I recently had an email exchange with a reader of this blog about pacifism and nonviolence. Usually such exchanges are better suited for the comment section of blog posts, since this allows more people to weigh in on the conversation. So, for the sake of inviting you in to the conversation, I will post our email exchange below. Please read it and then weigh in with your own thoughts.
I am interspersing my thoughts into the exchange (indicated by brackets [ … ]), and will conclude with some brief observations and clarifications.
Derek (not his real name): A question. If it is the job of the Holy Spirit to convince the world of sin (and I agree that this is the job of the Holy Spirit) are you saying that we as a nation are not to do anything about the threat to our freedom from ISIS or the other radical Muslims who say we must submit to their god? “A nation” is composed of people (some of the population being Christian) and if they do nothing against their enemies, then they will be over run by those enemies. Would just like a little clarification. Otherwise, you are correct that we should not use the “Christians are not perfect…just forgiven” as an excuse for covering for someone who has done wrong who claims to be a Christian. Of course, I assume you do believe that Christians are not perfect until God gives us our glorified body. Right or do you believe Christians can become perfect?
J. Myers: No, I am not saying that we should do nothing about ISIS. But violence will only lead to more violence. There are ways to nonviolently resist the things they are doing. Think Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela, etc.
[I didn’t answer his questions about Christian perfectionism. I do not believe Christians can become perfect in this life, but I didn’t want our discussion to get sidetracked onto peripheral issues.]
Derek: Please tell me one way you can nonviolently resist the radical ISIS? While nonviolence is a desired way, you approach a radical ISIS member and you most likely will lose your head.
Will be waiting your reply, as I have much to say about Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and Nelson Mandela.
J. Myers: There is no “one way” or even “a way” that fits every situation. That is why creativity and determination are needed in nonviolent resistance.
But no, I would never recommend approaching a radical ISIS member. Why would you? Nonviolent resistance is primarily for the times when they approach you. And yes, you might lose your head. But Jesus was crucified, and in God’s economy, dying for what is right is more of a “win” than killing someone else to save one’s life.
[Note that nonviolent resistance is not about “winning” or “defeating the enemy.” If we nonviolently resist, we may end up dead. That’s what happened to Jesus, after all. The goal of nonviolent resistance is not to “stay alive” while taking the life of someone else (if necessary), but it is rather to reveal God and love others like Jesus. It is impossible to do this if you are killing them.]
Derek: It is good that most Christians in the United States – from the beginning of the republic until today – do not hold your pacifistic viewpoints on dealing with the devils who call themselves Islamic Jihadists.
[Note the scapegoating going on in Derek’s statement. He has “de-humanized” these Muslims by calling them “devils.” We get very upset when Muslims refer to the United States as “The Great Satan,” but we do the same thing to them.]
I don’t know exactly what you mean by, “That is why creativity and determination are needed in nonviolent resistance.” I will admit, that if a person can meet one of these people who is not so radicalized, and you can tell him or her about the saving Grace of God, and that their Allah is not the real God, it is possible to win them to Christ. But how many of them are going to give you that opportunity? Not many.
[Yes. If the first words out of your mouth when you meet a Muslim include “Allah is not a real God,” it is not surprising that they will not want to hear the rest of what you have to say, and you will not “win them to Christ.” But who ever said that such words need to be included in the first conversation you have with Muslims? Or even the tenth? Or Hundredth?]
I believe that God is allowing these radical Muslims and other revolutionaries to stir up the middle east – perhaps bringing about World War III – so the people of the world who are so naïve, will fall for the argument that we need a World Government perhaps under the current United Nations. I believe we are in the Last Days, and if such does come about, from this World Government could come the Anti-Christ which the Scriptures tell us about. If that happens, then you should know the rest of the story.
[Here is the scapegoating again. World War III is already being blamed on the Muslims, and it hasn’t even started yet!]
Earlier, you had mentioned the “nonviolent” tactics of Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and Nelson Mandela.
Gandhi was a true believer and practitioner of “nonviolence.” However, my understanding is that he was not a “born again” Christian, despite all the good work he did. If the Scriptures are correct in their teachings (and I believe they are), then Gandhi is in torment in Hell as I write this email.
