Christianity & Pacifism

[Drew]

Re: Why are Christians mostly Republicans?

Your opinion. Which I reject. Sorry, I don't believe it is a metaphor.

Please tell us what you think this text is telling us. I am particularly interested in how you see this text as in any sense undermining the position that Jesus advocates peaceful resolution of problems.

Here is my take on this text: Jesus is saying that He is such a controversial character that He will be the source of fractious disagreements among people, even among family members. As such, the sword is a metaphor for such disagreements. Jesus is not coming into the world in order to cause such division, he is merely commenting that such divisions are an inevitable side-effect of His purpose for coming.

 

[Drew]

Re: Why are Christians mostly Republicans?

Just tired of making the same argument over and over and over. We've been through this on many occasions, same thing, same ideas, same posts, same this and same that. It's just a waste of time. It gets old after a while Drew. Very old and just plain tiresome. It's like a squeak oil won't fix so you ignore it.

Well, if you have actually dealt with the argument I have made in respect to John 18:36, why not put me in my place and re-produce that argument?

I am confident you will not do this, but I have to go on record as at least asking you to do so.

Remember - the issue here is that of addressing my argument about John 18:36, which focuses on the meaning of the work that has been translated as "of". I suspect that what you call "dealing with Drew's argument" entails conveniently ignoring my argument about John 18:36 and giving the reader all sorts of other arguments against the "Jesus was a pacifist" argument. Which, of course, is not good enough, since it leaves the John 18:36 argument still on the table.

 

[Drew]

Re: Why are Christians mostly Republicans?

You must also remember that Jesus, just before His crucifixion, told His disciples to carry a sword when going out into the world to spread the gospel. He even told them that, if they didn't have one, to sell their cloak and buy one. Pacifists don't tell anyone to buy a sword.

The following text, from Luke 22, is often used to support the legitimate use of force by the Christian:

And He said to them, "But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one.
37"For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, 'AND HE WAS NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS'; for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment." 38They said, "Lord, look, here are two swords." And He said to them, "It is enough."

Obviously a superficial reading suggests that Jesus is advocating the “right†to use force. However, the fact that such a reading is deeply at odds with other things Jesus teaches should be a tip-off that things are not as they appear. And indeed, such is the case here. When this text is understood in broader context, we realize that Jesus is not making any kind of a case for the right to use force (swords or otherwise).

In order to arrive at the correct interpretation, we really need to step back and ask ourselves what Jesus’ larger purpose was in this dialogue. Note the connective “for†at the beginning of verse 37. It suggests that the material which follows is an explanation or amplification on the point just made – that the followers of Jesus are to sell their coats and buy a sword. So what is Jesus’ larger purpose?

It is that He been seen as a transgressor. Jesus is intentionally orchestrating things so that the Jewish authorities will have plausible grounds for arresting Him. Of course, appearing as part of an armed band would be precisely the ideal scenario to ensure Jesus’ arrest. Remember the “for†at the beginning of verse 37. If we are to be careful students of what Jesus is saying, we need to take seriously what Jesus says in verses 37 and 38 as qualifying and explaining his statement about buying a sword. We cannot simply gloss the text and conclude “Look, Jesus is making some kind of general statement about the right to use weaponsâ€.

In fact, this very specific focus on the intent to be seen as a transgressor is powerfully sustained by Jesus’ statement that there is prophecy that He (Jesus) must be seen as a transgressor.

Remember the incident in the temple with Jesus overthrowing the tables of the moneychangers. This is not, as many people think, merely a repudiation of the sin of materialism. It is also a shrewd provocation on the part of Jesus. By creating a ruckus in the temple, He is forcing the hand of the Jewish leaders – they cannot allow such behaviour, Jesus must be arrested soon.

This is why, in the next verse, when the disciples say they have two swords, Jesus says “It is enough.†Obviously, if Jesus ever intended for the disciples to use the swords, two swords would not be nearly enough in any kind of armed action. But it’s enough to fulfill the prophecy by making Jesus appear to be participating in a violent revolutionary movement of some kind.

Unlike the “Jesus is supporting the right to use force†interpretation, note how the above interpretation makes sense of the entire account. If Jesus was really making some general statement about a “right to bear armsâ€, how exactly does that contribute to His being numbered with transgressors? And how does that make sense of the limit of two swords? Such a “right to bear arms†interpretation makes sense of neither. So it is almost certainly an incorrect interpretation of Jesus’ statement about buying a couple of swords.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Re: Why are Christians mostly Republicans?

