“In a focal instance the situation described is so specific it does not provide a very useful general rule when confined to its literal sense. The specificity is intended to shock the hearers with an extreme command, at striking variance with the way people usually behave in such a situation, to lead the hearer to think beyond the literal meaning of the words and to reflect on the whole pattern of behavior that dominates life. The specific command is not a rule of behavior that can be followed mechanically but is intended to stimulate the imagination to draw out the implications for life as a whole. If no one has struck me on the cheek or taken away my coat, what would a nonviolent response to the violence I experience mean? When the moral imagination is awakened in this way, the words have had their desired effect. Love of the enemy means not returning evil for evil but responding to violence by creative nonviolence.” Talbert, 77I am a pacifist at heart. Jesus’ call to nonviolence, to turn the other cheek and repay evil with good have challenged me to make that decision, that much should be clear from my “Kingdom Ethic” post. Yet, just hours after writing the last post I received a horrendous email about a family struggling with through the mire of a violent storm. The violent whirlwind has reaped destruction and chaos in and on the lives of the helpless, silencing the faint voices of the timid, eclipsing any rays of hope, obscuring the light of shalom in the darkness of shadow. A young girl destroyed by the evil of the human abuse of sexuality…
Though I long to answer Jesus’ call to nonviolence. These situations are the furnace in my heart that causes my blood to boil, nearly uncontrollably. When people assert and abuse their power for their own self-interests, using others objects of their own pleasure and bringing destruction to the defenseless, I have to fight the urge to respond to their violence with violence of my own. My initial urges are to castrate those who use their sexual organs as swords of violence, daggers that tear not only into the flesh of innocent victims, but into their hearts, minds, and spirits as well. Their destructively violent behavior wreaks havoc, causing their victims to reap the whirlwind of emotional brokenness, trauma, guilt, and shame. There are others who inflict oppressive and devastating physical and emotional abuse on the meek and the defenseless. These bring me to the point of retaliation far more quickly than the felling of towers and suicide bombers. (Though I hear many Christians respond to those crises with the “eye for an eye” war cry.)
As Christians, how do we respond to such behavior? As I have confessed, the natural tendency that I fight is the “eye for an eye” approach, or one that would cut more drastically (and literally) at the heart of the situation. Is there a choice other than the return of violence for violence? As I have been struggling with this very question, the quote by Talbert above really caught my imagination, especially the last sentence: “Love of the enemy means not returning evil for evil but responding to violence by creative nonviolence.” Listen to it again: Respond to violence with creative nonviolence. Brilliant.
Why is this insight so brilliant? What is Talbert (and Jesus?) saying? It would seem that the call of God demands that we not only respond to evil with good, but that we go well beyond that. The kingdom ethic demands that our response to violence must be not only nonviolence, but creative nonviolence. Looking through the eyes of Christ, we see that the call of the
So, how do we do this? How do we move this discussion from a theo-philosophical discussion on Christian nonviolence to embody creative nonviolence in the world as the Second Incarnation of Christ? What advice would you have for creative nonviolence in a destructively violent world?
12 comments:
I think we must consider in this conversation Jesus' one turn of violence in the Gospels. Jesus charged into the Temple square with a whip he had fashioned and turned over the tables, ransacked business ventures and drove out, apparently singlehandedly, grown men plying their trade. This is violence, no doubt. Do we think we didn't actually use that whip? I have struggled with this episode, especially in light of the pacifist teachings you address, and I hold - for the moment - the only consistent reading that my mind can understand. That is, Jesus, nonetheless violent, was acting in love for those these moneychangers were cheating and victimizing. Jesus reserved this violence (and his violent words: "broods of vipers," "sons of hell") for those in power who abused the weak to prevent them from worshiping the Lord well. The economically powerful and religiously powerful provoked Jesus violence toward them when they victimized the weak and oppressed those who would seek God. I don't think this was motivated by hatred or retribution for those he attacked, but his actions were motivated by love for the victims, to rescue, to prevent, to deliver the weak from the abuse of the strong. He acted in love, even as he tore through the Temple tables (and their owner operators). So can you not act, even violently, to rescue the weak, here, the sexually abused, without giving up love? This is a great mystery, and I would not attempt to draw that line in others, only in myself, and only in the most acute moments.
Some thoughts on a paper I did on the theology of MLK...
