kingdom vs caliphate


“We’ve got to protect our borders.” A man named Hank approached me after a talk about Jesus’ way of peace that I gave at a church in the United States, and this is how he started a conversation.

“Tell me more,” I invited.

“We’re called by God to protect our own,” he said. Okay, I thought to myself; this is going to be interesting.

“You’re a Christian, yes?” I asked him. I wanted to confirm where he was coming from.

“Absolutely!” Hank confirmed. “Born and bred.”

“Wonderful,” I said. “I can understand an earthly nation needing to protect its borders, but can you tell me more about where you got the idea that our first calling as Christians is to protect ourselves?”

And off he went on a five-minute, wandering rant. For the sake of clarity, let me organize his thoughts into the following ten points:

Hank’s Top Ten List

  1. We (the United States—he wasn’t sure about Canada) are a Christian nation.
  2. As a Christian nation, we need to defend the freedom and liberty God has given us.
  3. Since God established this nation, it would be wrong to let it depart from the basics of the Bible.
  4. The Bible says that the government bears the sword to execute God’s judgement.
  5. In the Old Testament, God called Israel to go to war many times to defend their land.
  6. In the New Testament, Jesus said he came to bring a sword.
  7. In the book of Revelation, Jesus comes back with a sword and he is covered in blood, ready to kick ass.
  8. The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says it is our right and responsibility as good citizens to bear arms.
  9. Yes, Jesus might have said we should “turn the other cheek.” But we’ve only got two cheeks, so eventually we should hit back. (I thought that one was clever.)
  10. Therefore, good Christians should not be sissies and shrink from their responsibility to bear arms, protect our own, and defeat our enemies.

When Hank finished his rant, I could see he was convinced that he had just said some very convincing, very Christian things. I began my response by saying, “Thank you, Hank, for sharing those thoughts. But it seems to me like you would make a better Muslim than a Christian.” Now I had his attention. We had time, so one by one I began to respond to his arguments. My response went something like this:

My Response

  1. There is no such thing as a “Christian nation,” only Christian people—people of all nations who are part of the transnational, multiethnic kingdom of Christ.
  2. The only kingdom that God has given us to defend is the kingdom of Christ, and we defend and advance this kingdom by confronting lies with truth and hate with love.
  3. Christ-followers don’t just follow “the basics of the Bible”; we follow Jesus. Besides, the United States was born out of rebellion against their rightful ruler in England at that time, even if he wasn’t a very good one. It involved the manipulative and often violent acquisition of land filled with indigenous people—the Native Americans who were, well, here first. There is nothing particularly Christian about that beginning.
  4. Yes, Romans 13 says Christians should support, pay taxes, and pray for the government who bears the sword—right after Romans 12, where it says that Christians themselves should not directly participate in the sword-bearing itself. The means and the ends of the state (Romans 13) are different from the means and ends of the church (Romans 12).
  5. America is not Israel, and Jesus brought the new covenant and his new kingdom, which makes the old covenant obsolete (Hebrews 8:13).
  6. The “sword” Jesus brought is not held by his followers. The message of Jesus might bring the sword, but the context to this teaching tells us that Jesus means persecution of Christians, not violence done by Christians. In fact, one disciple, Peter, made the same mistake and thought that Jesus meant he should carry a literal sword and not be afraid to use it. Jesus had to rebuke him for his error.
  7. The “sword” that Jesus bears in the book of Revelation is coming out of his mouth—it is clearly his message. (Have you ever seen someone try to win a literal sword fight while holding a sword in the mouth? I haven’t either. Because that would be stupid.) And Jesus is said to be covered in blood before the battle even begins. This is his own blood shed for his enemies, not the blood of his enemies shed at his hand.
  8. Christ-followers are ultimately citizens of a different kingdom and a different kind of kingdom. We are ambassadors to our earthly nation on behalf of Christ’s country, where nonviolence is the norm. There is no Second Amendment in the Jesus Nation. The only way we “bear arms” is by wearing T-shirts.
  9. How many times did Jesus say we should forgive? Seventy times seven. That’s a lot of cheek.
  10. The Bible says good Christians should not shrink back from laying down their lives while loving their enemies. It is always Christlike to die for a cause, just never to kill for a cause.

