In my last post, I discussed the debate stirred by the negative attitude of many evangelicals towards Jesus’ teaching in the Sermon on the Mount, and particularly on matters such as nonviolent resistance to evil.  In this post, I will delve more deeply into the topic of nonviolent resistance and will explain why it is built into a correct understanding of the Christian faith.  I will also discuss the fact that the early Christians, before Christianity became the religion of the Roman Empire, were pacifists.  Finally, I will provide information that suggests that nonviolent resistance is a practical alternative to the violence that has been an integral part of the normalcy of human behavior.

A definition of the word Christendom that appears in Google is that it “refers to the Christian states, Christian empires, Christian-majority countries and the countries in which Christianity dominates, prevails, or that it is culturally or historically intertwined with.”  Any one who has studied the history of such states, empires and countries knows that they have consistently used violence to pursue their goals.  European history, in particular, shows that Christians not only used violence against those they saw as enemies of their faith, but also mercilessly fought against each other (e. g. Catholics vs Protestants).  They took it upon themselves to define what constituted the true faith and decided that heretics should be burned or executed in some other cruel manner.  The great world wars of the 20^th Century were started and fought primarily by nations that were part of Christendom.

Underneath all this lies a major contradiction: The man they call Lord and Master, Jesus, accepted to die a humiliating death on a cross, urging his disciples not to fight back against his enemies, but instead, asking God to forgive his killers.  Christians believe that God vindicated that man by resurrecting him from the dead and, in so doing, gave him authority over the entire universe.  In particular, they believe, the salvation of mankind comes through him.  But what exactly is the nature of this vindication?  If Jesus brought a new teaching that rejected violence and encouraged love of neighbor and love of enemies, why would his followers so enthusiastically revert to violence as a way of resolving their conflicts?

As I discussed in my previous post, Russel Moore was disappointed that his fellow evangelicals saw Jesus’ teaching about turning the other cheek as a strange, woke talking point.  Jesus said:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.” (Matthew 5:38-39)

The rule of proportionate retaliation, expressed by the words “Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth,” was built into the Law of Moses which regulated Jewish life in Jesus’ day.  Jesus was obviously rejecting the whole idea of retaliation and the use of violence for purposes of retribution.  That was consistent with the new law he gave his disciples:

“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” (John 13:34-35)

This new command was to lead to mutual forgiveness all the time, as seen in his response to one of Peter’s questions:

“Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, ‘Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother or sister who sins against me? Up to seven times?’ Jesus answered, ‘I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.’” (Matthew 18:21-22)

Many who are part of Christendom may, at this point, argue that this teaching only applied to relations between Christians.  But Jesus made no room for such an assumption:

 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” (Matthew 5:43-48)

It is particularly striking that loving one’s enemies is not optional in Jesus’ ethics.  It is inherent to being a child of God.  And similarly, being a peacemaker is an integral part of kingdom of God ethics:

“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.” (Matthew 5:9)

Clearly, it is difficult to imagine that this kind of teaching would lead to violence against anybody, but some of the great Christian minds of the past, including Augustine and John Calvin, have argued that it is possible to kill somebody while loving him.  That shows how far humans will go to maintain the normalcy of “the world.”

Jesus was not calling for behavior he did not himself model.  When he was arrested, he said the following to a disciple who used a weapon to defend him:

“’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? But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?’” (Matthew 26:52-54)

If violence must be used to fight against evil, it seems reasonable to assume that the arrest of Jesus would have been an appropriate time to use it.  Therefore, his firm rebuke of his disciple should have settled the matter once and for all.  But those who believe in violence have displayed a great deal of ingenuity in their attempts to find ways of circumventing the teaching.  For example, they argued that the New Testament does not explicitly advise soldiers to renounce their profession.  Or they claimed that Jesus, in Matthew 10:34, says he came to bring not peace but a sword.  However, those who are interested in the true meaning of Jesus’ words in Matthew 10:34 will notice that the parallel verse in Luke uses the word “division” instead of the word “sword” (Luke 12:51).  In Matthew, the statement is made within a context that is defined in earlier verses: Jesus is talking about divisions that will occur because of him between his followers, whom he calls “lambs,” and those belonging to “the world,” whom he calls “wolves” (v.16).  The wolves are expected to use violence and persecute the lambs.  The lambs are encouraged to persevere and carry out their ministry of healing and teaching about the kingdom of God without fearing “those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul” (v. 28).  Jesus knew and warned his disciples that there was a high cost associated with following his way.  Apparently, Christendom has not been willing to accept the cost.

