For all those who love the Scriptures let me share with you some words gleaned from the first letter of Peter to members of the first century church – words that (I should warn you) I personally find unsettling and, at points, entirely distasteful!
2:13 Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution,whether it be to the emperor as supreme, 14 or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good…
18 Slaves, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust. 19 For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. 20 For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God…
3:1 Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, 2 when they see your respectful and pure conduct…
I find all of this very difficult!
As a 21st century Christian, committed to fighting injustice and oppression, even Peter’s starting point seems disheartening and disempowering!
“Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution” says St Peter. My immediate reaction is ‘does Peter really expect me to cow-tow to the inhuman rulings of the Abbott government?’ Well … the example of legitimate authority that Peter gives is the Roman Emperor, Domitian – a much hated man who nonetheless proclaimed himself to be a god, thus displaying a level of arrogance not even reached by the Australian Prime Minister (as of May 25th 2014, at any rate).
If Peter’s prohibition against political activism is discouraging his acceptance of the institution of slavery is downright offensive!
“Slaves, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust. 19 For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly” (1 Peter 2:19)
Is it only because I am a 21st century man that I find the institution of slavery so horrendous to even contemplate? My guess is that the experience of being beaten by your master was about as repugnant to the victim back then as it is now and I can’t see myself developing a taste for it no matter how far back in time I travelled!
“Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands” (1 Peter 3:1) – I guess that makes sense in context, the wife being the property of the husband in the same way the slave was property of the master. ‘Submit’ says St Peter – ‘accept the beating and learn to endure your pathetic lot in life with a smile!’
This all sounds extremely unchristian to me! It’s hard to believe that members of the early church were encouraged to allow violence to flourish in this way and it’s even harder to believe that the person doing the encouraging was dear old St Peter – Peter, the rock, Peter – that impulsive but loveable disciple whom we know was capable of enormous sensitivity and compassion!
And perhaps the most painful aspect of Peter’s apparent exhortation not to resist violence is that he presents non-resistance not simply as a personal preference but rather as a fundamental spiritual duty for all who would follow Christ!
“For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. 22 He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. 23 When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly” (1 Peter 2:21-23)
Is that the pattern we are called to follow as disciples of Christ? Do we simply let the politicians do as they wish, allow war and oppression and injustice to flourish and, when it’s our turn to be beaten up, try to endure it quietly with a minimum of fuss?
If that’s the import of Peter’s words then these are dangerous words indeed, and indeed I have heard the testimonies of Christian women who have endured situations of extreme and detestable domestic violence, where the perpetrators have quoted verses such as these to their bruised and battered victims in order to discourage them from leaving their marriage and fleeing to safety!
Is that what it means to be a disciple of Christ? I think not, and I think anyone who uses these verses to legitimise abuse in this way misunderstands both the Biblical text and its author.
I think our starting point in coming to terms with Peter’s exhortation to non-violence has to be a broad appreciation of the revolutionary nature of the Gospel.
The Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ is a proclamation of a new world of equality for all persons! In Christ, St Paul wrote, “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female, for all are one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28)
In a world divided along racial, class and gender lines, the message of the church is revolutionary, and indeed, as the truths of this Gospel penetrated the world it did become harder to maintain the old structures of discrimination and oppression.
The early Christians were persecuted by political authorities everywhere, and this wasn’t because they went around telling people to be nice to each other. From the outset the Christian community understood that the world as they had known it – with all its corruption and violence – was coming to an end, and so it was understandable if slaves would want to throw off their shackles and women would want to stand up for their rights and Christians everywhere would want to stand up against the excesses and violence of the Roman government. St Peter’s message in response was ‘slow down’.
Peter’s exhortation to non-violence is strategic. The goal is not simply to suffer for the sake of suffering but rather to suffer in the belief that by enduring the evil that is thrown at you this will affect change in the perpetrator, such as the husband who is ‘won without a word’ by the loving patience of his female partner! (1 Peter 3:1)
This is not to say that perpetrators of violence will always be changed nor that victims should always put up with the evils inflicted on them. Even so, St Peter’s faith in the effective use of non-resistance does come very close to the concept of ‘Satyagraha’ as later developed by Mahatma Ghandi.
“I have also called it love-force or soul-force. In the application of satyagraha, I discovered in the earliest stages that pursuit of truth did not admit of violence being inflicted on one’s opponent but that he must be weaned from error by patience and compassion. For what appears to be truth to the one may appear to be error to the other. And patience means self-suffering. So the doctrine came to mean vindication of truth, not by infliction of suffering on the opponent, but on oneself.” (Statement to Disorders Inquiry Committee January 5, 1920)
Ghandi saw non-violent resistance as a means to an end, and having just finished a recently-published commentary by Norman Finkelstein on Ghandi’s teachings on non-violence, I’m conscious of the fact that Ghandi did not see non-violence as the only possible response to injustice, and neither did he think that those who practised non-resistance were always doing the right thing. Indeed, Ghandi abhorred those who used non-violence as an excuse not to resist evil. He would sooner see a man stand and fight injustice aggressively than run away, using a commitment to non-violence as his excuse for passivity in the face of evil!
Our chief concern though is to follow Jesus rather than Ghandi and it seems that Jesus, according to Peter, was more extreme in His non-violence than the Mahatma!
“For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. 22 He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. 23 When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly” (1 Peter 2:21-23)
John Howard Yoder, in his classic work “The Politics of Jesus” pointed out that this is a unique Biblical passage, as it is the only example in the entire New Testament where the actions of Jesus are cited as an example for us to emulate!
