I believe it is easy for people to say that Adam Lanza was evil. It is easy to say that he was full of hate. It is easy to say that he lacked God or even that Satan resided in him. Not only is it easy but it is understandable that people quickly draw these conclusions. After all, what he did on December 15^th, 2012 was so utterly horrific that I cannot draw upon any vocabulary to accurately communicate the pain. What he did falls in line with evil and in line with what I was taught as a young boy is the face of evil. Babies who were just beginning in this world are no more. More over hundreds of lives have been irrevocably changed and put through hell. I believe the emotional ripple of pain and loss he dealt out far exceeds the physical pain he served.

Yet even in the face of his terrible actions, I am not sure I am ready to call him evil or Satan. I am not ready to call him anything because I have no idea who he was or what path of life had brought him to the conclusions he reached on that day. I don’t know if any explanation will suffice, nor do I think if one is found that it will exonerate or excuse the disgusting things he did. However I do think we need to search for an explanation. Writing him off as crazy or blaming the ease of which guns are obtained fall short of addressing the real issue. We don’t really know why this happened and we must at all costs try and figure it out. Until we do it will continue to happen regularly as it has been.

Guns need much more control and restriction. Mentally impaired individuals need more resources and better treatment options. These are not the only issues though. Its true that we need to focus on laws and measures to keep people safe and help those who are sick. Its also true that we need time to grieve and mourn the loss of innocent lives. However I think we also need to focus time on the perpetrator. Not just as an object of blame or a person to hate, but also as person who was at one point just that, a person. I don’t believe that people are born killers nor do I believe that people who have bad upbringings all become violent, but I do believe that more than just Adam Lanza himself played a part in creating in him a need to do this. I am not blaming anyone yet I am blaming everyone. A friend recently said in reflecting on this tragedy “We have to value people, so they value people, so they don’t kill to satisfy their pain” I don’t know if that was Lanza’s issue, but it does seem to get at the point that this goes beyond the inside of one persons mind.

We must seek to understand the environments that produce people like Adam Lanza, James Holmes, and Wade page. I don’t believe that one conclusion will answer all three of these tragedies and likely each persons motivations and lives were different. However we cannot just claim crazy and move on. We cannot just pass a law and call it good. We must learn why so we can identify people like them early and perhaps save them. If we do identify them, if we do save them first, then we save all of those who would have been their victims.

The following is the original post from May 2, 2011:

About an hour ago a friend told me that Osama Bin Laden had been killed. I then did what millions around the world did: I tuned in to hear if it was true and to see what kind of reaction was taking place in the US and around the world. It has been as I and most could have predicted: rejoicing, celebrating, partying and the like. Emotional pictures coming to me from all around the world of people singing, dancing, crying, high-fiving. Unlike millions of people however, my feeling was overwhelmingly sad. As a follower of Christ there have been times where I have had to force myself to feel a certain way about something in order to be more in line with Jesus because it was contrary to my human instinct. Not this time. This time sadness came without force, it was an instant reaction.

It was only seconds later that I went online and saw droves of comments claiming victory and happiness over the death of Bin Laden. I too let my initial feelings be known and within seconds I was called “stupid”, “anti-american”, “anti-Jesus”, “misled”, and for some really strange reason a “racist”. This is unfortunate but expected. The death of Osama Bin Laden should be a lamenting point for Christians and viewed as a missed opportunity to live out in a huge way the love for one’s enemies. With his death millions of hoorays filled the air but I guarantee you that Jesus was weeping. Weeping for the death of one of his children as well as for those claiming Christianity who cheered and prayed for Bin Laden’s death.

An eye for an eye is not the way of it anymore. Love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you, do these things fall absent in this case? It amazes me how so many can be so wrong. I am sad for my fellow Christians. I am sad for those who think that evil should be repaid with evil, and that hate brings about justice. I am sad for those who think that being against the death of a human being means you are anti-american, or misled, or stupid, or racist. I am sad that those like myself, are labeled as “anti-military” and that we “spit in the eyes of troops” when we say that we choose love over hate, life over death, and Christ over country.