Christendom has even argued that Jesus had planned that his followers would, at a later time, pick up weapons to continue the fight.  If that is the case, then Jesus’ disciples clearly did not receive that memo.  Paul taught that Christians should not repay evil with evil but should live in peace with everyone (Romans 12:17-18).  Peter agreed:

“Finally, all of you, be like-minded, be sympathetic, love one another, be compassionate and humble. Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult. On the contrary, repay evil with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing.” (1 Peter 3:8-9)

Peter further explained:

“Who is going to harm you if you are eager to do good? But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. ‘Do not fear their threats; do not be frightened. But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.” (1 Peter 3:13-15)

By definition, one reveres Christ as Lord by following his teaching.  And if his teaching calls for loving one’s enemies, there is no reason why Christians would not try hard to comply, unless they value their physical lives more than the mission he gave them.  To that, Jesus says:

“Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.” (Matthew 10:38-39)

Of course, the words “take up their cross” allude to the suffering Jesus himself will endure, leading to his death on the cross.  That seems like a hard teaching, but again, Jesus took the lead on it, and many early Christians followed him, sharing in his suffering.  In fact, it has been much less dangerous to be a Christian ever since Christianity became the religion of the Roman Empire.  The question is whether it retained its soul in the process.

A non-biblical reason why Christians have refused to take up their cross is the argument that there is so much evil in the world that being a pacifist is not a realistic option.  Therefore, some have constructed a theology that emphasizes the fact that the kingdom of God announced and initiated by Jesus, and the ethical principles associated with it, will only become truly effective when he returns to earth.  Some even think it can be a reality only in heaven, the final destination for those who have declared that they believe in him.  In the meantime, violence is still necessary on earth in the fight against evil.

I called this reasoning non-biblical because it does not take much effort to understand that the ideas I discussed in the previous section were meant to be instructions to the disciples for their earthly lives.  When theologians such as Augustine worked out their Just War theory, they were adapting Christianity to the needs of a belligerent Roman Empire.  In fact, for that purpose, Augustine relied on ideas previously presented by non-Christian Roman thinkers such as Cicero.  Of course, the fact that church and state had already been merged in the empire was convenient since the state could, with some clever interpretations of New Testament material (such as Roman 13:1-7), be seen as a divinely authorized partner of the church who could legitimately use the sword to maintain order. But clearly, in the New Testament, the kingdom of God is presented not as a partner but as a replacement for “the world,” which is considered evil, and of which the Roman Empire is the dominant example.

In later history, Just War Theory became the accepted doctrine of Christendom and other Christian thinkers made their own contributions to it.  In the 20^th Century, the respected theologian Reinhold Niebuhr delighted warmongers by arguing that Jesus’ teaching made no practical sense in real life because it did not address political realities.  But theologians who took the teaching of Jesus more seriously pointed out that Niebuhr’s thinking was in violation of orthodox Christology: How can anybody believe that Jesus is fully God, fully man, and Lord of all while at the same time claiming that his teaching is not relevant to human life?

Ron Sider, author of the book If Jesus Is Lord: Loving Our Enemies in an Age of Violence, who has been a strong advocate of nonviolent activism, summarizes the history of pacifism in his book.  He presents the results of a thorough study that shows that the First and Second Century Christians, who were closer than we are to Jesus and the New Testament writers, were pacifists who refused to kill and be soldiers in the army.  By the Fourth Century, this situation changed as some Christians began to enlist in order to support Constantine in his battles against other contenders for emperor who viewed Christians negatively and would have continued to persecute them.

Augustine, who was born in 354 and died in 430, provided a justification for war, writing that “war may be just only if it cannot be avoided to defend the state and the intention is peace and justice, not revenge. And war itself must be conducted justly.”  Just War Theory then became the accepted Christian doctrine.  Whether it played a meaningful role in reducing the predilection for violence is questionable since, in the Middle Ages, Christian warfare was common.  The Church even launched the Crusades, claiming that Christ wanted his warriors to go to the Mideast and slaughter Muslims to take back the Holy Land from them.  Fringe groups such as the Cathari of southern France, who remained opposed to war, were considered heretics and were wiped out by the Catholic Church.

The 16^th Century Reformation did not bring any reversal to this trajectory.  As Sider explains,

“The mainstream Protestant Reformers—Lutheran, Calvinist, and Anglican—not only affirmed and taught the just war tradition as the proper Christian understanding of war; by incorporating it into their official creeds, they also declared it to be Christian orthodoxy.”

In those days, the Anabaptists, who rejected both Just War Theory and the idea of a state church, were treated as heretics by both Catholics and mainstream Protestants who killed hundreds of them.  These Anabaptists (such as the Mennonites) survived by fleeing to places ruled by more tolerant princes.

Like the Anabaptists, the Quakers, who emerged in the 17^th Century out of the Puritan group in England, also rejected all killing and were against the union of church and state.  Under the leadership of William Penn, Quakers took advantage of an opportunity to move to today’s Pennsylvania with the hope of establishing a society that better conformed to their beliefs.

This brief summary shows that the groups that actually strove to follow the teaching of Christ on matters of violence were treated as heretics by the Catholics and mainline Protestants.  In my previous posts, I have often targeted one Protestant group: evangelicals because of the strong affinity between white evangelicalism and Christian nationalism.  Christian nationalists go beyond Just War Theory, not looking at war and violence as a last resort.  They clearly see violence as a legitimate means of achieving their goals and they advocate for using the power of the state to coercively pursue their objectives.  However, history shows that Catholics and Protestants are also guilty of grossly unchristian behavior and have not even followed the rules of Just War Theory they claimed to abide by.

