How far would you be willing to go to be heard if you felt passionate about something?
Would you be prepared to be arrested for your ideals and beliefs? Is there anything you believe in so strongly that you would you be ready to face prison to highlight the cause?
Simon Moyle is a Baptist Pastor from Melbourne, Victoria, who recently headed north to Queensland to confront Australian and US Forces involved in war games.
Together with just four friends, Simon dared to challenge the might of the military. In an open statement to the forces they began saying,
We are five unarmed, nonviolent Christians who are extremely concerned about the military exercises in which you are taking part. We are here only to invite you to dialogue and exchange ideas. We would like to see these preparations for war cease, and preparations for peace begin. Thus, we come here to invite you to play peace games with us, and stop the war games. We do so, as Martin Luther King Jr. said, “openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to pay the penalty”.
The story that unfolds from Simon’s visit to the military base is fascinating. The non-violence activists got their wish of playing peace games when they threw a frisbee around with some of the military personnel. After some coffee and discussion with the troops the protesters were arrested for trespass. They face court in about a month.
I chatted to Simon about his actions during my morning programme on 98.5 Sonshine FM this morning.
You can listen to our conversation using the media player below.
Do you think some of your friends would enjoy reading War isn’t a game? Please use the buttons below to share the post. Thanks.
Congrats on being Blog of the Day at That’s My Answer. This is my first time visiting your blog, but definitely won’t be my last.
Congrats on the Blog of the Day!
Thanks for the link Rodney. An interesting discussion and I admire their bravery and strength of conviction, but I really think a lot of naivity. Although I agree with the basic non-violence message, I’m pleased to have a ready defence force.
I really struggle with drawing parallels between Jesus and Paul and their imprisonment/death for the gospel, and Martin Luther King who fought to free an entire group of people. Shutting down a training exercise is just a little different, don’t you think?
Is it right not to have a national defense? Not to protect ourselves from other people who WANTS to kill you for THEIR beliefs?
Wake up. There are a group of people out there who wants to kill people who are free…
You have those people in Australia right now..who want to get rid of those freedoms who you enjoy right now.
We must have a defense..or we will lose our freedom.
As for Christians who protest against defense…Peace will only come when the Prince of Peace comes and until then. Man can not bring about peace. We Christians must realize that.
Thanks so much to those who have taken the time to respond to Rodney’s post. I hope I can clarify some things that might help the discussion.
Alex – you wondered about the parallels between Jesus and Paul’s imprisonment/death for the gospel and Martin Luther King Jr’s civil rights movement, and our shutting down a training exercise. I wonder if part of the problem is a difference in how we see the word ‘gospel’. I believe the very word ‘gospel’ is political – it was used by Caesar to announce his victories in battle throughout the empire. The evangelists co-opted this word to announce the victory of the reign of God – not Caesar! Its very mention constituted a direct challenge. Similarly, the statement ‘Jesus is Lord’ was deeply political – Caesar forced people to call him Lord, so saying “Jesus is Lord” was completely seditious, denying the divinity and authority of Caesar and saying Jesus is the true God and King. Again, it’s coopting the language of the empire to subvert the empire. But here was a ruler who ruled not with the sword, but with loving, self-giving servanthood, a totally new way of being in and relating to the world.
Crucifixion was reserved for insurrectionists, political revolutionaries who dared to oppose the might of Rome. That’s why they were placed beside the roadside – to deter people from even thinking about challenging the status quo. Jesus never denied that his “Kingdom” (he even used that word) was political – he just said that it wasn’t anything like the world’s way of doing politics It’s a new society, a new set of relationships that are humble and gentle and self-giving, healing and non-coercive – one that “is among you”, “is very close”, “has come near”. No wonder the gospel was considered a “stumbling block” to Jews and “foolishness” to Gentiles! It seems completely unrealistic, right? That’s why it takes faith! It is, as Jesus said, “good news for the poor, release for the captives, recovery of sight to the blind, freedom for the oppressed” etc. This, I think is very much what MLK Jr was doing, and I think very much what we were doing too. Nothing is more oppressive than war, and the effects it has on relationships, economics, etc, and so when we oppose it in the nonviolent Spirit of Jesus, we are trying (very imperfectly) to be good news for the poor, and the oppressed. Does that help clarify that issue?
Ron, you ask if it’s right not to have a national defense, not to protect ourselves. I think perhaps I didn’t explain well enough that nonviolence is far from a passive, do-nothing stance – it is active, engaged, creative action. I think we can have a vibrant, effective national defense without needing to resort to violence. Violence relies on our externalising evil, placing it completely in the other, while ignoring our own evil. In reality, life is never like that.
But at the same time, it’s worth acknowledging the response that Jesus made when people came to kill him. “Put down your sword” he said to Peter when he tried to violently defend Jesus – and indeed, Jesus’ whole response to those who killed him was mindblowingly nonviolent. “Father forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing” even while dying on the cross! Staggering, deep nonviolent love.
Even on a national scale – Jesus was living through invasion, occupation by a foreign, pagan nation, of the promised land of God’s chosen people. This must’ve seemed like an insult, not only to their national sovereignty and freedom, but to God’s honour! If ever there was a call for justified violent insurrection this must’ve been it, surely? Yet incredibly Jesus calls his contemporaries to love their enemies! To carry the soldiers’ packs – not just one mile, but two! To turn the other cheek – not in submission, but as a creative, active way of confronting an oppressor and inviting him (and it was always a him) to treat you equally (see Walter Wink’s The Powers That Be for the context of this passage).
Ron, I totally agree with you that humanity cannot itself bring about peace. Indeed, it is not our job as people or even as Christians to make history come out right; that is God’s job. Isn’t that what violence tries to do – control the outcome so that history comes out right? That is absolutely not what we were trying to do with these peace games. Our job is to be faithful to the call of Jesus – a call that includes the commandment to love our enemies, and to be peacemakers. We wanted to embody the kind of world envisioned by Isaiah – where people “train for war no more” – and invite others to join us in it. Not to force them to do so, but to gently and lovingly invite them.
Thanks again for your contributions, and I hope we can continue this vital discussion!
Grace and peace.
You know, there’s certainly people who believe that it’s okay for us to hasten the ‘end times’ by funding or celebrating the unrest in the Middle East. They kind-of figure that the book or Revelation says the King of Glory will return, only after certain events occur. So they have a hope that Russia will invade Iraq and bring on the ‘rapture’ (or something like that)…
I don’t know, I just like figure, as Simon says, that Jesus was a man of peace and if we’re really trying to emulate Him, then peace should be our goal.
Hi Simon, thanks for the thoughtful response. But I still beg to differ! I do agree that the gospel is seditious. Last year, I think, the PM said (in relation to Muslim extremists) that our first loyalty is to our nation. Of course, as a Christian that is untenable.
I guess I see the message of peace as only making sense, in fact only being possible, within the life of faith. The preaching of the cross must take precedence because that is transformational.
So should we never be politically engaged? I can hardly take that position either. I guess it’s just that I believe any political involvement will only ever be partially and temporarilly effective unless it happens in the context of heart transformation brought about by the cross.
However, agree or no, you’re obviously seeking to live out your faith in authentic ways. Shalom!