Bin Laden’s death does not bring justice to those who lost loved ones because of his actions; it does not end a war; it does not do the will of God. I can rejoice in the end of his leadership but in his death, I cannot. I will not. This is a time to mourn how justice was not served to 9/11 victims and to him. As I type this I can feel the anger that some people will have with these words and I can feel the hate that some will have for me because I am saying them. This is why it needs to be said. Bin Laden was a man, a human, a child of God. It is a tragedy that we killed him instead of trying to redeem him. It is by loving those that the world and ourselves deem “unlovable” that we follow in the footsteps of Christ.

Once we escape the fear of death, once we realize that all are created by God almighty, we will realize that no life is worth killing for and every life is worth dying for.

************************************************************

Though I  mean and stand by everything that I say in this post, here is an opposite take that is very well articulated:  http://theologica.ning.com/profiles/blogs/should-christians-rejoice-over 

“I’m sorry but I don’t want to be an Emperor, that’s not my business. I don’t want to rule or conquer anyone. I should like to help everyone if possible, Jew, gentile, black man, white. We all want to help one another, human beings are like that. We all want to live by each other’s happiness, not by each other’s misery. We don’t want to hate and despise one another. In this world there is room for everyone and the earth is rich and can provide for everyone.

The way of life can be free and beautiful. But we have lost the way.

Greed has poisoned men’s souls, has barricaded the world with hate;
has goose-stepped us into misery and bloodshed.

We have developed speed but we have shut ourselves in:
machinery that gives abundance has left us in want.
Our knowledge has made us cynical,
our cleverness hard and unkind.
We think too much and feel too little:
More than machinery we need humanity;
More than cleverness we need kindness and gentleness.

Without these qualities, life will be violent and all will be lost.

The aeroplane and the radio have brought us closer together. The very nature of these inventions cries out for the goodness in men, cries out for universal brotherhood for the unity of us all. Even now my voice is reaching millions throughout the world, millions of despairing men, women and little children, victims of a system that makes men torture and imprison innocent people. To those who can hear me I say “Do not despair”.

The misery that is now upon us is but the passing of greed, the bitterness of men who fear the way of human progress: the hate of men will pass and dictators die and the power they took from the people, will return to the people and so long as men die [now] liberty will never perish. . .

Soldiers: don’t give yourselves to brutes, men who despise you and enslave you, who regiment your lives, tell you what to do, what to think and what to feel, who drill you, diet you, treat you as cattle, as cannon fodder.

Don’t give yourselves to these unnatural men, machine men, with machine minds and machine hearts. You are not machines. You are not cattle. You are men. You have the love of humanity in your hearts. You don’t hate, only the unloved hate. Only the unloved and the unnatural. Soldiers: don’t fight for slavery, fight for liberty.

In the seventeenth chapter of Saint Luke it is written:
“The kingdom of God is within man”
Not one man, nor a group of men, but in all men; in you, the people.

You the people have the power, the power to create machines, the power to create happiness. You the people have the power to make life free and beautiful, to make this life a wonderful adventure. Then in the name of democracy let’s use that power, let us all unite. Let us fight for a new world, a decent world that will give men a chance to work, that will give you the future and old age and security. By the promise of these things, brutes have risen to power, but they lie. They do not fulfil their promise, they never will. Dictators free themselves but they enslave the people. Now let us fight to fulfil that promise. Let us fight to free the world, to do away with national barriers, do away with greed, with hate and intolerance. Let us fight for a world of reason, a world where science and progress will lead to all men’s happiness.

Soldiers! In the name of democracy, let us all unite!

Look up! Look up! The clouds are lifting, the sun is breaking through. We are coming out of the darkness into the light. We are coming into a new world. A kind new world where men will rise above their hate and brutality.

The soul of man has been given wings, and at last he is beginning to fly. He is flying into the rainbow, into the light of hope, into the future, that glorious future that belongs to you, to me and to all of us. Look up. Look up.”

-Charlie Chaplin

It was only seconds later that I went online and saw droves of comments claiming victory and happiness over the death of Bin Laden. I too let my initial feelings be known and within seconds I was called “stupid”, “anti-american”, “anti-Jesus”, “misled”, and for some really strange reason a “racist”. This is unfortunate but expected. The death of Osama Bin Laden should be a lamenting point for Christians and viewed as a missed opportunity to live out in a huge way the love for one’s enemies. With his death millions of hoorays filled the air but I guarantee you that Jesus was weeping. Weeping for the death of one of his children as well as for those claiming Christianity who cheered and prayed for Bin Laden’s death.