Please tell us what you think this text is telling us. I am particularly interested in how you see this text as in any sense undermining the position that Jesus advocates peaceful resolution of problems.

"The search for the historical Jesus" is generally a search for ways to make Jesus say the things we think he ought to have said if he'd possessed our wisdom. Such is your attempt to make Him a pacifist. It simply is not true. Nor does He endorse wholesale war as a response to occupation and enslavement, either. He is neither pacifist nor war monger.

The historical reality is that Jesus lived in a society under military occupation by a foreign empire, and one swarming with insurgent groups at that. If Jesus had ever meant to condemn imperialism or endorse "liberation theology" or "wars of national liberation," he had one of the most perfect settings in all history to do so. Not only did he not do so, but Roman soldiers are just about the only group in the New Testament who are given complimentary treatment. When a group of soldiers came to John the Baptist asking what they needed to do to be saved, he told them not to abuse their power. He didn't even remotely suggest they should quit the army.

It gets worse. Jesus was put to death on trumped up charges. What a perfect opportunity to condemn capital punishment. Yet, while he and two criminals were dying, one of the criminals chided the other one, saying that they were only getting what they deserved. What a perfect place to say that nobody deserves to die at the hands of the state, that the criminals are really victims of unequal wealth, lack of empowerment, and poor self-esteem. Jesus, apparently failing completely to understand what was at stake, said nothing. And his followers, while they condemned the execution of Jesus and some of his followers, always did so on the sophistic grounds that they were innocent and morally in the right. Not once did they challenge the right of the state to take the life of genuine criminals.

Attempts to equate Christianity and pacifism simply don't stand scrutiny. Christianity does not teach that life is sacred. Jesus and his followers ate animal products. While Christianity teaches that human life is sacred, Christ also told his followers not to fear those who merely destroyed the body, and said that he who loved his life would lose it. Clearly, many men in Jesus' time saw the overthrow of the Romans as worthy of the ultimate self-sacrifice. Jesus never spoke against the Zealots who fought a war of insurgency against Rome, and in fact appointed two such men (including Judas, based on the evidence of his motivations) to His close council of friends.

And again I return to the evidence of the Father arming Israel, supporting Israel in its wars against God's enemies, and in using Israel to destroy those enemies even when it was within His power to destroy them with a word! Certainly He did that in the OT, but He also used Israel's armies to destroy other nations, and often commanded Israel to wipe every trace of a people from the face of the earth, down to the women and children, the animals and the crops. This is your God of pacifism?? God is the same yesterday, today and forever, and you cannot escape the truth of His words.

Here is my take on this text: Jesus is saying that He is such a controversial character that He will be the source of fractious disagreements among people, even among family members. As such, the sword is a metaphor for such disagreements. Jesus is not coming into the world in order to cause such division, he is merely commenting that such divisions are an inevitable side-effect of His purpose for coming.

Why do you think the sword brings division? You don't understand the purpose of military force, obviously, or you would not make so blatant an error of reason. Wars are fought because there already is division, and the sword -- or tanks, guns, ships, planes and helicopters -- is used to put an end to that division, and is absolutely necessary to bring order back to the world when peace, safety and freedom is threatened. Chamberlain tried to appease Hitler. The result was the armed invasion of Poland. Carter tried to appease Iran. The result was the 444-day hostage crisis. Obama tried to appease the terrorists. The result is a civil war in Iraq, a resurgent Taliban threat in Afghanistan, and a dead US ambassador in Libya. This is the achievement of pacifism, and it is not something our Lord and Savior endorses, whether you believe that or not.

The division at the time of the Lord's return will be the embodiment of evil threatening to overthrow the forces of good and thwart God's plan for this world. The sword and the arm of the Lord will end that division with swift justice. Note the description at the end of the Lord's battle with those forces:

Revelation 19 (NASB)
13 He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God.
​

Does that appear to you to be a pacifist-leaning God who does not endorse violence when it is necessary? I leave the rest to decide for themselves, because I sense you will not be convinced.

 

[Drew]

Re: Why are Christians mostly Republicans?

"The search for the historical Jesus" is generally a search for ways to make Jesus say the things we think he ought to have said if he'd possessed our wisdom. Such is your attempt to make Him a pacifist. It simply is not true. Nor does He endorse wholesale war as a response to occupation and enslavement, either. He is neither pacifist nor war monger.

