Did Jesus Call us to Nonviolence? (Part 1)
As I mentioned a while ago, I plan on writing up some notes of books I am reading as a way of taking notes for myself, and hopefully as a way to get a discussion going around what I’m reading, even if you haven’t read the book. Right now I am reading What About Hitler? Wrestling with Jesus’ Call to Nonviolence in an Evil World. The author is Robert Brimlow, a philosophy professor at St. John Fischer College.
Preface
• In Brimlow’s philosophy classes, discussions about pacifism invariably end up on “the Hitler question”. The idea is that Hitler and the Nazis represented such a supreme evil, that the only plausible response in that situation is violence. Brimlow argues that Jesus calls us to nonviolence, but wrestles with this question, wondering if there is ever a situation when Christians may be called to fight (pg. 9).
• A major part of our call to follow Jesus is a call away from violence. We are not called to be pacifists, we are called to be Christians, and part of what it means to be Christian is to be a peacemaker (11).
• Brimlow addresses his remarks to the church as it is, not to some ideal, mental vision of the church. He reocgnizes the tension between where we are in reality and our call to discipleship which he calls “unrealistic, implausible, and absurd”. Yet even though Jesus’s call seems unnatural, or even impossible, we must resist the temptation to explain away “why Jesus could not have possibly meant what he most clearly said” (11).
One
• This chapter is a summary of the foundations of just war theory, and its historical development. Just war theory is the major philosophical alternative to Christian pacifism. Just War theory states that warfare may be acceptable for Christians, if certain criteria are met. These criteria deal with reasons for entering war, means of conducting war, and (more recently) methods of ending a war.
• NT Wright finds evidence of Jesus’ pacifism through his rejection of the zealots program of violent opposition to Rome (pg. 22).
• There is no record of a Christian writer approving of participation in warfare until 330 AD, and no record of Christians in the Roman army until 173 AD.
• Tertullian (204 AD) condemns voluntary enlistment by Christians in the Roman army/police force.
• Through Constantine (337 AD), Christianity moves from a persecuted minority to the official state religion of Rome, and essentially becomes assimilated into the Empire.
• Augustine (413 AD) creates a basic structure for Just War theory. He differentiates between between the violent actions of man and their spiritual feelings about violence. Essentially, violence and warmaking are acceptable as long as one’s motives are pure. For Augustine, the positve result of unity may make acts of violence worthwhile. The ends justify the means. Augustine endorses the expansion of the Roman Empire, but does view justified warfare as a last resort. (23-29)
• Brimlow concludes that Augustine is wrong to divorce wrong motivations from wrong actions. He prefers Tertullian’s description of our call to follow Christ including our hearts, souls, and bodies. Brimlow’s position is that if we are formed by Christ inwardly, both our desires and our actions will move away from violence. (30-32)
“Augustine is a saint, he is also wrong” – Brimlow, pg. 30
I have been wrestling with the question of Christian pacifism since college, and I have always been attracted to the idea, but have never quite gotten to the place where I call myself a pacifist. Maybe this book will push me over the edge. I am not coming to this book with a blank slate, rather Brimlow’s book will be another voice that has shaped my thinking on this issue following Bonhoeffer, Richard Hays, JH Yoder, Martin Luther King, and Stanley Hauerwas. Oh yeah, and the words of Jesus. That’s kind of an important source, too.
The explanation and critique of Just War theory in chapter one is well done. It seems he is more than competent academically, and not afraid to make bold statements and challenge the status quo (he flat out disagrees with Augustine, after all). I did find myself wondering though, after deconstructing Just War, if he would dedicate a similar amount of space in his book to the reasons for advocating pacifism, or some other alternative to Just War. Maybe that comes later, but as I am writing, I have read most of the book, and haven’t gotten that so far, nor has there been much discussion on what Jesus actually said on the subject. Maybe that is at the end?
Thanks for posting this. I saw the book and was curious about it. I’ve got J. Daryl Charles’ Between Pacifism And Jihad: Just War And Christian Tradition on my to-read list. I wonder if there is some critical book of essays in which a Christian pacifist and a Christian just war theorist engage each other. That would be really helpful. I’m not a pacifist, but I’ve been influenced by many of the same writers you mentioned in your post. And while I agree with Stassen and Gushee in Kingdom Ethics that Jesus at the very least was non-violent and pushes us towards non-violence, I’m not convinced that pacifism is the absolute way to go. This issue is a deep struggle for me.
Comment by Tyler Watson — January 29, 2007 @ 12:30 pm
Maybe we should write your back and forth essay book. Of course, that means I would need to fit into one of those two categories. Rats.
Comment by James — January 30, 2007 @ 3:01 pm
Yeah, me too. I want to lean towards pacifism, but I can’t make the leap entirely. By the way, how does the book you’re reading answer the question of the title? I know it’s cliche to always bring up Hitler, but he is pretty much the worst example one could create and he and the Nazis were real. To a great extent bringing up Hitler is very concrete and not hypothetical at all.
Comment by Tyler Watson — February 1, 2007 @ 1:22 pm
At the risk of giving the ending away, he basically concludes that Christians are always called to return good for evil, even if it means we die. Even in the face of something as awful as the Nazis, we should resist violence. He chose the title because that is always the first question that students in his philosophy classes ask when they discuss non-violence.
Comment by James — February 2, 2007 @ 1:30 pm
Finally got around to reading some of these posts, just had a few thoughts that I can’t follow up with, but I thought I’d throw them out there…
1) Brimlow says:
“There is no record of a Christian writer approving of participation in warfare until 330 AD, and no record of Christians in the Roman army until 173 AD.”
How does he mesh that with Christ’s interaction with the Centurian, where he doesn’t speak to the profession of ’soldier’ either positively or negatively? We have other examples of Christ specifically calling people away from sin (woman at the well, etc.).
2) Bonhoeffer was a pacifist, but at the same time wasn’t he involved in a plot to assassinate Hitler?
3) It sounds like Brimlow is saying something like:
“he basically concludes that Christians are always called to return good for evil, even if it means we die. Even in the face of something as awful as the Nazis, we should resist violence.”
But that’s not really the question is it? The hitler question goes beyond “bad” being done to “us” or “me”–I would restate it something like “if Hitler is killing millions of people, even if it doesn’t directly affect me, do I have a moral obligation to try and stop it, even if it means using violence?”. Does Brimlow address that question?
Comment by Luke — February 20, 2007 @ 10:07 am
Hey Luke -
Thanks for taking the time to sift through my cliffs notes. Brimlow spends a lot of time on Bonhoeffer and on the third question you raise. I’ve written up some notes on that, but I want to publish it in a more bloggish, reader-friendly way. That’s in some of the later chapters, so at this pace, look for that around Christmas, 2009.
As far as I can remember, he dosen’t address the Centurian thing directly, but my best guess is his response would be something like the following: Yes, there are a number of instances where Christ calls people to leave their sin, like with the woman at the well. However, it is problematic to argue that whenever Christ does not call someone to change their ways, that he condones their behavior. For example, just before he dies Jesus has an exchange with the thief on the cross next to him. He acknowledges the man’s faith, and does not say anything negative about him. I don’t think we can then argue that Jesus condones theft.
Comment by James — February 22, 2007 @ 10:54 pm