An eye for an eye is not the way of it anymore. Love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you, do these things fall absent in this case? It amazes me how so many can be so wrong. I am sad for my fellow Christians. I am sad for those who think that evil should be repaid with evil, and that hate brings about justice. I am sad for those who think that being against the death of a human being means you are anti-american, or misled, or stupid, or racist. I am sad that those like myself, are labeled as “anti-military” and that we “spit in the eyes of troops” when we say that we choose love over hate, life over death, and Christ over country.

Bin Laden’s death does not bring justice to those who lost loved ones because of his actions; it does not end a war; it does not do the will of God. I can rejoice in the end of his leadership but in his death, I cannot. I will not. This is a time to mourn how justice was not served to 9/11 victims and to him. As I type this I can feel the anger that some people will have with these words and I can feel the hate that some will have for me because I am saying them. This is why it needs to be said. Bin Laden was a man, a human, a child of God. It is a tragedy that we killed him instead of trying to redeem him. It is by loving those that the world and ourselves deem “unlovable” that we follow in the footsteps of Christ.

Once we escape the fear of death, once we realize that all are created by God almighty, we will realize that no life is worth killing for and every life is worth dying for.

************************************************************

Though I  mean and stand by everything that I say in this post, here is an opposite take that is very well articulated:  http://theologica.ning.com/profiles/blogs/should-christians-rejoice-over 

There are two answers. One corporate and one for the individual. The corporate answer is no, the denomination should not split over this issue nor do can I think of an issue that is worth breaking apart for. As for the individual, the answer is maybe. Lets look at these a little closer.

Corporate

For the Nazarene denomination, and in fact I would say this of any denomination, breaking off into smaller groups or encouraging a group to do so is not in the best interest of the denomination or the Church as a whole. Denominations are interesting things to begin with, many people cling to their denomination as the one that bears the truest witness (at least in their eyes). It is the group that either welcomed them the most, loved them the most, had their ideology most aligned with theirs, or it is what they where raised in. Denominations have become a huge sub-label within Christendom, an identity that some are flexible with and that some are immoveable with. Whether or not you think denominations are the best way for God’s Church, they are what we find ourselves with and to an extent, they serve a purpose.

Time has seen the Church begin with many small factions (home church, bible studies, small groups) and then blossom into a gigantic state-sponsored entity (the Holy Roman Empire). From there it has seen faction after faction break from it, the “Great Schism” leading to Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism in the west. Time brought the Reformation, Puritans moving to America and so on and so forth. New centuries continue to see new denominations. However, I would contend that this is not what Paul meant by “one body, many parts”. 1 Corinthians 12:16-30 talks about differences through unity of the spirit “God has put the body together, giving greater honor to the parts that lacked it, so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. If one part suffers, every part suffers with it.” (24-26). This is not just talking about gifts, it is talking about ideas and perspectives. Colossians 3:12-16 talks about forgiving disputes among fellow Christians and to let “the peace of Christ rule over” our hearts.

Disagreement and agitation are good in the sense that they encourage accountability, reasoning, and dialogue to take place. Allow those whose ideas differ to pack up and leave without beseeching them to stay or at least providing fellowship and dialogue is shameful. Whenever a large issue comes along i.e. slavery, civil rights, homosexuality, yoga, sex etc. we are not showing maturity, strength or Christ’s love by starting our own denomination or allowing others to do so. Some instances in the past have seen the power holders of the Church subjugate a minority causing them to see leaving as their only option. As stated this has happened a multitude of times and we find ourselves in a world with Methodists, Nazarenes, Reformeds, Baptists, Catholics, Anabaptists, Mennonites, Lutherans and within in these are dozens (sometimes hundreds) of more sub-groups.