You are simply making a statement here, with no actual case to support it. You state that I project something onto Jesus that I think He ought to have said. But how do you know this?

I have, using Jesus' own words no less, shown that Jesus tells Pilate that it is in the very nature of the kingdom that force is not to be used. You have not dealt with that argument, but I repeat the relevant statement from Jesus, lest it be forgotten:

Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm

Please deal with this text. I believe Jesus is saying that non-violence is characteristic of the new kingdom He has initiated.

What, and please be specific, do you believe He is saying in this text?

 

[Drew]

Re: Why are Christians mostly Republicans?

The historical reality is that Jesus lived in a society under military occupation by a foreign empire, and one swarming with insurgent groups at that. If Jesus had ever meant to condemn imperialism or endorse "liberation theology" or "wars of national liberation," he had one of the most perfect settings in all history to do so. Not only did he not do so.....

Jesus most certainly did condemn imperialism, and Roman imperialism in particular.

Consider the famous "Render unto Ceasar" scenario.

The following argument is attrbutable to theologian NT Wright:

Show Me the coin used for the poll-tax." And they brought Him a denarius. 20And He said to them, "Whose likeness and inscription is this?" 21They said to Him, "Caesar's." Then He said to them, "Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's.â€

Now this is a cryptic statement whose meaning is not obvious. For some reason, it has been taken to mean that the world is split into two spheres, one in which God rules and the other in which secular human governments rule. However, this is not what Jesus is trying to tell us. And if it was, then Paul would be contradicting Jesus when, in Romans 1, Paul announces the “gospel†of Jesus Christ.

Of what relevance is Romans 1? Well, in Paul’s world the term “gospel†was frequently used to denote the news that a new emperor has ascended to the throne in Rome. So when Paul uses this same term to refer to Jesus, his point could not be more clear – Jesus supplants Caesar as lord of this present world.

Back to the account of the coin. Just as it is important to know something about what the term “gospel†meant in that time and place, it is also important to know the echoes that Jesus might be eliciting when He makes his coin pronouncement.

The double command Jesus makes (give x to Ceasar and y to God) can be argued to draw on material found in 1 Maccabees 2.68. In that text, Mattathias is telling his sons, especially Judas, to get ready for revolution. ‘Pay back to the Gentiles what is due to them,’ he says, ‘and keep the law’s commands’. And clearly, “paying back†the Gentiles was not meant to refer to money. Instead, it is a subtle suggestion that the Gentiles are about to be overthrown. And I suggest that Jesus is making a cryptic allusion to this account to make a similar point. Remember - the Maccabean revolution was fairly recent to Jesus’ own time.

So while Jesus is, on the surface, saying “pay the taxâ€, His more fundamental point is that Caesar’s regime is a blasphemous nonsense and that one day God would overthrow it.

Jesus’ teaching about the Roman coin, understood in it context, is not advocating a separation between the spheres of Caesar and God, with secular human governments ruling in one domain and God in the other. Given the overall context of Jesus’ life and ministry – entailing the revolutionary announcement that the Kingdom of God has already broken into history – and given the arguable allusion to 1 Maccabees, Jesus is probably saying, albeit cryptically, that God’s dominion extends to all spheres. One can almost see Jesus wryly smiling as he says “give Ceasar the things that are His†– suggesting that there really is nothing that falls into that category.

I do not think I am reaching when I suggest that when Jesus holds up the coin and inquires about the image and the inscription, He knows the Jews will be reminded of the graven image to Caesar that it contains. Any Jew familiar with the Torah should have rightly been angered at such blasphemy. And remember, the emperor in Rome did indeed set himself up as a god. Jesus is being very shrewd here. The holding up of the coin and the question about its image constitutes a critique of the blasphemy that it expresses. And so Jesus’ clever answer is effectively this: “Pay the tax, but remember who is the real Lord, the one who says ‘[FOT=Verdana]You shall have no other gods before me[/FONT]’â€.

 

[Drew]

Re: Why are Christians mostly Republicans?

"The historical reality is that Jesus lived in a society under military occupation by a foreign empire, and one swarming with insurgent groups at that. If Jesus had ever meant to condemn imperialism or endorse "liberation theology" or "wars of national liberation," he had one of the most perfect settings in all history to do so. Not only did he not do so,......

