anabaptists in Germany this created a crisis. Scholars note that many German Mennonites abandoned pacifism under pressure of nationalism and conscription. (www.directionjournal.org/47/2/complicated-history-of-anabaptist.html)

So if a Christian cannot defend the innocent (daughter, wife, neighbor) from violent assault, is that consistent with the gospel? Conversely, if one uses the sword, does one partake in the logic of empire, not the logic of the cross? Historically, the church is called to suffer with Christ rather than wield the sword; this means that vengeance is not a Christian right. It also means the moral obligation of Christians is active love, forgiveness, and non-violent witness. But that is hard when evil is aggressive and destructive.

The rise of “Christian nationalism” in contemporary society is being countered by “Christian social liberalism”. One frames self-defense of a “Christian nation” as moral, even sacred, but the “Christian social liberalist” denies national, or corporate, morality by defining “self” as sacred; morality is shifted to center around individual rights. 

Drew Strait, in his article “The Bible and Christian Nationalism” says, “Christian nationalism … is often at odds with Biblical values like hospitality, peace and justice, and neighborly love.” (www.mennoniteusa.org/menno-snapshots/the-bible-and-christian-nationalism)

Canada has a more socialist national identity and therefore a different national narrative from the USA, however, the ideology of nationalism is contagious. We must ask ourselves; Is Christian nationalism defending Christ’s Kingdom or promoting our national identity?

In modern societies, the state secures order through police, military, intelligence, and bodyguards. The logic is: protect the innocent, enforce laws, respond to threats. For Christians, the state’s monopoly of violence is accepted — but the church’s witness is distinct. We do not primarily rely on the sword. Instead, we are taught to rely on the cross, reconciliation, forgiveness, and radical love. (www.directionjournal.org/43/2/toward-mennonite-brethren-peace-theology.html)

In light of this, we are faced with an ethical question. If, as a Christian, you spend money, hire bodyguards or personal security, build walls, or even raise a private army; do your actions parallel national militarization? And if so, are your actions in keeping with the lessons of the Sermon on the Mount? (Matt 5-7:) For example: love your enemies, turn the other cheek. Security also has a spiritual parallel. Christians are offered security in Christ, not in weapons. Philippians 4:7, says, “...the peace of God … will guard your hearts and your minds...”. The church’s “security” is eschatological, not primarily temporal.

Remembrance Day is about recognizing that many who served did so as part of national defense, security of the nation. But as Christian disciples, we must reflect – what does it mean to “secure” the Kingdom of God? What does our allegiance ask of us in a world of militarized security?

Let’s bring the topic of vengeance into this discussion. Is vengeance a human right? From a national perspective, perhaps yes — punish the criminal, defend the innocent. From the Christian perspective, however, vengeance belongs to God (Rom 12:19) and justice to the state (Rom 13:4). The Christian call is not to vengeance but reconciliation.

Going back to my high-school teacher; his automatic response was to pray for his enemies and avoid violence. That may be seen as weak in fleshly realism, but it points us toward a non-vengeful posture. The logic we understand at a national level leaves us feeling morally entitled to defend ourselves, to retaliate, and to judge. But if we espouse the logic of Christ, we understand that He asks us to embody a different ethic, an ethic of love. How do Christians reconcile the national-defense logic, with the Christ-logic of non-violence and radical love?

Nationalism bids us to defend, to use the sword, to belong to the state. The Christian ethic bids us to follow the Lamb, take up the cross, and ask whether our allegiance is first to Christ or to the nation. Should we stay in the national-defense paradigm or follow the Kingdom paradigm?

Swords into Plowshares

The phrase “They shall beat their swords into plowshares” originates in Isaiah 2:4 and Micah 4:3 and shows us the prophetic visions of the Messianic Kingdom where war is no more. Early Christianity in the pre-Constantine era understood and interpreted this both literally and spiritually. Believers were called to renounce violence and warfare. Church Fathers such as Tertullian and Origen taught that Christians could not bear arms because Christ forbade killing and commanded love of enemies (see Tertullian, De Corona, 11). This was the accepted norm for nearly three centuries.

In what is known as the Constantinian shift (4th century AD), everything changed and Christianity became wedded to the empire. In Augustine’s book, “City of God”, the Just War Theory emerged as an attempt to reconcile Christian ethics with imperial defense. This theory legitimized Christian participation in war when deemed as “just.”