It seems to me that violence (physical or not) is chosen by those who have or want power...
(I think we need to be much more aware of how we use power in the Church!)
"What is needed is a realization that power without love is reckless and abusive and that love without power is sentimental and anemic. Power at its best is love implementing the demands of justice. Justice at its best is love correcting everything that stands against love."
- Where Do We Go From Here by Martin Luther King Jr.
MLK (and Gandhi - An eye for an eye leaves the world blind) had much to say about non-violence and the theology behind it. I would also point you to Strength to Love. by MLK, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1963 or his autobiography or
Frady, Marshall. Martin Luther King, Jr. New York: Penguin, 2002.
I pray to walk in the path of these men.
Thanks for thoughts so far. They do a good job continuing the theoretical discussion. How can we bridge our theo-philosophical beliefs with praxis regarding nonviolence? (I no doubt would turn to the nonviolent strands of African-American liberation theology and to anabaptist thought, such as works by Yoder and Hauerwas, for a good discussion on the subject.)
I would also like to allow DMB (from Stand Up) to add to your discussion: "Listen to the words of a misguided fool, 'Do unto others as you would have them do; When an eye for an eye is the Golden Rule, it just leaves a room full of blind men.'"
So again, how can we bridge the gap between thought and action? How do we determine when it is appropriate to use power as Jesus did for the sake of others (and can we be sure that his violence was actually against people)? How can we respond to violence with "creative nonviolence," nonviolence that opens space for God's creative power to bring new creation, shalom, and redemption in the midst of destructive waters of violent chaos?
This may be too far afield, but I think this question must be central to the premise that pure pacifism is indeed the Way. What informs your suggestion that Jesus may not have deployed violence against the money changers in the Temple. I think the burden must rest on you who would suggest that he did not. Not for nothing would he have woven a whip before entering the fray.
What I meant by this was to ask the question, "Does Jesus' bearing of a whip presuppose or necessitate his violent use of the whip ON PEOPLE?" There are, in fact, other ways to bear a whip and get a point across than actually inflicting violence.
Later in the Gospel of Luke, Jesus refuses to allow his disciples to wield the two swords that they have in violent retaliation to the violent crowd. How does that play into this?
I think that the overriding biblical message is that Jesus chose the path of nonviolence, heading to a cross instead of a crown. His nonviolent response to a violent world opened the possibility for the creative power of God to be at work. How can we respond in kind?
Here's the distinction I see, informed by "turning to the other cheek," give both cloak and coat, walking extra miles and Jesus' example itself, including the prohibiting on sword bearing itself. Jesus forbibs violence in SELF defense, especially when of the persecutive kind, but he deploys violence of some sort (on people or furniture) and violent words, supra, in the defense of the weak, the oppressed, the abused, powerless victims. Love all always, but the use of violence can be driven by love when used like that.
(The character in my novel based on you, and the character in my novel based on me had this PRECISE argument at a diner in Nashville just before Pearl Harbor. Beautiful.)
Also, consider that MLK had some realistic political motives alongside his theological thought. He was savvy enough to realize with discipline that non-violence was the only means to acheive the effect he wanted. Violence in his own defense (or his race's) would not have gained the ground he wanted. Non-violent protest was the only realistic way.
This quickly turns us to a discussion of D. Bonhoeffer and his pacifist tendencies. Though a pacifist at heart, he made a theo-philosophical shift in praxis when the Third Reich was at the height of its killing mania. At that point he made the decision to join in a plot to assassinate Hitler.
This, I think begins to bring together the thinking of CMac and JRB regarding the use of power only as it is informed by love. Power, on its own, is a destructive tendency. Yet, when informed, controlled, and guided by love, power is transformed into something can be creative. This also taps me back into the Eastern Orthodox understanding of creation. Theologically, they argue that the act of creation resulted from the overflow and abundant excess of love that existed in the very community of the Triune God. ("God IS love.") It was out of the love that God's creative power brought order to the "tohu wabohu" (chaotic formlessness) in Genesis 1. I think we also see this type of love undergirding the liberative actions of power used by Jesus for the sake of others in the Temple. (Also note that his actions in many ways sealed his fate in Jerusalem, so they are all the more for the sake of others.)