A much simpler counter-example is also available to the effect that Jesus condemns imperialism. In the following dialog, Jesus explains that the way His followers are "do power" is to be radically different from the way of the world. This is a rather clear critique of "empire" and its ways:

Hearing this, the ten began to feel indignant with [o]James and John. 42 Calling them to Himself, Jesus *said to them, “You know that those who are recognized as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them; and their great men exercise authority over them. 43 But it is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant;44 and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be slave of all.

By the way, I have never stated, and would never state that Jesus endorsed wars of "national liberation". My point is that Jesus rejects the use of violence - it is in the very nature of membership in the new kingdom to reject its use.

 

[Davies]

Re: Why are Christians mostly Republicans?

Hello,

Can we safely understand that Drew is not a Republican. I think, even though this thread appears to be veering to the sharp left by what Drew is saying, his analysis may provide reasons why most Republicans are Christians. We've gone from Jesus taught pacifism, to the teachings of NT Wright. I don't know, but what are the odds that NT Wright is a Democrat, or a Democrat in Republican clothing? It's not a sin to be a Democrat... is it? I don't think we would define ourselves strictly by what party we are registered to. We don't endorse everything the party stands for if we vote one way or the other. Although many people were happy that the Democratic party put God back into their platform against the majority, delegate, no-vote , what better example can you provide that shows taking the name of the Lord in vain?; what blaspheme! Yikes! To support the Democratic platform, you have to kick against the goads.

- Davies

 

[Free]

Re: Why are Christians mostly Republicans?

Hello,

Can we safely understand that Drew is not a Republican. I think, even though this thread appears to be veering to the sharp left by what Drew is saying, his analysis may provide reasons why most Republicans are Christians. We've gone from Jesus taught pacifism, to the teachings of NT Wright. I don't know, but what are the odds that NT Wright is a Democrat, or a Democrat in Republican clothing? It's not a sin to be a Democrat... is it? I don't think we would define ourselves strictly by what party we are registered to. We don't endorse everything the party stands for if we vote one way or the other. Although many people were happy that the Democratic party put God back into their platform against the majority, delegate, no-vote , what better example can you provide that shows taking the name of the Lord in vain?; what blaspheme! Yikes! To support the Democratic platform, you have to kick against the goads.

- Davies

N. T. Wright is British so I don't think he is either. I don't understand this incessant need to label people Democrat and Republican. It really is an oversimplification of peoples' beliefs and practices.

 

[Drew]

Re: Why are Christians mostly Republicans?

I don't understand this incessant need to label people Democrat and Republican. It really is an oversimplification of peoples' beliefs and practices.

I agree. While I would rather see Mr. Obama re-elected, I most certainly do not believe his behaviour represents model Christian behaviour. Far from it, not least of all in his continued use of the means of force to advance America's interests (e.g. drones, violating Pakistan's sovereignty to get Bin Laden, etc.)

And I may have inadvertently implied that no Republicans are pacifists. Or that all Democrats are pacifists. That was not my point. My immediate line of posts has been a defence of the position that Jesus is basically a pacifist. If this is considered too far a deviation from the OP, I will happily let the whole matter drop.

The last thing I want to do is to contribute to this carving up the world into "tribes" like "Democrat" and "Republican". As you point out, things are not that simple - people are too complex to categorize using such labels.

 

[Davies]

Re: Why are Christians mostly Republicans?

N. T. Wright is British so I don't think he is either. I don't understand this incessant need to label people Democrat and Republican. It really is an oversimplification of peoples' beliefs and practices.

Ahhh. I see ye be joined at the hip with the scallywag (in me pirate voice).

NT Wright being British explains a lot. At a time in our country where ungodly practices abound, we need to discern what is right and wrong. I'm sure you understand what happens when we don't discern right and wrong.

Isaiah 5:20

New King James Version (NKJV)

20 Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness;
Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!


We end up calling evil good, and good evil.



- Davies

 

[Drew]

Re: Why are Christians mostly Republicans?

Did Jesus critique 'empire'? Yes, he certainly did, at least for those who know their Old Testaments.

When Jesus stands before Pilate, He tells this Roman official that he (Pilate) will see Jesus 'coming on the clouds of heaven'. This is clearly taken from Daniel 7.

What is Daniel 7 all about - it is about a 'son of man' (Jesus calls Himself the 'son of man' in front of Pilate) who triumphs over the beasts that represent great human empires.