In the 16th century, Anabaptism was a radical call back to pre-Constantinian Christianity. This was also a call back to a Biblical faith which focused away from traditional magisterium, this movement also rejected the sword, coercion, and state-sanctioned violence. The Schleitheim Confession of 1527 states: “The sword is ordained of God outside the perfection of Christ.” In other words, the state may bear the sword, but the disciple of Christ may not. (www.macsphere.mcmaster.ca/bitstream/11375/10262/1/fulltext.pdf)

Early Anabaptists saw war as incompatible with the life and teachings of Jesus, particularly His commands in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5-7). Mennonite theologian John Howard Yoder writes: “The cross is not just an example but the very shape of Christian ethics.” (The Politics of Jesus, 1972). What is he saying? Christ’s way of redemptive suffering — not violent resistance — is normative for His followers.

Historically, the peace churches – Mennonites, Quakers, Brethren – carried this conviction forward through persecution, exile, and migration. From an Anabaptist perspective, swords into plowshares is not utopian. It is the practical expression of discipleship under the lordship of Chris

During WWII, Canada introduced the National War Services Regulations (1940).This required all able-bodied men to register for service. However, because of the Privilegium agreement of 1873Mennonites, and Hutterites, had negotiated exemption from service. This agreement was modified by the Canadian Government because the legal and political climate had changed. As a result, Mennonites, Hutterites, Doukhobors, and other pacifists appealed for conscientious objector (CO) status.

Through negotiations, CO’s were allowed to perform alternative service in forestry, hospitals, or agriculture instead of combat. (www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/military-history/history-heritage/conscientious-objectors.html) 

Yet many CO’s faced social stigma, harassment, imprisonment, or loss of rights and property. The Mennonite Heritage Archives have records of testimonies which reveal many CO’s felt their commitment to Christ was seen as disloyalty to Canada. (www.mharchives.ca/wwii-conscientious-objectors)

In some cases, local boards and courts reneged on CO agreements or reassigned pacifists to non-combatant military service. Some Mennonites enlisted voluntarily, believing the fight against Nazi Germany was morally necessary. This exposed a fracture in the peace tradition under pressure of nationalism. (www.directionjournal.org/47/2/complicated-history-of-anabaptist.html) 

After WWII, the peace churches reaffirmed non-resistance in the Mennonite Confession of Faith (1963); which reads, “We believe that peace and reconciliation are the will of God for humanity.” Pacifism isn't confined to only the peace churches. Quakers renounce all forms of violence, and have held this position since the 17th century. Their testimony of peace is rooted in the inner light of Christ guiding conscience. (www.quaker.ca/peace-testimony) The Church of the Brethren affirm peace as a mark of true discipleship, declaring, “All war is sin.” (www.brethren.org/about/statements/peace)

One thing I found interesting while studying for today’s podcast is that the Catholics, although historically committed to Just War, have argued in recent papal encyclicals that modern warfare no longer meets just-war criteria. (e.g., Fratelli Tutti, 2020)(www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20201003_enciclica-fratelli-tutti.html)

In fact, global Ecumenical dialogue shows increasing recognition that the peace witness of Anabaptists represents an authentic strand of Christian discipleship.(www.globalanabaptistwiki.org/en/contributors/ecumenical-dialogue)

If we consider sociological data, the Pew Research Center reported in 2021 declining support for war among younger Christians and increasing sympathy for pacifism. (www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/09/20/christians-war-peace)

As nationalism rises, some theologians worry the church has “lost the plot” substituting patriotism for discipleship. Dr. Drew Hart, of Messiah University in Pennsylvania wrote, “Christianity tethered to national identity becomes idolatry; it trades cruciform love for coercive power.” (www.mennoniteusa.org/menno-snapshots/black-anabaptist)

The challenge of, “Have we lost the plot?” is a rhetorical one. Phrased another way, you could ask, “have we exchanged the gospel of peace for the politics of security?” When you read the prophetic calls recorded in Scripture, you see a constant call to return to Christ’s way, not Caesar’s. For Christians, the question is never – should we honor the fallen – but, are we willing to walk the harder road of peace that prevents future wars.

