Christian Nonviolence

Benny_Cake

I was down in Waterford this weekend and stopped for fuel at a filling station near Dunmore East, which as it happens is owned and operated by the Beachy Amish community in the area. They also have a bakery on site (I recommend the carrot cake) and a bookshop with a huge selection of books on nonviolence from the Christian perspective. This got me thinking about the Christian attitude to non-violence - can violence ever be justified, not just between nations, but between individuals too? Obviously the "just war" theory holds a good deal of currency, particularly in Catholicism, but my own view is that the ideal we should seek to achieve is non-violence or pacifism (but not passivity). Of course, there are multiple "what if" scenarios which are often difficult to answer. It would be interesting to see what others think!

prinz

Yes violence can sometimes be justified. Self-defence, and defence of the weak and vulnerable. I wouldn't stand by and watch someone get beaten senseless for no reason for example without intervening, and that might require violence on my part...

Non-violence would be the ideal to aim for.. I suppose it comes down to how much you are willing to sacrifice for it. Personally there are situations where I believe violence could be justified on the personal level and my theory would be do it, and sort it out with God later.

Manach

A long while back, I remember reading a section of Beowulf that suggested to abandon a justified fight where the result would innocents lost would be wrong in the eyes of God.

wolfsbane

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I was down in Waterford this weekend and stopped for fuel at a filling station near Dunmore East, which as it happens is owned and operated by the Beachy Amish community in the area. They also have a bakery on site (I recommend the carrot cake) and a bookshop with a huge selection of books on nonviolence from the Christian perspective. This got me thinking about the Christian attitude to non-violence - can violence ever be justified, not just between nations, but between individuals too? Obviously the "just war" theory holds a good deal of currency, particularly in Catholicism, but my own view is that the ideal we should seek to achieve is non-violence or pacifism (but not passivity). Of course, there are multiple "what if" scenarios which are often difficult to answer. It would be interesting to see what others think!

I respect real pacifists, but have never been convinced by their arguments. Mostly they seem to come from their own reasoning, rather than from the Bible.

The Just War model seems a fair application of the Biblical principles.

*******************************************************************
Romans 13:4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.

Benny_Cake

prinz wrote: »

Yes violence can sometimes be justified. Self-defence, and defence of the weak and vulnerable. I wouldn't stand by and watch someone get beaten senseless for no reason for example without intervening, and that might require violence on my part...

Non-violence would be the ideal to aim for.. I suppose it comes down to how much you are willing to sacrifice for it. Personally there are situations where I believe violence could be justified on the personal level and my theory would be do it, and sort it out with God later.

I think most would agree with non-violence as an ideal, but how far we live it on a day-to-day basis is the question - I might be able to make the decision not to respond to violence against me with violence, but if someone was physically attacking a small child, would I have the right to stand by? I would imagine I would have to use the minimum level of force necessary to save the child. Doing it and sorting it out with God later seems to be a very apt response!

wolfsbane wrote: »

I respect real pacifists, but have never been convinced by their arguments. Mostly they seem to come from their own reasoning, rather than from the Bible.

The Just War model seems a fair application of the Biblical principles.

Some quotes which have been used by proponents of non-violence:

You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. (Matt. 5:38-39)

Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. (Matt. 5:43-48, Luke 6:27-28)

Put your sword back in its place...for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. (Matt. 26:52)

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. (Matt. 5:9)

I think it should be pointed out that, as you say, an argument can be made in favour of the just war model from Scripture too. Looking at history though, the number of just wars seem to be few and far between. Even in the case of those wars which are cited as being just, such as World War 2 - would World War 2 have occurred had German Christians, Catholic and Protestants, lived their faith in the 1930s, and adhered to nonviolence? It seems unlikely that it would have, indeed there were a number of occasions where concerted non-violent resistance (the crucifix dispute in Bavarian classrooms, and the deportation of Jewish men in mixed marriages) forced the authorities to back down.

Anyway, it's an interesting debate. I will admit that I shudder when I see a national flag hanging outside or inside a church though.

wolfsbane

Benny_Cake said:

Some quotes which have been used by proponents of non-violence:

You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. (Matt. 5:38-39)

Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. (Matt. 5:43-48, Luke 6:27-28)

Put your sword back in its place...for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. (Matt. 26:52)

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. (Matt. 5:9)

I think it should be pointed out that, as you say, an argument can be made in favour of the just war model from Scripture too.

Yes, the above texts speak of individual responsibilities, not of State responsibilities. We are to respond to personal attacks in a manner it would be immoral for the State to do. It has the duty to take vengeance, we have a duty not to.

Looking at history though, the number of just wars seem to be few and far between.