That, in essence, is one of my biggest arguments for pacifism. Our wielding of power, even if for the sake of others, can become a drug that turns from an attempt at creative violence to destructive and corruptive violence very easily. There is a very fine line between the two. Taking the road of the pacifism as exemplified in the cross, self-emptying nonviolence for the sake of others, seems an important way to keep the destructive abuse of power in check.
Yet, this still brings me back to the question, How do we embody a creative response (please not that this question has changed from creative nonviolence to creative response) to the violence in this world that allows the power of God, not our own power, to effect change?
Amen to all that. I don't want to draw too much theology from JK Rowling, but the conversation between Albus Dumbeldore and Harry before they set out on their mission at the end of "Half Blood Prince" is an astonishing illumination of love in the presence of evil seeking power, the response to love to self-service.
I'm glad you brought of Bonhoeffer's story, because it reminds me of a working theory my wife and I observe all the time. One of, if not the most powerful tool in our arsenal, is language and communication. You call is narrative and metanarrative, and I rely on it as storytelling in teaching, writing, lawyering. The person with the wherewithal to articulate is vastly more powerful, effective and influential than the person who cannot, despite cleverness, sound doctrine, even good deeds. Language and storytelling empower us to great effect. It's a terrible and dangerous tool. However love may affect the world, it surely will travel through language. We should always be conscious and deliberate with this weapon, and with it comes "creative response," powerful and loving.
JRB,
Now, we are turning to the imaginative and creative act that is language. As Christians, we theologically assert that God is one who can create through language, that the creative love of God as perfectly exemplified in Christ was in fact the performance of story by the creative Word Incarnate. Our calling is to likewise embody the story or metanarrative upon which we found our lives so that we not can change worlds through story telling, but also through the performance of the story in our own lives. This is where we need to respark our theological imaginations to help us see the world through God's story and learn to more perfectly embody that belief as we follow the Word by incarnating that story of self-emptying love for the sake of others in our own lives.
By the way, a volume that I am anxious to read is Hauerwas' book on Bonhoeffer. It is called Performing the Faith: Bonhoeffer and the Practice of Nonviolence. Stanley is always intriguing and provocative to read. I can't wait to find some time to dive into it.
Norseman (aka "Dad"),
Thanks for your thought provoking comments. (I have to find some less intellegent people to read this stuff!)
Here is where I think that we might be on the verge of talking past each other. Your post reveals a sentiment that pacifists are inherently non-activist. I think this is a great misunderstanding of pacifism and nonviolence. The choice to not respond to violence with violence is a very active response that often requires much more restraint and active self-control than to return violence for violence or a forceful activism. The stand for nonviolence against the powers that would abuse violence, by they religious, political, military, or on a much more personal scale, is a very strong statement, not an abdication of action for apathy.
While Jesus engaged in certain 'battles' with demons and others, these were never merely the assertion of violence for the self-procurement of oppressive power. These were always liberative actions for the sake of others. Even then, these "battles" were not faught on a battlefield of physical violence, in which Jesus went fisticuff on a demon. Even this liberative assertion of power was through the verbal command. (This comes back to the idea that God has created out of the chaos through the spoken word. Likewise, Jesus brings wholeness or shalom back into the lives of those possessed through the spoken word.)
We can also not forget the very strong statements made in the Sermons on the Mount (Mt. 5-7) and on the Plain (Lk. 6:17ff). Here, Jesus commands for a radical response to violence with nonviolence. Is Jesus asking for insipid or apathetic passivity? I don't think so. I think he is asking for people to take a strong stand against returning the world's destructive violence for God's (re-)creative nonviolence. That is an incredibly strong stand, religiously and politically.
By no means was that intended to be defensive. This is a forum for the exchange of ideas. I also assume that when we exchange ideas, we then open them up for shared dialogue, whether in agreement or disagreement. Thanks for your thoughts. As I said in my post, they were thought provoking and helpful in the continuing dialogue.
And, by the way, you were one of the intelligent people that I was referring to when I make that joking comment (thought electronic media are notorious for losing the depths of brilliant sarcasm and, therefore, causing more confusion and miscommunication than intended.) What I was saying was that it would be much easier if brilliant people like you, JRB, and Casey weren't chiming in with such good comments to which I would have to respond. Please do not get me wrong. I was NOT in any way trying to say that your comments were unintelligent. Quite the opposite. Your comments were very thought provoking and much appreciated. PLEASE don't stop them; keep 'em coming!
Post a Comment