I then explained to Hank that his misunderstandings of the way of Christ were more rooted in the example of Muhammad than Jesus. If we can believe the traditions of Muhammad’s life (the hadiths), Muhammad fought dozens of battles to establish and then defend an earthly, religiopolitical kingdom called a caliphate. The caliphate is a physical kingdom where the law of the land (sharia law) and the religion of the land (Islam) are fused together as a single way of life. In the caliphate, there is no separation between religion and politics, between ‘church’ and state. When it comes to understanding “the kingdom of God,” Muhammad and Jesus offer very different visions. I expect my Muslim friends to align with Muhammad. I expect people who call themselves Christians to align with Christ.

Sharia Love

Every kingdom shapes, and is shaped by, three things:

  • Its loyalty.
  • Its laws.
  • Its lifestyle.

In the kingdom of Christ, our loyalty is clear: Jesus. But what kind of law governs the actions of its citizens? (I’ll save discussing our lifestyle for another post.)

In Christ’s kingdom, the law of the land can be boiled down to one value that fulfills all laws: love. Love is our sharia, an Arabic word meaning “way” or “path.”

Love trumps law as the guiding principle of Jesus. Law is case specific, whereas love is universally applicable. Law is shaped by culture, whereas love shapes cultures by shaping hearts. In fact, when love leads our hearts, rules become redundant.

This kind of teaching didn’t go over very well with some of the religious elite in Jesus’ day. And today, little has changed. Religious people, including and especially the most dedicated, really love rules. Expected and even mandated patterns of behavior are easy because they are clear. “Just tell us what to do and we’ll do it” is the cry of many religious people who value clarity over caring.

On one occasion, Jesus was approached by a religious leader with a most important question: “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” the leader asked.

Jesus replied:

‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments. (Matthew 22:36-40)

Love God with all you’ve got, and love your neighbor as yourself. That’s the whole kit and caboodle, according to Jesus. On the surface his answer is incredibly simple. But if we look beneath the surface, we’ll see that it is also incredibly profound.

Do you see what Jesus did there? Jesus wasn’t asked for the top two commandments. He was asked for the greatest commandment. But in his response, Jesus showed that he wouldn’t let us separate love for God from love for one another. He knew that just loving God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength without an equal commitment to love our neighbor as we love ourselves could lead to expressions of religious piety that ignore the hurting people around us, or worse, actually hurt people around us. People blow themselves and others up for “love of God.” Other people dedicate their lives to meditating in monasteries while ignoring the hurting world around them for “love of God.” So Jesus tied our love for God together with our love for others. In fact, this bidirectional spirituality of Jesus teaches us that the primary way we love God is through loving others (see Jesus’ story about the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25:31-46).

Near the end of his life, Jesus so much wanted to emphasize to his disciples the need to fuse their love for God together with practical, caring, other-centered love for one another that he skipped right over the first command and summed everything up in just the second:

A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another” (John 13:34-35).

Two things changed from Jesus’ earlier statement of bidirectional love: First, Jesus placed what appears to be exclusive emphasis on what was the second commandment to love one another. Second, Jesus had altered the second commandment (now the one central command). Jesus told his followers not just to love others as they love themselves, but to love them the way he—Jesus—loved them. That is a big love upgrade!

The early church embraced this new moral code and adopted the “love others above all” ethic as the sum total of the law of the land in the kingdom of Christ (e.g., Romans 13:8; Galatians 5:14; Ephesians 5:2; James 2:8; 1 Peter 4:8; 1 John 3:14-18; 4:19-21). For instance, the apostle Paul said:

For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” (Galatians 5:14, emphasis mine)

To people who have already declared their love for God and their commitment to follow Jesus, the early Church leaders made our focus clear: love others. In fact, the bi-directional, love-G0d-and-others command of Jesus is never repeated in New Testament writings. Loving others well is the primary way we love God.