Indeed.

Even in the case of those wars which are cited as being just, such as World War 2 - would World War 2 have occurred had German Christians, Catholic and Protestants, lived their faith in the 1930s, and adhered to nonviolence? It seems unlikely that it would have, indeed there were a number of occasions where concerted non-violent resistance (the crucifix dispute in Bavarian classrooms, and the deportation of Jewish men in mixed marriages) forced the authorities to back down.

Yes, there were many who genuinely professed Christ who failed in their duty to do right. Many professors of Christ are not possessors of Christ, however, and I think that false professors account for the almost total failure of 'Christianity' in Nazi Germany.

Not that the Germans were alone in their guilt. There was historical baggage to Germany's plight that led to Hitler. And that's true for most wars - it's not all good on one side and bad on the other.

Anyway, it's an interesting debate. I will admit that I shudder when I see a national flag hanging outside or inside a church though.

Yes. It's the importing of another kingdom into the kingdom of Christ. We have a lot of thoughtless Christians here in Northern Ireland who have flags in their churches.

********************************************************************
John 18:36 Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here.”

37 Pilate therefore said to Him, “Are You a king then?”

Jesus answered, “You say rightly that I am a king. For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.”

Brer Fox

I have a funny anecdote about Christian non-violence.

A man comes home to find his wife being beaten to death by a man. The husband, in typically Christian non-violent style, shouts over to his battered, barely conscious wife, ''Offer it up sweetheart!'' Meanwhile, the intruder continues to beat the wife to death. Non-violent and all! Hasn't the husband done his Christian duty!!!

zoomtard

wolfsbane wrote: »

The Just War model seems a fair application of the Biblical principles.

LOLS.

McDonagh and Hauerwas' "Appeal to Abolish War" is an increasingly influential document. I'd advise the OP to check out the writings of John Howard Yoder as an introduction to Christian non-violence.

PDN

The Early Church was pacifist.

Tertullian wrote, ‘the divine banner and the human banner do not go together, nor the standard of Christ and the standard of the devil. Only without the sword can the Christian wage war: for the Lord has abolished the sword.’ (On the Chaplet 11-12)

Origen wrote, ‘You can not demand military service of Christians any more than you can of priests. We do not go forth as soldiers.' (Against Celsus VIII.7.3 about 240 AD)

Justin wrote ‘We ourselves were well conversant with war, murder, and everything evil, but all of us throughout the whole wide earth have traded in our weapons of war. We have exchanged our swords for ploughshares, our spears for farm tools. Now we cultivate the fear of God, justice, kindness to men, faith, and the expectation of the future given to us by the Father himself through the Crucified One.' (Dialogue with Trypho 110.3.4 about 160 AD)

Athenagoras wrote (about 180 AD), 'How can we possibly kill anyone, we who call those women murderers who take drugs to induce an abortion, we who say they will have to give an account before God one day! We are convinced that with God nothing goes unexamined, and that the body, after serving the irrational urges and lusts of the soul, will have its share in punishment. We have, therefore, every reason to detest even the slightest sin.' (A Plea Regarding Christians 32-35).

Hippolytus (218 A.D) states that soldiers who become Christians are not allowed to kill and must refuse to obey orders to kill. He also says that judges who want to become followers of the Christ must resign or be rejected by the church. (‘The Apostolic Tradition’ 16).

Fanny Cradock

Hauerwas is always worth paying attention to.

lmaopml

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I think most would agree with non-violence as an ideal, but how far we live it on a day-to-day basis is the question - I might be able to make the decision not to respond to violence against me with violence, but if someone was physically attacking a small child, would I have the right to stand by? I would imagine I would have to use the minimum level of force necessary to save the child. Doing it and sorting it out with God later seems to be a very apt response!



Some quotes which have been used by proponents of non-violence:

You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. (Matt. 5:38-39)

Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. (Matt. 5:43-48, Luke 6:27-28)

Put your sword back in its place...for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. (Matt. 26:52)

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. (Matt. 5:9)

I think it should be pointed out that, as you say, an argument can be made in favour of the just war model from Scripture too. Looking at history though, the number of just wars seem to be few and far between. Even in the case of those wars which are cited as being just, such as World War 2 - would World War 2 have occurred had German Christians, Catholic and Protestants, lived their faith in the 1930s, and adhered to nonviolence? It seems unlikely that it would have, indeed there were a number of occasions where concerted non-violent resistance (the crucifix dispute in Bavarian classrooms, and the deportation of Jewish men in mixed marriages) forced the authorities to back down.

Anyway, it's an interesting debate. I will admit that I shudder when I see a national flag hanging outside or inside a church though.

