Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

The Gospel and the nuances of violence

Opinion

The Gospel and the nuances of violence

A cross on the grave against the background of a military monument to the Motherland in Kyiv, Ukraine.

Getty Images

Swearengin is an author, emotional & spiritual well-being coach, podcaster and content creator through his social media presence as Unconventional Pastor Paul. He talks religion and politics at times joined by his wife Ashley, a former elected official and community leader. Find him at Pastor-Paul.com.

We've recently marked the 22nd anniversary of 9/11. As we remember our collective pain and the lives lost, can we also take a moment to remember that the Jesus of the Christian Bible was a decided proponent of non-violence even while displaying occasional nuance on the subject.


As we keep in mind that Jesus taught his followers to “turn the other cheek” when struck, can we also be cognizant that he flipped a table and grabbed a whip when he saw those with power using it to oppress those less powerful. When we, as a nation, hold the power to choose to oppress or to bring a powerful spirit of peace, can we critique ourselves in a dispassionate manner? A famous quote states that war is about “killing people and breaking things,” therefore, wouldn’t it be valuable to soberly, and with stark honesty, consider the times our killing and breaking was a righteous battle, and the times it might have felt rewarding in the moment but only created a spirit and cycle of retaliation?

I once heard an American operative who spent many years active in the Middle East say, "America will not be able to solve its problems in the Middle East until we stop blowing things up in the Middle East." He emphasized that as Americans, each time we visit violence upon a predominantly Muslim nation in that area, we prove to the average people there that we are what the extremists say we are and "another hundred families give their children to Al Queda."

That comment pushes back mightily on the narrative we heard after 9/11 that this act of terror was due to hatred against us simply because we're Christian and good.

In no way am I endorsing the actions of the terrorists who committed these acts, nor do I say that victims of that act were deserving of their fate. I'm simply asking us to have an honest assessment of what could possibly have facilitated such an act, and to wrestle with our response as a people, so that we can better evaluate how we should react when scary things happen to us in the future.

The gospel teachings of Jesus were that people who "live by the sword, die by the same." Thus, a follower of the Christian religion or even of sound wisdom might consider if any violent acts we have suffered might be an “eye for an eye” response to violence we have inflicted on citizens of other nations as opposed to times in our history, like the Pearl Harbor attack, that was an act of aggression against us that required a World War II level of righteous response.

Jesus radically taught that someone suited for their cloak should also give their tunic. In first century Palestine, it was illegal to take a person’s inner garment as the lack of warmth provided by the tunic was considered a death sentence. Jesus never taught, “get really good at killing and breaking things in order to save your tunic."

Now this was not a call from Jesus to let oneself be abused; that's never OK. But when biblical wisdom says that simply loving those close in is no big deal, we might want to learn that the mark of someone who's connected to divine goodness is one who can love those they consider enemies of their religious, racial, or nationalistic beliefs. As we see the devastation of wars that were created from our desire to get retribution for 9/11, let us challenge ourselves to consider better ways to reach for peace than being the best "killer and breaker" on earth.

I certainly understand this is a nuanced discussion that we as a nation rarely have. I fear we rarely think about the possibility of our culpability when violence visits within our national boundaries. These are difficult questions indeed as we remember the horror of having our fellow citizens killed; but certainly questions worth considering.


Read More

Woman holding out an empty wallet at a table.

Many Americans wrongly associate poverty primarily with Black and Hispanic communities. Explore how this misconception influences public opinion, politics, and anti-poverty policy.

skaman306 / Getty Images

More Whites Live in Poverty than Either Blacks or Hispanics - Correcting the Perception of Poverty

From observing people and politicians over the years—I can find no data on this—I have the impression that liberals as well as conservatives think that the typical person living in poverty is Black or Hispanic. The image most Whites have of people of color is someone who is poor—except for celebrities—with little education; they are not aware of many people of color who are middle class. On the other hand, they are not aware of many Whites who are poor and so they think their number is low.