Many religions have pious practices designed to please God: lengthy pilgrimages to holy shrines; daily prayers at specific times; holy ceremonies in holy buildings led by holy men wearing holy clothes while they perform holy rituals. But for Christ-followers…

Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world. (James 1:27)

Simply loving others as Jesus does is our highest form of worship and the central ceremony of our “religion.”








[Adapted from my book, (re)union.]


Tags : BruxyBruxy Caveycaliphatejust warKingdomLovePeacereligion


  1. So how did he respond Bruxy? Was I like the rich young ruler wo isn’t want to give up all hat he owned?

    1. Thanks for asking Linda. He responded like most conservative Christians do when they first encounter strong peace teaching: deer in headlights. I get it – Christians who hold to a majority view (like Just War theory, or PSA, etc.) often don’t realize there is any other way of looking at things. So when they first encounter a new position that seems to have strong biblical backing, they need time to think and process.

    1. Thanks Bruxy – This is excellent! I used to believe (like Hank) the position and rhetoric of those Christians who espouse the “just war” ideology and the need for protecting ourselves against our “enemies”. It seemed to make logical and practical sense until I came to understand the bigger picture (or rather the “Jesus picture) as a result of consistent teaching on peace at the Meeting House. The fact is, that ideology is both held by the majority of Christians (it seems anyway) and is difficult to argue against. However, your blog post gives me additional tools with which I can reinforce my own new understanding and – in conversation – lovingly challenge the very views I once held. Thanks for the equipping Bruxy!

  2. Yowser! I have this imagine of the fellow with his finger up and a great big …’but’ ….
    The Beatles had it right all along…”All you need is love!”
    Thanks for providing clarity in all the confusion.

  3. Questions:

    1. Can you be fully consistent in these practices?
    2. Is it wrong for christians to take any benefit from the state i.e. Call the police/ who are agents of physical/ deadly force?
    3. Is it biblical for christians to work for the state in jobs that require physical/deadly force, i.e. Police officers?
    4. What is the biblical response to violence? In particular to the protection of those put under your care as a husband/father?

  4. Super questions Matt. Thanks for posting. These would be my answers…

    1. I believe so, yes. At least as consistent as we can be on any ethical teaching of Jesus.
    2. Some Anabaptists would say yes, but I don’t think so. As long as we pay our taxes, which is where both Jesus and Paul draw the line (Luke 20:22-25; Romans 13:6-7). Not taking matters into our own hands but calling the police is in fact what the government asks of us.
    3. No. This one seems more clear cut to most Anabaptists.
    4. An infinite number of creative non-violent, self-sacrificial actions.

    Obviously, I’m answering, writing, thinking as an Anabaptist Christian. I hope this is helpful for understanding this movement better, whether or not we agree.

    1. Hi Bruxy! Thank you for your amazing ministry, I was at People’s, where you spoke last Sunday, and I think we should keep going steady, (reference to him speaking there for the third time in a little while, for those who weren’t there!). Bruxy I have a question about your response to Matt Laskey’s 2nd question above, “Is it wrong for Christians to take any benefit from the state i.e. Call the police/ who are agents of physical/ deadly force?”.

      If one believes that being a policeman is immoral, because they are by definition the agents of physical/deadly force, wouldn’t it then necessarily follow, for consistency with anabaptist teaching, that Christians not summon the police, in certain situations, (ie. confronted by a gun-man), where a likely result of doing so would be the police using deadly force?

      To say that the government asks us to not take matters into our own hands, seems to imply that passive interaction with the gun-man, (ie. trying to escape through any non-violent means), in this situation, though it may cost one, or one’s family member(s)/bystandards, their lives, is not an option.

      It seems to me, as well, that the government asking us to do something, should never be a justification for doing something, in and of itself.. what about German’s in WWII who were asked not to give refuge to their Jewish neighbors? Few would argue that breaking the law in this situation was not a heroic act, and precisely what Christ called the German people to do.