The Bible Addresses Peace

The Biblical theology of peace is often referred to as shalom. Peace in Scripture is not merely absence of conflict but the presence of shalom. That is, a right relationship with God, neighbor, and creation. Our understanding of Shalom is rooted in Genesis 1–2, and addresses order and harmony. But shalom is fulfilled and made perfect in the teaching of the new creation described in Revelation 21–22.

Jesus’ ministry embodied peace; in Matthew 5:9, He blesses the peacemakers; in Matthew 5:44, He commands love for enemies, and in Matthew 26:52, He rebukes Peter’s violence. The cross itself is the center of Biblical peacemaking. Ephesians 2:14 says, “He himself is our peace”. Peace is not negotiated through strength but achieved through sacrifice. When we explore Pauline theology, we find believers living as ambassadors of reconciliation. A good example of that is found in 2 Corinthians 5:18-20, which says, “He has committed to us the word of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ,”

When we read the Book of Revelation, we find two contrasting kingdoms: Babylon which personifies violence, empire, and nationalism; and the kingdom of the Lamb which personifies sacrifice and peace. Specifically, Revelation 5:6-10 describes how the Lamb conquers not by the sword but by suffering love. Thus, a biblical theology of peace stands opposed to nationalism’s idolatry of power and self-protection. It has been said, “Peace is not something we keep; it is something we make.” (www.christiancentury.org/article/critical-essay/peace-making)

Christians are called to serve, not to rule. Jesus said, “The greatest among you shall be your servant.” (Matt 23:11) The Roman centurion in Matthew 8:5-13 is commended for faith, not warfare. Jesus neither glorifies nor condemns his profession but points to faith as the defining mark. The contrast between servant and soldier captures the tension – the soldier defends borders; the servant extends grace. Early Christian communities often converted soldiers who then laid down their arms. (www.jstor.org/stable/1462793)

To “serve” Christ is to embrace weakness, humility, and vulnerability —not to wield coercive power. The Anabaptist hermeneutic reads Scripture through the lens of Jesus’ example. In other words, how do we apply what He taught and how He lived? Then, we must follow this example. Mennonite author Alan Kreider notes, “The early church grew not by power but by patient witness.” (The Patient Ferment of the Early Church, 2016).

The Mennonite Church worldwide maintains peacebuilding efforts through the Mennonite Central Committee (MCC), offering global humanitarian aid without taking sides. (www.mcccanada.ca/peace)Project Ploughshares, a Canadian ecumenical NGO, advocates for nuclear disarmament and peace education. (www.ploughshares.ca)

In recent years the participation of Christians in reconciliation projects has focused on Indigenous communities reflecting practical peacemaking. (www.cmu.ca/reconciliation-and-peace) Biblical peace thus finds modern expression not in national defense budgets but in restorative justice, community healing, and international development.

Matthew 5:9 reads, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.” Interestingly, the word “sons” (huioi) implies family likeness. The implication being that those who make peace bear the family resemblance of the Father. So then we could say that peacemaking is not passive withdrawal but active participation in God’s healing of the world.” (www.anabaptistworld.org/peacemaking-not-passive)

Committing to the way of peace, especially in an age of rising nationalism, means living in a way that shows the world who God is. It means being counter-cultural, embracing a peace that cannot be reconciled with nationalism, and accepting that the very act of peacemaking will provoke misunderstanding — even hostility — because it confronts the idols of power and allegiance that our culture holds sacred.

Outro

Nationalism calls us to defend ourselves, our borders, and our pride; but Jesus calls us to lay down our lives for others, to serve rather than rule. The church’s witness is compromised when it confuses patriotism with discipleship. Christian theology reminds us that the cross, and not the sword, defines our identity.

As nationalism rises globally, is our allegiance first to Christ, or to the flag? We honor the sacrifice of soldiers, recognizing the weight they carry and the pain they endure. But as followers of Jesus, we look to Christ’s sacrifice as the one that brings lasting peace and reconciliation. His cross shows us that God’s victory does not come through force, but through love poured out. Because of this, we are invited to live as people shaped not by the violence of the world, but by the peace of the One who gave Himself for us. The call of the Kingdom is not to “stay” in nationalism’s shadow but to “go” in the peace of Christ.

Prayer

Father God. We thank You for the witness of peace in Your Son. Forgive us when our love for country outweighs our love for Your Kingdom. Teach us to remember rightly—not only those who died in war, but the One who died to end all wars. May we live as sons, in imitation of You to all those around us. Amen