That is about as strong a critique of 'empire' as one could ask for.

 

[Drew]

Re: Why are Christians mostly Republicans?

.....Roman soldiers are just about the only group in the New Testament who are given complimentary treatment. When a group of soldiers came to John the Baptist asking what they needed to do to be saved, he told them not to abuse their power. He didn't even remotely suggest they should quit the army.

This kind of argument is used often, in a range of contexts. The basic idea seems to be "if Jesus believe that 'X' was wrong, why didn't He tell person Y to stop doing 'X'".

Like many flawed arguments, this one has a certain superficial appeal. However, it is really not a valid argument. Jesus did not come to earth to spend His time interviewing individual people and setting each one straight on their sins. The fact that He did this occasionally does not change this. He would have no time for anything else if His goal was to point out each and every sin He encountered.

Besides, to those who with ears to hear, Jesus most certainly did teach a general message of pacifism. I have already provided readers with John 18:36, and no one has addressed that (at least no one that is not on my "ignore" list). Why is that? And I have dealt with Jesus' invokation of Daniel 7 before Pilate. In that encounter, Jesus certainly is critiquing the usual mode of "doing empire" as exercised by Rome and the other "beasts" (from Daniel 7) that preceded her. And that was empire at the point of the sword. Jesus also taught that he who takes up the sword will perish by the sword. And he taught us to love our enemies.

I politely suggest the message of pacifism is indeed there, its just that many in the church (at least the modern church - early Christians embraced pacifism) refuse to hear it.

 

[Potluck]

Re: Why are Christians mostly Republicans?

I could pick things apart but I simply don't want to waste the time. If one searches for whether Jesus taught pacifism or not there's plenty of sites to further the argument until Christ returns. Depends on one's interpretations in many areas of biblical debate and those most popular are popular simply for the simple fact they are still ongoing.


Did Jesus teach pacifism?

http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/articles/did-jesus-teach-pacifism

 

[Potluck]

Re: Why are Christians mostly Republicans?

The Amish are a prime example of pacifism. But they don't exist where governments are against Christianity. It's easy to be a pacifist when you're standing behind the biggest guns the world has ever known. Without such protection pure pacifism dies. And I don't think Christ meant for his followers to become extinct.

 

[Drew]

Re: Why are Christians mostly Republicans?

It gets worse. Jesus was put to death on trumped up charges. What a perfect opportunity to condemn capital punishment.

This kind of argument indicates, I believe, a big problem in the church. We have become like Sunday School students, expecting Jesus to teach us through delivering a series of "you shall do X" and "you shall not do Y" statements. Jesus was not a child, and He did not think like a child. Many of His most profound teachings were delivered through subtle and sophisticated means. And we miss these teachings, if we come to Him expecting Pablem.

Consider the encounter with Pilate. Does Jesus explicitly say "I am inaugurating a kingdom that overthrows the type of kingdom that achieves its goals at the point of a sword". Well, He comes pretty close to doing just that with his statement about His kingdom being one whose followers do not use force. But even if He did not say this, His carefully chosen, cryptic allusion to Daniel 7 would make the point - the "son of man" would triumph over the beasts (kingdoms like Persia, Greece, Syria, and Rome) who use force to achieve their ends, and be installed as King of all creation.

So Jesus is most certainly in the business of making His points in subtle ways. Now let's talk about capital punishment. I suspect my good friend Free might disagree with me on this, but here goes: True, Jesus never says "no capital punishment", but look at what His death accomplished: by triumphing over death, he takes away one of the great weapons of empire - the threat of death. Jesus' followers - you and me - should, if we really believe in the accomplishment of the cross - no longer fear the power of the state to put us to death if we do not fall in line. Why not? We will be raised, just like Jesus. Remember the context: Rome was a powerful empire which routinely meted out death to those who challenged her.

I find it very hard to believe that Jesus wins this victory over the power of the state to kill, and still thinks its acceptable for His followers to endorse exercise of that power. Or look at it another way. At great personal cost, Jesus defeats the great enemy: death. We are who are citizens of His kingdom should take the hint and seek to nurture and preserve life, not take it away, no matter how that might be deserved. Death is a slap in the face to the creator God who is redeeming a world that never should have experienced death in the first; We should have no part in death.

 

[Drew]

Re: Why are Christians mostly Republicans?

I could pick things apart but I simply don't want to waste the time.