Yeah, I have a problem reconciling these things - Christian non-violence and also Christians running a society with Christian values and restoring order or peace have to use some 'force' in order to restrain evil all the time. We have Police officers etc. and their job is restoring order, protecting the innocent, and fighting evil I suppose on a much smaller scale to actually declaring war - but the idea is similar.



I don't know if there has ever truely been a 'just war' when only order or the fight against evil, protection of the innocent as such was the motive - and not greed, or hatred or getting any kind of joy or expressing any kind of vengence in the act of justice didn't play a part - WWII is possibly the closest - and even at that, it took the troops until the Polish corridor to actually act - a major trade route at the time - what about the Austrians, the Czechoslovakians and Appeasment?? Hmm the Horror of the Atomic Bomb brings home the horror of war all too clearly...


I think it was Augustine that originally formed this 'moral duty' as such from Scripture, and also I suppose from the acknowledgement that there is evil in the world and it's not perfect - whether it was a greater sin to not suppress evil, to do nothing to fight evil except by turning the other cheek when evil turns violent, or as to when the use of force (as a last resort) to restore order and the balance and protect the innocent is the morally right and less sinful choice on ones conscience.

wolfsbane

PDN wrote: »

The Early Church was pacifist.

Tertullian wrote, ‘the divine banner and the human banner do not go together, nor the standard of Christ and the standard of the devil. Only without the sword can the Christian wage war: for the Lord has abolished the sword.’ (On the Chaplet 11-12)

Origen wrote, ‘You can not demand military service of Christians any more than you can of priests. We do not go forth as soldiers.' (Against Celsus VIII.7.3 about 240 AD)

Justin wrote ‘We ourselves were well conversant with war, murder, and everything evil, but all of us throughout the whole wide earth have traded in our weapons of war. We have exchanged our swords for ploughshares, our spears for farm tools. Now we cultivate the fear of God, justice, kindness to men, faith, and the expectation of the future given to us by the Father himself through the Crucified One.' (Dialogue with Trypho 110.3.4 about 160 AD)

Athenagoras wrote (about 180 AD), 'How can we possibly kill anyone, we who call those women murderers who take drugs to induce an abortion, we who say they will have to give an account before God one day! We are convinced that with God nothing goes unexamined, and that the body, after serving the irrational urges and lusts of the soul, will have its share in punishment. We have, therefore, every reason to detest even the slightest sin.' (A Plea Regarding Christians 32-35).

Hippolytus (218 A.D) states that soldiers who become Christians are not allowed to kill and must refuse to obey orders to kill. He also says that judges who want to become followers of the Christ must resign or be rejected by the church. (‘The Apostolic Tradition’ 16).

I'm not in favour of fighting unjust wars - imperial conquest, for example - but the Bible makes clear the State has a duty to protect society from evil men, and may use violence to achieve that. To call that duty sinful is to make an oxymoron.

These Early Fathers came up with many strange ideas, as well as Biblical ones. No wonder desert hermits and cloistered communities arose!

*****************************************************************
Romans 13:1Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing.

Onesimus

prinz wrote: »

Yes violence can sometimes be justified. Self-defence, and defence of the weak and vulnerable. I wouldn't stand by and watch someone get beaten senseless for no reason for example without intervening, and that might require violence on my part...

Non-violence would be the ideal to aim for.. I suppose it comes down to how much you are willing to sacrifice for it. Personally there are situations where I believe violence could be justified on the personal level and my theory would be do it, and sort it out with God later.

Thats true and I am with Prinz on this one. Might I just add that those religious who have taken vows, priests, brothers and nuns are not allowed to self defend.

Most of Tertullian and Origens ideas were condemned at the 5th ecumenical council and there is a reason why they lack the sainthood behind the name. Origen even thought that the devil could be saved and things like that. but still.... much of their writings that were safe are held in high regard in Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

Benny_Cake

Onesimus wrote: »

Most of Tertullian and Origens ideas were condemned at the 5th ecumenical council and there is a reason why they lack the sainthood behind the name. Origen even thought that the devil could be saved and things like that. but still.... much of their writings that were safe are held in high regard in Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

It was in the early days of Christianity, isn't it said that Origen castrated himself in a rather literal interpretation of Matthew 5:29-30! Strange fellow - I've read about his somewhat universalist views, which are certainly interesting to say the least.

Lots of interesting comments here, will definitely put Stanley Hauerwas and John Howard Yoder on my reading list, thanks!

FergusODowd

wolfsbane wrote: »

I respect real pacifists, but have never been convinced by their arguments. Mostly they seem to come from their own reasoning, rather than from the Bible.