      Ultimately, if anabaptist convictions are taken to their logical ends, it seems like, beyond the “creative non-violent [options]”, (see questions of Matt Laskey, above), which barring divine intervention, (which may happen), won’t likely work with a gunman in a psychotic rage, or with a psychopath, the only other option is for innocent people to be slaughtered.

      It feels like the anabaptist solution to crime is to let criminals run roughshod over society, unless we’re able to use talk therapy, or the like, to diffuse their murderous hate, and coax them into a jail cell. I realize that a community of loving people, intervening earlier in the would-be offender’s life, could make the difference and prevent these things, and that should be a goal for all Christians, but must we let inoccent people, maybe our wives, or husbands, or children, be slaughtered for the sake of “turning the other cheek”.

      That is definately a noble paradigm Jesus gives, but His father, if we’re being honest, wasn’t always so gracious. God seemed to have the Israelites slaughtering neighboring societies, any time they threatened His people, or got in the way of them taking hold of the Promised Land.

      If it was okay for King David, “a man after God’s own heart”, to defend the Israelites in war, against nations that threatened them, and for other kings to violently take neighboring lands at God’s command, why are we held to so much higher a standard? You may say, well that was the old testament, God’s wrath, .. we follow Jesus.. new covenant.. but the bible says that God is the same, yesterday, today, and forever.

      If God’s character was to allow for self defense, and even conquest, (when He deemed the Israelites enemies to be exceedingly evil), in the Old Testament, and to prohibit it in the New Testament, mustn’t there then be a lot of grey area for us to consider that maybe God’s approach to self-defense and violence, isn’t as one dimensional as it appears in the new testament, (All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness)?

      I guess what I’m saying is there are apparent contradictions in the bible, regarding the character of God when it comes to violence, which make it understandable that Christians can disagree on this issue.

      For this reason, it feels to me, almost a little arrogant to condemn violence committed by police, in certain circumstances, and to consequently exclude them from church leadership – I imagine there are good police, who are risking their lives every day to bring us peace and justice, and then we say they can’t participate in church leadership, but we can call them when we need them, (like encouraging LGBT people to tithe, when they’re not allowed to use their gifts in leadership), because this corrupt entity we call the state says we should?

      Thank you for your amazing work Bruxy, the conversation you are starting is increasing our Homothumadon!

      1. Hi Ben, thank you for your thoughtful comment. I’m sorry it has taken me this long to respond.

        My brief response is that we don’t just cooperate with police because the government tells us to, but because God tells us to.

        Let me summarize a recent conversation with a fellow Christian who was arguing on behalf of a more Just War perspective: He said, “Bruxy aren’t you Anabaptists just outsourcing the enforcement of law and order to the government?” My response was, “Yes, exactly. We are outsourcing the enforcement of law and order TO GOD, because that’s what God explicitly tells the Church to do in Romans 12. We are told BY GOD to outsource law enforcement TO GOD (Romans 12), and then God tells us he normally does that through the State (Romans 13).”

        Read over the progression of thought flowing from the end of Romans 12 to the beginning of Romans 13. An example…

        Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. (Romans 12:19) …. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. (Romans 13:4)

        This aligns with how we see God acting in other places in Scripture, where he works through the violence of governments to accomplish his will, even when sometimes punishing his OWN people (e.g., see Jeremiah 25).

        I’m open to another interpretation of Romans 12-13, but I haven’t heard one that makes sense of it as much as this interpretation.

        I hope this is helpful. All the best. Homothumadon!

  5. Well written Bruxy…thank you! I have a question regarding the bad religious ideas of Islam. I have hear you say that Mohammad was a false prophet. Christians are call to love their enemies and by far Muslims in the west are not our enemies, rather in many ways have them as our friends. Jesus called to love but at the same time was not afraid to confront bad religious ideas. Muslims are thought the exact lines to recite when having discussions with Christians. How should a Christian respond? Is their a time to be critical of Islam? It seems to me that Christians are afraid to even talk about Islam considering the political climate. Will simply by being nice to them be enough? There are plenty of politicians defending Islam as a peaceful religion etc. Can you give some insight?

