CHAPTER TWO
3.1 Concepts of Nonviolence and Overcoming Violence
In the second chapter, the researcher analyzed the non violent ecclesial self-understanding of the Historic Peace Churches. In doing that, it is evident to this church group, nonviolence became one of the regulative principles for their ecclesiology. Having done that, this third chapter looks at a critical analysis of concepts of nonviolence and overcoming violence. However, before considering the concepts of nonviolence, there is the need to discuss violence, its causes and types of violence hence a general overview on the interdisciplinary research on violence is presented in the introduction.
153 Mark Juergensmeyer, The New Cold War? Religious Nationalism Confronts the Secular State, (Berkeley: University of California Press), 1993:155.
102
Nonviolence is generally held to be a philosophy and strategy for social change that rejects the use of physical violence. As such, nonviolence is an alternative to passive acceptance of oppression and armed struggle against it. Practitioners of nonviolence may use diverse methods in their campaigns for social change, including critical forms of education and persuasion, civil disobedience and nonviolent direct action, and targeted communication via mass media. Practitioners of nonviolence have been criticized of cowardice. Even if such criticisms would be justified, it will not necessarily mean to abandon such a conviction. This chapter looks critically at nonviolence starting from its origin to its practice. Here different theories with their respective implications are discussed. The chapter goes on to discuss Conscientious Objection, Pacifism, Just War Theory, Just Armed Struggle, and Just Peace. The historical origins of these theories are discussed; their problems and critiques will be looked at not leaving out their merits and demerits.
It is important to state at this point that Christian Nonviolence is the area of our concern. This is against the background that there are other types of nonviolence.
Also worthy of note is the term Christian nonresistance. The term Christian nonresistance and Christian nonviolence is usually used interchangeably by Christian theologians and scholars among them Brian Wicker as could be seen in his article on Pacifism. Wicker says, “John Robinson has shown how Paul developed this theology of Jesus’ own non-violence… What they cannot understand, and are literally disarmed by, is absolute non-resistance to the point of death.”154 Of course it is not out of place to use the terms interchangeably, but there might be slight differences between the two terms. The term nonviolence though conveying the same notion, it is not a word derived directly from the Scriptures as the term nonresistance. And two, the proponents of the doctrine of Christian nonresistance sometimes claim that it is different from nonviolence among such scholars is Herman A. Hoyt who says, “I have come to the conclusion that the Bible teaches nonresistance on the part of Christians. It is unfortunate that the term nonresistance has been given to this doctrine.”155 This is however, not to say that the concept of nonviolence is not rooted
154 Brian Wicker, “Pacifism” in The Oxford Companion to Christian Thought, ed., Hastings, Mason and Pyper, (New York: Oxford University Press), 508-509:508.
155 Herman A. Hoyt, “Nonresistance” in War:4 Christian Views, Robert G. Clouse, ed. (Downers Grove, Ill. : InterVarsity Press), 27-57:31.
103
in the Scripture, they of course claim the same Scriptural proof texts which we shall look at later.
From the Historic Peace Churches point of view, they too use the terms nonresistance and nonviolence interchangeably. Another striking point is that, some theologians and scholars among them Myron S. Augsburger use the terms, nonresistance, nonviolence and Pacifism as meaning the same thing. Augsburger in his response to the write-up by Hoyt on “Christian Nonresistance” says, “Dr Hoyt has presented a practical biblical basis for the doctrine of non-resistance in war. Since this position is basically held by the Church of the Brethren in Nigeria, the Mennonite Church, the response is quite positive. Although the researcher has written a chapter in a volume entitled, “Christian Pacifism,” researcher’s position is better expressed by the term non-resistance.”156 The questions to be asked then are: are these three terms synonymous? What are the nuances to be noted, if any?
Just as there are other types of nonviolence so too there are other types of nonresistance. There is what Ballou calls the philosophical nonresistance or nonviolence. This is a nonresistance that comes from the light of nature or to put it better from general revelation. In the words of Ballou, “Philosophical non-resistance of various hue, ‘which sets at naught divine revelation, disregards the authority of Jesus Christ as divine teacher, excludes all strictly religious considerations, and deduce its conclusions from the light of nature, the supposed fitness of things and the expediency of consequences.’”157
There is also sentimental nonresistance or nonviolence in the words of Ballou.
Although this is slightly a derogatory term which the people holding and believing accept nonresistance but are classified by Ballou to belong to such category may not be comfortable. But it looks more descriptive and can still stand. Sentimental nonresistance is regarded, “to be spontaneous dictate of man’s higher sentiments in the advanced stages of his development, transcending all special divine revelations, positive instructions, ratiocination and considerations of expediency.”158 The third
156 Myron S. Augsburger, “A Christian Pacifist Response” in War: 4 Christian Views, ed. Robert G.
Clouse, (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press), 58-63:58.
157 Adin Ballou, Christian Non-Resistance in all its Important Bearings, (New York: Da Capo Press), 1970:1.
158 Ibid. p.2.
104
type of nonresistance is the one described by Ballou as, “Necessitous non-resistance, commonly expressed in the phrase, ‘passive obedience and non-resistance,’
imperiously preached by despots to their subjects, as their indispensable duty and highest virtue; also recommended by worldly prudence to the victims of oppression when unable to offer successful resistance to their injuries.”159
Making this distinction between Christian nonviolence or nonresistance and the others is crucial as it will help us to know how to solve some of the questions posed to the advocates of nonviolence by its critiques.
There have been lots of criticisms leveled against nonviolence mentioned at this point of discussion. Reinhold Niebuhr among others accuses pacifists and proponents of nonviolence as passivity and cowardice. Not only that, they further say, nonviolence is but irresponsible and inconsiderate not having and feeling the touch to reality. Nonviolence they again say is not concerned about social life, nor concerned about what happens to the other but simply about their self holiness.
They further argue that nonviolence is but impractical idealism and that the foundational basis of nonviolence is faulty. Are these accusations true? Is there no power in weakness? Is brevity only in violence? The list of the questions can easily be extended.