The Just War model seems a fair application of the Biblical principles.

What on earth is a "just war" ???

War is just the continuation of politics by other means.

I cannot recall a "just war" in human history

I can only see very few limited situations where Jesus would take up the sword. Self defence in your own home, or on the street perhaps, that's about it.

wolfsbane

FergusODowd wrote: »

What on earth is a "just war" ???

War is just the continuation of politics by other means.

I cannot recall a "just war" in human history

I can only see very few limited situations where Jesus would take up the sword. Self defence in your own home, or on the street perhaps, that's about it.

Self-defence only? What about defending the weak from the oppressor, the predator, etc?

A Just War is just that. Just War criteria are easily googled. I'm pressed for time or I would link it.

The war against the Nazis in WWII would be as close to the definition as we are likely to get.

*****************************************************************
Romans 13:1Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing.

lmaopml

On a personal note, I do believe that there is a time when protection of people is necessary, yes. I think it's not sinful in other words to be an officer of peace.

I think it's a little 'hard core' to think that 'turning the other cheek' is the only way in a fallen world ( as a Christian does, but who does that on boards? ), the world we live in, that we recognise both innocents and evil at play - while 'turning the other cheek' is entirely admirable for those who feel they can do nothing else - it doesn't mean that the innocents today would even be alive if everybody thought that way.

Augustine was a man of his time, and years before his time; I do believe that he held a sword of justice with 'words' - he was more 'real' and true to the Gospel, than most nowadays perhaps -

Sky news.

PDN

lmaopml wrote: »

gustine was a man of his time, and years before his time; I do believe that he held a sword of justice with 'words' - he was more 'real' and true to the Gospel, than most nowadays perhaps -

I don't think it was a case of Augustine being ahead of his time. More a case of him working out the implications of the church being in bed with the empire and finding theological justifications for actions of the empire which appeared to contradict the plain sense of the New Testament.

Remember, the context in which Augustine developed his Just War theory was to justify taking military action against a heretical group - the Donatists. This was part of a process by which Christianity stopped being a minority faith that was persecuted but whose members were prepared to die in the name of Christ, and instead became a majority faith that persecuted others and whose members were prepared to kill others in the name of Christ.

lmaopml

PDN wrote: »

I don't think it was a case of Augustine being ahead of his time. More a case of him working out the implications of the church being in bed with the empire and finding theological justifications for actions of the empire which appeared to contradict the plain sense of the New Testament.

Remember, the context in which Augustine developed his Just War theory was to justify taking military action against a heretical group - the Donatists. This was part of a process by which Christianity stopped being a minority faith that was persecuted but whose members were prepared to die in the name of Christ, and instead became a majority faith that persecuted o - thers and whose members were prepared to kill others in the name of Christ.

I always thought of St. Augustine as a very noble character and theologian - very honest, and really gifted, perhaps part of divine Providence, greater understanding.

I think I'll agree to disagree that vengence or protection of an empire was the motive for Augustine PDN, it seems too simple for to tag such a great Father in such a way to me. Especially in light of Scripture too -

We live in a world where evil exists, we know the way to salvation through Christ, and the peaceful way he proclaimed are part and parcel of the being a 'Witness' that bears fruit - but I believe that Augustine was a great theologian and clarified 'duty' too from the very same Gospel, the protection of innocents is part and parcel of a society that lay it's foundation on Christ and on justice - there are many forms of 'violence' sometimes when words fail, ( as it did with the Donatists ) people think that physical violence is 'Just' - ( I tend to agree that it has to be weighed carefully ) however sometimes 'words' inflict the most worst kind of violence than anything else in everyday life. I think this is the worst kind of violence we commit on eachother sometimes..

Like I said, I don't think there was ever a 'war' that every single person consulted their conscience in order to understand what is 'Just' as defined by Augustine in particular. We have officers of peace that we are grateful for, they are the ones who use physical effort to suppress evil every single day of the week - they are not 'wrong' imo - They're police officers etc.

In fact, I think with the progress of technology people may pay more attention to the message of Scripture, as clarified by Augustine, a little better before acting, acting it out doesn't always justify or nullify the 'message' - or indeed thinking that not 'acting' to supress evil is good.

He wasn't calling people to violence, he was articulating with bravery the seeming contra indications in Jesus teaching, afterall he said many things, we can't afford to cast off one - with providence in mind and the reality of sin and fallen people to keep 'order' and thriving of justice in mind. He didn't invent it either, it was actually an aspect of Roman society too if a little under developed - Christ was a pacifist and that was the ultimate way, but he also warned us of the 'reality' of evil too - in Scripture.