When Dietrich Bonhoeffer tantalizingly called for a new monasticism, he said it would have nothing in common with the old, save for a commitment to the teachings of Jesus we call the Sermon on the Mount. I am always impacted by these sayings of Jesus. Here is a part that has always been important to me.
Clearly things wouldn't work the way they do now. We would live in a far less violent world!
It was through trying to live out these ideas that I became a nonviolentist over a quarter of a century ago. It is not an easy road, and I have not always lived up to my highest aspirations. Working out the practicalities is a challenge. The inner violence of the psyche is a major stumbling block.
One of the questions I have been asked often is, "Doesn't this mean you will allow the aggressor to walk all over you?" I have found this difficult to answer, and have usually resorted to the answer that regardless of the consequences, nonviolent is the right way to be. Historically, in some understandings of nonresistance this has been the case. It was true, for instance, for the early nonresistant anabaptists in the sixteenth century. It continues in the Amish and Mennonite traditions. It is a thoroughly deontological position. It is a simple duty to be nonviolent. None of us can foresee the consequences of our actions. Our responsibility begins and ends with our intentions to comply with duty.
Yet, it is difficult to ignore consequences, for consequences matter. To allow the aggressor to use violence is to collude with violence. It is not a nonviolent action.
How to resolve the dilemma?
It is often set up as: aggressor threatens violence, either a) be nonresistant and allow the aggressor to use violence; or b) resist the aggressor with force. Violence against violence. Perhaps, there is a third way.
I have received new insights from my practice of taijiquan. (if you are interested you can follow my musings on taiji in my other blog Way of Peace.) In taiji when the aggressor threatens violence, you neither resist violently nor simply give in to violence. In taiji nonresistance means to deflect the violence of the aggressor away from yourself in a way that causes no harm. In Chinese it is lu. In English "roll back." In this way you are not "walked all over," nor do you use violence. It is a nonviolent way of disarming the violent. The goal is to reduce the violence of the total situation, rather than merely not to use violence yourself.
+Ab. Andy
"You have heard the law that says the punishment must match the injury: ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say, do not resist an evil person! If someone slaps you on the right cheek, offer the other cheek also. If you are sued in court and your shirt is taken from you, give your coat, too. If a soldier demands that you carry his gear for a mile, carry it two miles. Give to those who ask, and don’t turn away from those who want to borrow."Few have taken these sayings seriously. It is easy to "spiritualize" them—something like, "Of course Jesus didn't mean this literally. How could he? Things just wouldn't work if everyone took a nonresistant stance."
Clearly things wouldn't work the way they do now. We would live in a far less violent world!
It was through trying to live out these ideas that I became a nonviolentist over a quarter of a century ago. It is not an easy road, and I have not always lived up to my highest aspirations. Working out the practicalities is a challenge. The inner violence of the psyche is a major stumbling block.
One of the questions I have been asked often is, "Doesn't this mean you will allow the aggressor to walk all over you?" I have found this difficult to answer, and have usually resorted to the answer that regardless of the consequences, nonviolent is the right way to be. Historically, in some understandings of nonresistance this has been the case. It was true, for instance, for the early nonresistant anabaptists in the sixteenth century. It continues in the Amish and Mennonite traditions. It is a thoroughly deontological position. It is a simple duty to be nonviolent. None of us can foresee the consequences of our actions. Our responsibility begins and ends with our intentions to comply with duty.
Yet, it is difficult to ignore consequences, for consequences matter. To allow the aggressor to use violence is to collude with violence. It is not a nonviolent action.
How to resolve the dilemma?
It is often set up as: aggressor threatens violence, either a) be nonresistant and allow the aggressor to use violence; or b) resist the aggressor with force. Violence against violence. Perhaps, there is a third way.
I have received new insights from my practice of taijiquan. (if you are interested you can follow my musings on taiji in my other blog Way of Peace.) In taiji when the aggressor threatens violence, you neither resist violently nor simply give in to violence. In taiji nonresistance means to deflect the violence of the aggressor away from yourself in a way that causes no harm. In Chinese it is lu. In English "roll back." In this way you are not "walked all over," nor do you use violence. It is a nonviolent way of disarming the violent. The goal is to reduce the violence of the total situation, rather than merely not to use violence yourself.
+Ab. Andy