There are already enough divisions of the body and we do not need more. I contend that denominations, while they allow people to select a more individualized brand of Christianity, serve to hinder the work of the Kingdom. They provide an additional label that often brings prejudice or stereotype. They also lend themselves to closeting groups off from one another. It reminds me of tribes in Africa. When I lived in Uganda I quickly became aware of how many different tribal groups lived within the borders. I love Uganda, it is a wonderful place where God is working but, like many other countries in Africa, it has major social issues and has been stymied with war, crooked politics, and nepotism. While everyone I met was a Ugandan, they identified themselves first by their tribe. Their allegiance to their tribe often seemed to supersede their allegiance to their country and this – I and many who are smarter than I believe – is one of the factors that keeps them from developing their full potential. It also gives a poor picture to the outside world. This is what denominations have become. They are tribes that we align with and they keep us from coming together to form a united front.

Denominations, such as the Church of the Nazarene should do everything within their power to open internal and external channels of communication in order to remain fresh. They must provide voices to all minorities within their scope. If a large group of people is making a move towards leaving it should sadden the hearts of the majority because it means something is wrong. Something is wrong with the dialogue, something is wrong the way people are being treated, something is wrong with the love (more likely the lack there of). There are ways to disagree and coexist that do not entail an exodus.

Individual

This being said, I will now turn to the aforementioned individual. The answer for the individual is different in several ways. First, while new denomination should not be sought after, we must acknowledge that old ones do exist and will continue to be present. The current denominations can offer a change for individuals who find themselves unable to remain within a current group. These individuals may seek out other groups to be a part of but I would strongly encourage them to examine why they are leaving. Most of the time pain is felt by those who leave a church, whether to join another or simple stop attending. Pain caused by injustice they have felt from the denomination or specific people. Paul urges us to avoid persons who create divisions in the Church in Romans 16, but his warning should be taken as an internal one as well, examine your actions so you do not become one of these individuals.

Sometimes leaving is the right course of action, I am reminded of a woman whose ex-husband beat her. He went to jail and gave his life to Jesus, but after he was released he began attending the church of his ex-wife. This being to much to bear and not receiving any help from the church leaders, she moved to a different church. Overall this was the best option for her though she still feels pain from having to be separated from what she saw as her family. Sometimes an individual must leave a denomination but it should only be done if all other options are exhausted and I believe it should be a last resort.

Conclusion

To reiterate, the Church of the Nazarene and all other denominations should never let an issue cause a break in their church. Adversity will always exist, both inside and outside the Church, how we deal with it is a reflection of how much we love each other and how much we love Christ. We must arrive at that point where we can disagree and still live in the same house, which shouldn’t be to hard to do as most of us live with family already. 

I applaud concern and debate, especially when a person or group of people feel as if their brothers and sisters are headed down a destructive or dangerous path. We need to keep each other accountable, we need to make ourselves firm in our faith by constantly reviewing and discussing beliefs within the community of believers. In my experience, destructive paths or harmful practices in the Church are almost always done by a few and addressed by the many. In this case however, we have many people being seen as destructive by many other people and they all live under the same roof. Obviously a serious issue is at hand when so many are on opposing sides but dialogue, not condemnation, is required. I am reminded of the current situation facing our Government. All of our congressman are Americans and all of them believe their ideas to be the best way forward. Often times there are many disagreements but dialogue takes place and we move forward, even if it is at a slow pace sometimes. Right now however, no dialogue is taking place and if it continues things will shut down, literally. We are in danger of seeing this if we refuse open dialogue and  try to censor discussion and feedback.

To directly respond to the article about Northwest Nazarene University being a “Symbol of What’s Wrong with our Christian Schools” I will say the following: First, NNU has established itself and markets itself – as approved by trustees – as a “Christian Liberal Arts Institution”, it serves as a place for Nazarenes and non-Nazarenes alike to get an education in a Christian environment while working to engage and educate its students in a multitude of disciplines. NNU and her sister schools see the world for what it is: a mix of many religions and beliefs, it tries to equip those who graduate with tools to engage the world at large. NNU brings a wide spectrum from the Christian community to engage its students and almost every speaker or presenter who comes is popular with certain students and faculty and unpopular with others. As a student I had plenty of times where I was in total disagreement with a particular person and others where I completely identified with them, no matter how I felt though I took every opportunity to broaden my knowledge. Any person who wants to further their education in any discipline must learn to understand, engage, and entertain idea’s or ways that differ from their own perspective, that’s how we either reinforce our idea’s or take on new ones or collaborate and form a third. If I wanted to be presented only one side of everything and taught to hate everything else, I would have been better served living in 1939 Germany.