Jesus was not married and yet the New Testament writers never use this as a basis for recommending singleness. Jesus had twelve disciples but you don’t hear the New Testament recommending that all church leaders should have twelve disciples. In fact it is only at this one point – in Jesus’ refusal to hit back against violence – that the life of Jesus is used as an example for all His followers – “leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps”.
Yoder suggests on this basis that all forms of active resistance, even some of the resistance practiced by Ghandi, is off-limits to the follower of Jesus!
Let me cut to the chase and say that I think Yoder gets Jesus wrong and that the example of Jesus that Peter points to is one of non-vengeance rather than non-violence as such.
The two may sound the same but they are not. Jesus did not hit back when He was hit nor did he revile the person who reviled Him. In other words He did not hit back for the sake of hitting back – repaying evil for evil. This is not to say that Jesus was never aggressive, and indeed Jesus’ actions in the temple where he created a ‘whip of cords’ and used it to drive animals and money-changers out of the temple (John 2:15) was a very aggressive action and one that could well be interpreted as violent!
The bottom line for disciples of Christ, in this and in every situation, is that we live in love. That’s what following Jesus is all about. How that works out in specific situations can be hard to determine at times but sometimes I think that it can even include violence!
While I have been involved in situations of violence on a lot of occasions I’ve only ever hit out violently myself once and that was a horrible experience, but I do believe that love demanded it. It was an attempted rape situation many years ago and one where I ended up in a horrible fight with the man attempting the assault. It’s the only time I’ve ever gone home to wash the blood of another man off my hands, and that’s an experience I never want to have again.
Some people may find it strange that I react this way when I’ve spent thousands of hours in the boxing ring but I can tell you that there is an infinite difference between the rough play we engage in there and real destructive violence, which I find sickening. Even so, there may be times when love demands violence.
It would not be right to conclude a reflection on the first letter of St Peter with the thought that ‘sometimes love demands violence’ when the whole thrust of Peter’s message in this passage is that we should avoid violence. Even so, love sometimes requires us to do some crazy things, and following Jesus will often lead us down some pretty crazy paths, and often-times it is hard to know exactly where following Jesus is going to take us!
There is a time to fight (Ecclesiastes 3) – we know that – and there is a time to stand up to persons who treat us abusively. And yet St Peter knew full well that we spiritual people are often far too ready to pursue our lofty ideals with little regard for the means employed to achieve them! Indeed, we need only think of the number of persons who have been killed in our own lifetime for the sake of ‘democracy’ and ‘freedom’ to remind ourselves that the end never justifies the means.
Following Jesus can lead us down some pretty strange paths because love can require us to do some pretty crazy things! Sometimes it will lead us to stand up and fight back against evil aggressively, but at other times, in the face of violence and aggression, it will require of us something far more difficult that requires far greater courage – namely, to do nothing at all!
First preached by Father Dave Smith at Holy Trinity Dulwich Hill, on Sunday the 25th of May, 2014.
Rev. David B. Smith
Parish priest, community worker, martial arts master, pro boxer, author, father of four. www.FatherDave.org
Great to see a sermon on nonviolence Dave!
I agree with most of it but have to make a couple of points. Re the Par:
Ghandi saw non-violent resistance as a means to an end, and having just finished a recently-published commentary by Norman Finkelstein on Ghandi’s teachings on non-violence, I’m conscious of the fact that Ghandi did not see non-violence as the only possible response to injustice, and neither did he think that those who practised non-resistance were always doing the right thing. Indeed, Ghandi abhorred those who used non-violence as an excuse not to resist evil. He would sooner see a man stand and fight injustice aggressively than run away, using a commitment to non-violence as his excuse for passivity in the face of evil!
I have read a number of books on Gandhi, but not Fiinklestein’s. I am sure Gandhi saw nonviolence as a way of life, not a means to an end. In fact I am sure he believed ends and means should be the same thing. As you make the point, he did in fact clearly say, “Violence is preferable to cowardice” in the struggle against injustice. But the clear implication is that active nonviolence is preferable if we have the courage.
Otherwise your own previous quote from Gandhi would be contradictory, that is when he said “that pursuit of truth did not admit of violence being inflicted on one’s opponent but that he must be weaned from error by patience and compassion.”
Secondly:
Your ending may be unintendedly more dangerous than the previous one you rejected!
“Following Jesus can lead us down some pretty strange paths because love can require us to do some pretty crazy things! Sometimes it will lead us to stand up and fight back against evil aggressively, but at other times, in the face of violence and aggression, it will require of us something far more difficult that requires far greater courage – namely, to do nothing at all!”
Perhaps the most common problem with pacifism or nonviolence is that people (sometimes intentionally and dishonestly so) equate it with “doing nothing” in the face of injustice or violence. That is why people dropped the hyphen from nonviolence (Microsoft spellcheckers have yet to read any books on nonviolence unfortunately). As Jesus, Gandhi, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King (and Mother Agnes perhaps?) have shown, nonviolence is a doing word, not a passive word about just not doing violence. (non-violence). We have to do more than the violent people!
Thanks for your thoughtful and thorough response, Jim.
With regards to Ghandi, I believe he was regularly inconsistent in his statements and this is regularly pointed out. You may be right though is pulling me up on reducing Ghandi’s commitment to non-violence as simply a means to an end. That may be over-stating the case.
Secondly, you are right in saying that non-violent action should not be confused with ‘absolute pacifism’ (ie. inaction). I believe though that John Howard Yoder in “The Politics of Jesus” (mentioned above) did argue for ‘absolute pacifism’ on the basis of Jesus’ example.
I believe that there is a time for doing nothing at all. There is also a time for active non-violent resistance. There may even be a justifiable time to fight, but I suspect that the occasions when love really demands violence are few and far between!