    1. Hi Gerhard. Thanks for your questions. I think you’re raising an important issue.

      I think Christians should be bold to share their faith with all people, with gentleness and respect. No one should be excluded from hearing the beauty of the gospel. I’m hoping my book (re)union will help equip Christians to do precisely that.

      Muslims are not the enemy, but they are victims of a belief system planted by the enemy. We should be eager to speak the truth in love. The gospel can set captives free.

      1. Hello Bruxy, thanks for some great reflections. I do find it unfortunately that the graphic at the top of the page has a crescent “versus” a cross. You are saying that Jesus’ teachings are contrary to the concept of a caliphate. Not all Muslims today hold to the need for a caliphate…in fact, that is only the position of a minority. Many Muslims are in fact concerned with the violent texts and practices in their tradition and want to see reform. Muslims would feel about such generalizations the way our Jewish neighbors might feel if we talked about how “Judaism teaches…” and then wrote about the position of one sect or group within Judaism. In the same way, a graphic with a cross “versus” a star of David would be unnecessarily provocative. I currently work with a number of open-minded Muslim scholars who work together with Christians at understanding the Bible and how it relates to their own faith. Because of my experience with Muslims over the last 30 years and my experience of their kindness and hospitality I feel that I in turn should share that experience with my Western friends who are often so fearful of them. I do appreciate that you are concerned as well to help Christians love and understand their Muslim neighbors.

      2. Hi Bruxy,
        God bless you brother! I totally agree with you on “the gospel being able to set the captives free (I was one and it certainly has set my heart free)” and yes, we should definitely be eager to speak the Good News of Jesus Christ in love and with respect to anyone we can. However, dear brother, I just feel like making a comment on “Muslims being the victims of a belief system planted by the enemy”. I tend to think that this is a very strong-opinionated approach that might offend some of our Muslim brothers and sisters, especially those who are keeping track with you and are watching all your sermons with a great interest.
        Another thing I’d like to mention is that since I’m coming from a Muslim background, I can easily say that 90% of what the Muslims believe is quite similar to what the Jews believe, though they may not practice their faith in the same way. In fact, you can find almost all the prophets who are mentioned in the Old Testament in Quran as well, and their stories are also told in the same way. Do you think, dear brother, then it’ll be right to say that Jews are also victims of a belief system? And can we come to the conclusion that anyone who doesn’t follow the teachings of Jesus (and apply them into their lives) are “victims of a belief system planted by the enemy” since their belief system will not be built upon the teachings of Jesus? In this case, Catholics, Jews, Orthodox and Muslims alike should be called the victims of a belief system planted by the enemy because they all have one thing in common: religion… which is something we believe we should be done away with as Jesus showed us a better way.
        I really don’t mean to be impolite/mean with my words, please don’t get me wrong, dear brother. I just think that we shouldn’t generalize and come to any conclusion about something we don’t necessarily agree with, unless we know enough about it.
        Thank you for your time!

  6. It’s ironic that we know many Muslims with a more Christian attitude than Hank’s… perhaps part of the experience of being ‘outsiders’ and immigrating to Canada. Their structure and belief may be closer to the caliphate but their life and experience of welcome points them toward love. Alternately, the belief of many North American Christians may point towards love but their structure and experience points them toward a caliphate.

    Brilliantly written and well-thought-out. Thank you for this post.

  7. You couldn’t be more wrong. Thank God for the Franks, Austrians and Byzantines, if not for their righteous Christian war of self-defense against the caliphate and the Ottomans, there would be no Christianity today. You mean to tell me the Church (whether Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant) was wrong on this matter for all these years until one goofy pastor came and told us the truth? Sorry, I’m siding with Augustine.

Leave a Reply