When they came by night to arrest our Lord, Peter drew his sword and struck. Fortunately he wasn’t lethal. If he had been, the entire future of Christianity would have changed forever. Instead of one captive, the whole leadership would have been hanging on crosses the next day. Good advice to leave it alone and scoot. It was not the time, place or cause for a violent response.

It is curious, however, that Peter had a sword in the first place. Apparently he had carried it for some time, obviously with Jesus’ knowledge. Was it a defense against thieves? Was it because the pervasive oppression of the Romans and local corruption left the population with a realization the they had to defend themselves? Was it because the Zealots among the disciples were prepared to strike when the time was right? No matter what the reason, Jesus could not have been ignorant of the fact that some of his closest associates were armed, and it wasn’t because they were hunters.

When questioned about this possible insurgency, Jesus responded that his kingdom was not of this world. He said, if it were, his followers would fight for him. So, what about what goes on in this world? Is there ever an occasion that requires a violent response.? Jesus must have thought so or he would have required his followers to disarm. Maybe Peter had a sword because Jesus told him to go get one. When he stayed Peter’s attack, he told him to put up his sword, not to throw it away.

I am dismayed by the peace at any price crowd that claim they know the mind of Christ. This is the same bunch that thought Hitler’s reoccupation of the Rhineland in 1936 was an internal matter, even though it was a clear violation of international treaty. His brutal repression of the church and the Jewish community was not an act of aggression against us. Nor was Italy’s gassing of Ethiopians, Japan’s rape of Nanking, the acquisition of the Sudetenland, the invasion of Poland anything that required a violent response. Holocausts happen when the saints below beat their breasts in “courageous” advocacy of appeasement. But the saints above cry out from under the altar, “How long?”

So our church leaders are once again defending the right of terrorists to terrorize and dictators to oppress their people with impunity. How is it Christian to stand by as the innocent are killed in our presence? How is it Christian to demonstrate impotence as dictators arm themselves out of all proportion to their nation’s needs or resources. It used to be that nations had to bring vast armies to the field before they represented a viable threat to the world. No more. But our church leaders think that only a conventional attack by a national entity could justify an armed response. Even then, I wouldn’t count on them for anything approaching a Christian justification to defend the innocent.

Peace has a price. We cannot claim to follow the God of Justice without a sense of outrage at blatant evil. But the only outrage we hear from our leadership is that we as a nation might respond in a measured way to murder and preparations for mass murder. To do nothing when we have the resources to intervene is to be complicit in the evil. Christians should never advocate wanton destruction, nor should the sword be drawn mindlessly. But if those who live by the sword are to die by the sword, who will wield that other sword? True followers of Christ putting their lives on the line to defend the innocent, God knows, is nothing new.

Rev. Dennis P. Levin