Why is the perception of poverty important? The perception of who is poor has significant impact on the support for government programs that aid the poor. Given the extent of racism in this country, whether subtle or violent, (see my post, “Whether the Issue is Gun Violence or Inequality, It Always Comes Back to Race/Racism”), it’s not surprising that support for anti-poverty programs is non-existent among MAGA Republicans and for that matter has always been weak among Republicans; 45% of Republicans would even cut food stamp support. Their attitude is "it's your fault;" so government has no responsibility to help. They feel the causes of poverty are personal: bad life choices, drugs, lack of work ethic, and the breakdown of families—all negative perceptions of Black culture.

Keep ReadingShow less
The All-America City of San Antonio Collaborates to Address Teen Pregnancy and Other Issues
person in green pants sitting on white textile
Photo by Vanessa on Unsplash

The All-America City of San Antonio Collaborates to Address Teen Pregnancy and Other Issues

San Antonio, TX, has been working to reduce teen pregnancy for over two decades, making considerable progress through collaborations among the city, county, nonprofit organizations, and the University of Texas. A nine-time All-America City, one of San Antonio’s key community collaborations, SA 2020, harnessed civic muscle to create and achieve dozens of measurable goals, including a significant reduction in teen pregnancy.

The San Antonio Teen Pregnancy Collaborative (SATPPC) was formed in 2010 in response to news that Bexar County had one of the highest rates of teen births in the United States. The SATPPC brought together an impressive list of cross-sector organizations, including public entities, community-based organizations, and faith-based and secular institutions. The group’s overall goal was to reduce the Bexar County teen birth rate among females ages 15 to 19 by 15% by 2020, and it exceeded this goal even before that date.

Keep ReadingShow less
Anti-gerrymandering sign

Anti-gerrymandering sign

Bill Clark/Getty Images

Don't Hold Your Breath Waiting for Politicians or Their Consultants to Fix Gerrymandering

2018, a nonprofit worker in Michigan named Katie Fahey posted a message online asking if anyone else was tired of politicians drawing their own districts. She had no campaign experience and no political base.

Within two years, the ballot initiative she built, called Voters Not Politicians, had written an independent redistricting commission into the Michigan constitution. Hollywood eventually made a documentary about it, Slay the Dragon, which is a fairly accurate description of what she had actually done.

Keep ReadingShow less
Red rock formations in the "Valley of the Gods."

Red rock formations in the "Valley of the Gods" on April 22, 2026 in Bears Ears National Monument, Utah. Bears Ears has been a controversial Monument since it's creation in December of 2016.

George Frey / Getty Images

When Public Lands Become Real Estate

Last week, in his latest attempted liquidation of our shared heritage, President Trump signed two executive orders eviscerating protections for close to three million acres of our national monuments: Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante. From the Oval Office, a president who has never even seen these sacred sites reduced them by roughly 90%, dwarfing his 2017 attempt at a similar land grab by about a million acres, leaving only 300,000 acres of protected land. These cuts will directly threaten critical wildlife habitats, put nearly 100,000 irreplaceable archaeological sites at risk of destruction, and fracture an interconnected indigenous homeland that has been stewarded by Native tribes since time immemorial. To Trump, it’s just another real estate deal.

The Trump regime has tried to portray this set-up to sell off as an effort to restore public access. During the Oval Office photo op where the president signed the proclamations, he said of the monuments: “You can’t go hunting. You can’t go fishing. You can’t do anything. You can virtually not even walk on it.” That is, to put it mildly, a malicious lie. All your favorite forms of outdoor recreation—from hiking and camping to fishing and hunting—are allowed there, which Trump might know if he had ever visited the land he decided is not worth preserving. In fact, the Antiquities Act doesn’t limit ordinary public use but rather the extent to which an area can be subject to mining and drilling. So much for the land of the free. Trump wants to make it a whole lot easier for extractive industries and private development interests to privatize and pillage these sacred lands for financial gain. Home of the brave? Not an ounce of courage to refuse the fuel lobby when it comes to our public lands. At least the law is on our side. As the President of the National Parks Conservation Association put it, this is both “a betrayal to the American people and illegal.”

Keep ReadingShow less