I once heard Stanley Hauerwas say that he was a pacifist not because he thought that by being a pacifist he would eliminate all war or violence or change everything. But, rather, he was a pacifist because he could not think of any other way to follow Jesus. I see that issue a bit differently than Hauerwas and, while I agree with nonviolence as a way of life, I don't ascribe to strict pacifism in that I believe that force is sometimes needed to protect the vulnerable and weak. I do not think that following Jesus requires us to be strict pacifists, but at the same time, I get his larger point. We don't take on an attitude or action because we think that by doing so we will change everything. But, rather, we live a certain way because that's what it means to follow Jesus as witnesses of his grace and love. We leave the results up to God.
I started this point a few weeks ago on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day and I got distracted and didn't finish. But, I found the notes today and thought I'd pick up with the thoughts here. One thing that intrigues me about Dr. King's approach to nonviolence is that he wasn't just using it as a way to solve the problem of injustice against Black people. He looked to a larger goal of winning over enemies and creating Beloved Community. He didn't want revenge or recompense. He also didn't just want justice. He wanted reconciliation. He knew that violence would beget more violence and more alienation and the rift would just grow wider. Instead, he wanted to see healing and hope work to build something new where everyone could flourish. You can see the aspiration in these sermon excerpts ...
Martin Luther King, Jr. on seeking to win over opponents instead of defeat them …
There are certain things we can say about this method that seeks justice without violence. It does not seek to defeat or humiliate the opponent but to win his friendship and understanding. I think that this is one of the points, one of the basic points, one of the basic distinguishing points between violence and non-violence. The ultimate end of violence is to defeat the opponent. The ultimate end of non-violence is to win the friendship of the opponent. It is necessary to boycott sometimes but the non-violent resister realized that boycott is never an end within itself, but merely a means to awaken a sense of shame within the oppressor; that the end is reconciliation; the end is redemption. And so the aftermath of violence is bitterness; the aftermath of non-violence is the creation of the beloved community; the aftermath of non-violence is redemption and reconciliation. This is a method that seeks to transform and to redeem, and win the friendship of the opponent, and make it possible for men to live together as brothers in a community, and not continually live with bitterness and friction.
from “Justice Without Violence,” April 3, 1957But the end is reconciliation; the end is redemption; the end is the creation of the beloved community. It is this type of spirit and this type of love that can transform opposers into friends. The type of love that I stress here is not eros, a sort of esthetic or romantic love; not philia, a sort of reciprocal love between personal friends; but it is agape which is understanding goodwill for all men. It is an overflowing love which seeks nothing in return. It is the love of God working in the lives of men. This is the love that may well be the salvation of our civilization.
from “The Role of the Church in Facing the Nation's Chief Moral Dilemma,” 1957
Now, the tone of what he was saying in 1956-57 is a bit different from what he was expressing by 1968. King in 1968 saw more clearly the reluctance to change and grant justice to those who had been deemed inferior. But, he never forsake his commitment to nonviolence because it wasn't just a method to get what he wanted, but it was an expression of a larger ethic that was a core value - that those who opposed him could one day potentially be his friends.
As I think of Jesus telling us to turn the other cheek, go the extra mile, and love and pray for our enemies in The Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5, I do not just think that he is giving us a strategy to change the world - or even to change others. King saw nonviolence as a strategy to bring about social change. I agree with him and believe he was right to engage this way. But, I don't think that the result of this kind of life is that there will be no more cheek striking or load bearing or people treating each other as enemies. Sin continues within us and in society and it keeps bringing disintegration. Rather, I do think that for many when non-violence and sacrificial love is introduced as we see enemies as potential friends, the cycle of violence and retaliation will hit a barrier that will slow it down. Sometimes, it will stop it. I believe that human dignity and value will enter the conversation, at least in part. And, in many cases, enemies WILL be transformed into friends. But, more than all of that, I believe that those who walk down this narrow path will find that this is how they follow Jesus and give witness to the Suffering Servant and Crucified King, even when those around them do not.
We don't love our enemies just because we think that by doing so we will obliterate all violence, oppression, and injustice. Or, even because by doing so we will win them over, though we hope we will. Rather, we love our enemies because Jesus loved us and we cannot conceive of any other way to follow him. And, we also know that when we love our enemies, God's love flows through us to others, whether they receive it or not. And, that is enough.