In a previous post, I provided an initial perspective on the usefulness of nonviolent action as a tool for conflict resolution.  Here, I will discuss that issue from a different perspective.

In the Roman Empire, before Constantine, Christians were often called unpatriotic because they refused to fight for the empire.  Today, pacifists are called cowards by those who assume that refusing to fight is synonymous with lack of courage.  It is also claimed that pacifists do not truly love their neighbor if they are not willing to fight for their neighbor’s life.

Ron Sider argues that this criticism would be justified if the only alternative to pacifism is violence.  In reality, pacifism, for Christians, should lead to nonviolent resistance, which implies engagement in real-life issues.  That engagement can be costly. Just as the pursuit of the kingdom of God in a hostile world put the lives of Jesus and his disciples at risk, nonviolent action is not a danger-free enterprise today.

In his other book, Nonviolent Action: What Christian Ethics Demands but Most Christians Have Never Tried, Sider describes various forms of engagement that have led to successful outcomes between the First and the Twenty-first Centuries.

Two of the best-known cases of nonviolent action are the liberation movement of Mahatma Gandhi in India and the civil rights work of Martin Luther King in the United States, two leaders who both ended up losing their lives.  Sider quotes Gandhi:

“My non-violence does not admit of running away from danger and leaving dear ones unprotected. Between violence and cowardly flight, I can only prefer violence to cowardice. I can no more preach non-violence to a coward than I can tempt a blind man to enjoy healthy scenes. Non-violence is the summit of bravery. And in my own experience, I have had no difficulty in demonstrating to men trained in the school of violence the superiority of non-violence.”

Sider further explains:

“That path, of course, frequently involves great self-sacrifice. Oppressors often respond to nonviolent protest, no matter how wrapped in love, with violence. But Gandhi realized that the resulting suffering of the nonviolent protestors is often precisely what makes nonviolent action so powerful. Sometimes willingness to suffer at the hand of violent oppressors begins to soften their hearts. More often, the self-sacrifice wins the hearts and minds of bystanders near and far.”

Gandhi’s form of nonviolent resistance became a model for Martin Luther King and others.  It includes protests, campaigns of civil disobedience against oppressors, boycotts, negotiations, etc.  In his book, Sider explains that strategy development and preparation are key to success.  Therefore, nonviolent activists must constantly learn from previous experiences to conduct effective campaigns.

But the book describes many examples in which nonviolence was effective against violent authoritative regimes.  They include the toppling of the Marcos regime in the Philippines by a “people power” movement led by praying nuns, nursing mothers, and old women in wheelchairs; the fall of the Soviet Union; the victory of the Solidarity movement over communist rulers in Poland; the fall of communism in East Germany and the uniting of the eastern and western sides of Germany.

Other examples of success include the peaceful overthrow of a dictator by a movement of praying women in Liberia, and the Arab Spring movement that led to the toppling of dictators in Tunisia and Egypt.

These examples demonstrate the potential of nonviolent action in resolving conflicts.  Sider also discusses the potential of trained, international peacemaker teams that intervene in conflicts all over the world on behalf of local oppressed people.  These teams provide reports to the international community and accompaniment to local nonviolent activists.  The reports make the international community aware of abuses so that pressure can be put on the abusers.  Accompaniment involves the presence of peacemaker teams in local communities to provide a buffer and discourage violence against civil rights activists.  Sider explains the role of accompaniment:

“At its core, international accompaniment works by deterrence: aggressors realize that the advantages resulting from attacking human rights activists are less than the disadvantages coming from bad publicity and global pressure that follow when they attack justice activists. International accompaniers make it more difficult for local oppressors to cover up their action, devalue the activists as criminals or terrorists, or frighten them into submission and silence. To be effective, international accompaniment must be able to appeal to internationally accepted norms (e.g., on human rights) and support only local activists who remain nonviolent.”

Sider also lists the advantages of nonviolent action compared to warfare:

• Fewer people get killed. For example, Algeria’s violent victory against French colonial powers took 7 years and cost one million Algerian lives.  In comparison, India’s nonviolent struggle for independence took 28 years and cost 8000 Indian lives.  Data from other areas confirm this trend.
• Nonviolent campaigns are more likely to succeed than violent ones. A study of insurrections between 1900 and 2006 shows that “nonviolent resistance campaigns were nearly twice as likely to achieve full or partial success as their violent counterparts.”
• By their nature, nonviolent campaigns are more likely to lead to democratic societies than violent ones. A study shows that “The probability that a country will be a democracy five years after a campaign ends is 57 percent among successful nonviolent campaigns but less than 6 percent for successful violent campaigns.”

These results suggest that the massive amounts of funding currently dedicated to militaristic goals are a hugely wasteful investment.  At least some of these resources could be put to better use in the pursuit of nonviolent approaches.