That being said we must recognize that this school and all other sister schools belong under the umbrella of the Nazarene church. They were created by the Church of the Nazarene to produce educated minds from the faith to go into various fields, use their talents, and be a witness. We must also remember however, that none of the Nazarene institutions of undergraduate education require being Nazarene to begin with. Many students at NNU are not Nazarene and take active part in discussing different ideas and parts of faith. While professors stimulate dialogue and present different ideas, students also bring much to the table.

This blog, administrated by Manny Silva, who is a data base developer with a Masters in Physical Education, has no semblance of real dialogue at all. What I read, and maybe through a somewhat biased lens, is blanket condemnation; several claims made about people and institutions that are exaggerated or flat-out false; Censoring of all comments that are of an opposing view; and language presented in a style designed to incite fear and anger without presenting an outside opinion to propagate understanding.

We need an open dialogue, we need to educate people about certain ideas and their dangers and merits. Censorship of those who come from the opposite side only fuel a fire and block understanding from both sides. We all know it takes two to tango. Many people who comment on his blog are people with valid concerns and need to be brought into conversation that is balanced and explanatory with those they are concerned about. This blog does not facilitate this and I have no problem saying that it does nothing but breed hate. It is okay to scream at the top of your lungs when you are upset, but posting hate on a public forum in the name of Jesus and trying to get as many people as you can to pick up there guns and fire without understanding why they are attacking is irresponsible. Not only irresponsible but if more people behave this way we are in danger of disengaging from the world and closeting ourselves as a denomination.

When you have two opposing extremes, rarely does one extreme represent the right answer, far more often does the answer lie somewhere in between.

Now let’s be clear from the get-go, I am not here to fight for or against homosexuality or gay marriage in any moral capacity. I am not going to talk about Biblical cases against homosexuality or cultural arguments for accepting it within the Church. What I am going to talk about is the waste of resources, energy, and breath spent fighting homosexuality on behalf of the Church through politics. A fight that Christians will not only lose, but will result in the widening the already vast chasm that exists between the Church, homosexuals, and their advocates.

For centuries the Church has been behind (or a major supporter of) some of the most horrendous and inhumane undertakings seen in the world: the crusades; slavery; the oppression of women; the destroying of Holy sites/texts of other religions; segregation; burning people at the stake – the list goes on. In many of these instances, the Church (and every time I say the Church I am including the majority of Christians) has successfully driven a wedge between whatever group they set themselves up against.

On the other side of the coin the Church has always been there to advocate for those that are being oppressed, though historically this has been the minority group within the Body. The Church was there to help slaves, raise up women, and it was the very foundation for the Civil Rights movement. Even in light of this, the wedges driven by the majority have left deep wounds that are taking decades to heal. Leaders use the Bible to arrive at a conclusion, turn it into a fact, and sell it to their congregations. Congregations in turn rally behind whatever policy maker or stance they are told will protect the Church and “Christian Morality”.

The politics of our time have become the vehicle for Christians to express their values and beliefs. An interesting development in a time where many see the separation of Church and state as sacred, something that protects the rights of individuals who wish to worship. Many believe this is actually a constitutional right, though in the words “separation of Church and state” never appear together in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or Declaration of Independence. What’s more is that it has now become hard to distinguish which political platforms began with the Church and which the Church has decided to adopt.

Politics and Christianity have been bedfellows long before the creation of the United States but just because this is the case does not make it the path to enlightenment. The change Christians should be striving for, the reason we worship and live the way we live, is to bring the Kingdom of Heaven to Earth. This will never come through any policy or government. This comes through love and peace, two things that Governments can never obtain, at least not under the definition left to us by Jesus’ life.

Back to homosexuality; the policies Christians are throwing themselves behind – particularly conservative evangelicals – are born from fear that has grown into hate. Anything fear based is not from God. Anything that turns into hate is not from God. The wedge aforementioned is being driven between the Church and this particular group of people that many fear. What exactly do they fear and why do they fear it are questions that need to be asked and discussed, however this will never happen with the current mindset.