How convenient.

I have provided an argument, based on John 18:36. You responded to this by saying that the argument had been refuted many times. I challenged you to show that such a refutation has been provided. And I predicted you would not provide such a refutation.

And, as predicted, you have not. At best, you refer us to a site which, I am quite confident, will not address that argument either.

 

[Drew]

Re: Why are Christians mostly Republicans?

http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/articles/did-jesus-teach-pacifism

From this article:

It is very important, however, to remember here the distinction between church and state. The Christian fights in a war not as an ambassador of the church or on behalf of the church, but as an ambassador of his country. The church is not to use violence (John 18:36), but the government at times may (John 18:36; Romans 13:3-4; etc.). So the Christian fights not as an agent of the church, but as an agent of the government of his country. Both are ultimately under the authority of God, but each has a distinct role.

The distinction between church and state? Where does the Bible endorse such a distinction? Nowhere. This is an enlightenment idea, not a Biblical one. Church and state are inextricably integrated in both the Old Testament and the New. Jesus is, after all, the presently reigning sovereign over all nations (read Daniel 7, which Jesus invoked before Pilate).

The fact that, as per Romans 13, that governments use the sword, and that God "uses" that behaviour to bring some order to the world is hardly a case that the Christian should embrace and participate in such a model of doing power.

Let's be clear: In the Old Testament, God often uses the evil behaviour of people and nations to achieve His purposes. Pharoah is but one example. But that is hardly grounds to conclude that we should follow Pharoah's model. The Old Testament is full of cases where God uses "evil" agents to judge other peoples. But what these agents are doing is still evil! And He judges them accordingly.

To be fair, I can see how, if one does not know about this pattern, one might conclude that God somehow thinks that the use of the sword by government is something that He (God) considers to be "kingdom of God" living. Well, it is not:

Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword

Again: The fact that God can (and does) use the evil behaviours of government to achieve His purposes does not mean that the members of His kingdom (you and I) should in any sense endorse, participate in, or support the use of violence on the part of the state.

 

[Potluck]

Re: Why are Christians mostly Republicans?

I expected that any and all argument against your case would be refused as valid, the evidence tossed aside as no consequence at all and your insistence on a few selected verses without much attention if any at all of other verses that may collide with your interpretation.

Your challenge is yours alone, not mine. You can throw down the gauntlet all day long but that doesn't mean I have to pick it up. I might add though that there is a distinction made between government and the individual. And love does not mean I'm compelled to accept the sins of another.

Christian pacifism survives only if there is a strong military defense against those who are bent on eradicating Christianity. You'll find no Christian pacifists ,or Amish, in Iran or many other radical Muslim countries. If you can show me the kind of pacifism you preach survives without a strong defense I'm willing to look at it. Again, pacifism dies without a strong worldly defense. Simple as that. Christ did not teach self-eradication.

 

[Drew]

Re: Why are Christians mostly Republicans?

And, as predicted, you have not. At best, you refer us to a site which, I am quite confident, will not address that argument either.

Well, the site does deal with John 18:36, but the argument clearly does not work. Here it is (I added bolding):

In this passage, Jesus says: "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting, that I might not be delivered up to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm." When Jesus says that if his kingdom were of this world his servants would be fighting, he implies that it is right for kingdoms of this world to fight when the cause is just and circumstances require it. As Christians, we are citizens of "two kingdoms"--our country on earth, and heaven. Jesus shows us that it is never right to fight for the sake of his spiritual kingdom, but that it is right to fight on behalf of earthly kingdoms (when necessary to counter evil and destruction).

The bolded statement is simply not a correct deduction. Jesus tells us that He is inaugurating a kingdom where violence is not used to solve problems. Fine. How, and please be precise, does this lead one to conclude that its morally acceptable for the other kingdoms that are at work in this world, to use violence?

And this idea that we are members of "two kingdoms" (in the sense of following the prescribed behaviours of such kingdoms) is simply not Biblical. You will, I am certain, produce no Biblical evidence whatsoever for such a distinction. We are citizens of the kingdom of God, and that is where our allegiance is to be directed. What Biblical evidence can you provide that if your "country" asks to do something that violates the principles of the kingdom of God, that you should go ahead and do so.

Again, what Jesus says in John 18:36 is quite clear: It is in the nature of the kingdom that He is initiating that the use of the sword is off the table. Are we, or are we not, citizens in that kingdom?