Some may be thinking that it is more about protecting marriage than fighting homosexuality. This seems a noble effort but the argument holds no water unless you are also willing to stand behind policies that are directed towards restoring the sanctity of marriage amongst heterosexuals. Marriage and its holiness has been desecrated just as much – and in my opinion more – by heterosexual couples as it has by same-sex couples. Marriage is a Sacrament; we should trust God to unite he who is going to unite. If same-sex marriage is wrong, don’t you think God will stay out of it on His own?

Here is what it boils down too: the legislating of Christian beliefs is a downfall to Christianity as it accomplishes the very thing we wish to never endure, something we spent the first four hundred years of our existence enduring – oppression. We live in the USA which affords us many rights to believe what we want, lets not fight against this for others. Legislating against groups of people has always backfired and required years of healing in order to bring these folds back to the Church. It breeds hate and contempt for others, something we never see from Jesus. If you pay close attention, every time Jesus condemns the behavior of others openly, he is always referring to the leaders of his own religion. I am not saying that we should accept all beliefs into the realm of Christianity, what I am saying is that we will never learn from, draw others into, or change the minds of anyone outside if we attempt to create government laws that oppress others. We know the past, lets not repeat it!

Non-violence seems at first a singular concept that need not necessarily be connected with love. Non-violence can be displayed without love as the motivation or even with a motivation that is evil. Non-violence can be completely secular and loveless whereas the other two principles of love, recognizing all as God’s creation and presence, I would argue, cannot be fully detached from love.

Why then, if non-violence can be motivated outside of love, is it a main theme of Jesus’ life? The reason for this connection is this; you cannot have a love that recognizes everyone as a potential Christ, which seeks presence (understanding and empathy) in the lives of everyone, without embracing non-violence to its fullest extent. Non-violence logically follows in light of the previous principles.
What does non-violence look like in Jesus’ life and what does it necessitate from the believer? One does not have to look to hard within scripture to find Jesus preaching/practicing non-violence. Luke 6:27-36, is perhaps the most concise and definitive preaching we receive from Jesus about who to love and the type of love which we are supposed to exude. From these verses we get the likes of “be perfect as your father is perfect”, “love your enemies, do good to those who hate you”, and “Be merciful, just as your Father is Merciful”. John Yoder, author of the book “The Politics of Jesus” sees this passage as key in understanding the actions we are to have towards those who would do us physical and verbal harm. According to Yoder “Because God does not discriminate, his disciples are called upon likewise not to discriminate in choosing the objects of there love.” . Basically Yoder is saying that the thesis of the Sermon on the Mount is to love humanity regardless of personal prejudice or culturally developed beliefs about others.

Jesus loved without discrimination. We too are called to live like this. How can one love indiscriminately and still kill others? Violence does not lend itself to forgiveness or turning the other cheek. Jesus lived his whole life without using physical force to get his message across. All we have to do is look at how he reacts to someone using the sword to protect him when other Jews come for him; “Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him. With that, one of Jesus’ companions reached for his sword drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear. ‘Put your sword back in its place,’ Jesus said to him, ‘for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?’” Matthew 26:52-53. The same account in Luke has Jesus not only rebuking the action but also healing the man whose ear was severed. These accounts give us two key points that display Jesus love through non-violence. The first point is that Jesus rebukes the violent action and says that he can call down the power required subdue his accusers at anytime. For those who worry about protecting the innocent with violence, you must ask yourself why Jesus, the most innocent being to ever walk the earth, refused violence from Peter. The second point is that he heals the violence done to protect him. Instead of answering violence with violence, Jesus answers it with forgiveness and healing.

Jesus could have used violence and destruction to remedy any number of issues that where going on around him. He was living in a time when his own people where being violently oppressed by the Romans. According to the historian Josephus, the Romans had massacred more than 3000 Jews on Passover in 4 b.c. The context that Jesus was coming into begged for justice through the sword. Jesus did exactly the opposite of what would be expected of a Messiah; he loved and cared for all those he encountered, he rebuked violence, and showed compassion. Because he was obedient to these principles he behaved non-violently even if it meant dying at the hands of those who did not understand what he came to show us.

Paul says in Romans 13 that all the commandments can be summed up by the commandment to love your neighbor. “Love does no harm to its neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law” (v.10). If you look at this in light of Jesus’ claims about how he came to not abolish the law but fulfill it (Matt. 5:17), then you can see how non-violence is key to loving like Jesus loved.