[Isn’t it strange that while Gandhi can better follow the instructions of Jesus than most Christians (even though He was Hindu), he is “in torment in Hell” right now? Yes, I know we do not receive eternal life by works, but I find this entire line of reasoning quite shocking. Also, because Gandhi wasn’t a “Christian” he apparently has nothing to teach us?]
Martin Luther King attended various meetings which were sponsored by organizations which were “communistic” in nature. While his nonviolent protests did bring about the Civil Rights movement and led to ending the wrongs of Segregation, one of the unintended consequences of such has produced Black hoodlums across America, many of whom have the idea they do not have to obey the laws of the land because their ancestors were slaves. Racial tensions are greater today, than they were during the days of Segregation. Martin Luther King was a professing Christian and Minister, and I have to give him the benefit of the doubt that at some time in his life, he trusted in the shed Blood of Christ on the Cross for forgiveness of his sins, and held to that trust for his Salvation until the day he was assassinated.
[So, Martin Luther King Jr., though he was a Christian and a pastor, can apparently be discredited too because his meetings were sponsored by communistic organizations? And what is this about the end of segregation being responsible for “black hoodlums across America”? Yikes!]
Nelson Mandela was another who was influenced by “communistic” doctrines. And while he may have been unjustifiably held in prison for many years, I do not believe he was a professing Christian, and if he was not, then we can only know what the Scriptures teach us. Despite his bringing an end to Apartheid, I understand that South Africa is as unsafe to travel to today as are some areas of New York City.
[And Mandela was a communist too, and therefore, cannot be trusted? And the end of Apartheid is responsible for violence in South Africa and even New York… ]
Nonviolence works only when your enemy agrees to become nonviolent. Nonviolence did not win us the Revolutionary War. Nonviolence did not win the Civil War for the restoration of the Union. Nonviolence did not win us World War I, and Nonviolence did not win us World War II. However, pacifism did influence our loss of some 55,000 American Soldiers in the Korean Conflict, and some 60,000 plus in the Viet-Nam War.
[Here is the whole concept of “winning” again. And the confusion of nonviolent resistance with pacifism.]
God commanded Israel to go to war against their enemies many times in the Old Testament. And while I prefer peace over war, and I wish “nonviolence” was the doctrine of all nations and tribes, there are times when a nation has to go to war to assure its citizens of security from those who will harm us. Anything less will ensure oppression and occupation from those who would kill us and destroy the way of life we have been blessed with.
[And the best trump-card of all – the violent portrayals of God in the Old Testament.]
J. Myers: I am not a pacifist. I have never claimed to be a pacifist. I do not recommend that anybody become a pacifist. Nonviolent resistance is not at all the same thing as pacifism. On the spectrum of forms of resistance, just-war is closer to pacifism than to nonviolent resistance.
Based on your comments, I see we disagree on many, many things. That’s fine. But many of those disagreements are forming the foundation for our disagreement on this issue. This means that any further debate on this issue will be a waste of time for both of us.
Derek: “Nonviolent resistance is not at all the same thing as pacifism.”
Don’t know what planet you have just arrived from, but “Nonviolence” and “Pacifism” are the same thing. Neither are willing to take up arms to fight a threatening enemy. Don’t know how old your are, but I will be 71 at the end of this month of June. I taught American History for some 10 years at a community college. I have studied history most of my adult life. One thing I have learned from my studies, is that you cannot allow an enemy to exist. He has to be destroyed, or he will destroy you. History teaches that, and reality proves such. Both Pacifists and Nonviolence advocates refuse to admit to such.
I did not respond any further, since I saw the exchange was becoming “unproductive.”
Here are some closing thoughts:
Nonviolent resistance is primarily differentiated from pacifism by the word “resistance.” Pacifists often are content to sit back, do nothing, and let evil roll over them. They see their role in resisting evil as little more than a speed bump. They might slow down evil as it rolls over them, but they are probably not going to stop it.
Nonviolent resistance, on the other hand, is actively devoted to resisting evil and injustice in every way possible, yet without resorting to violence. There is, as you can see, a huge difference between the two.
The Bible does not promote pacifism, but does promote nonviolent resistance. We are to do what we can to stop evil and fight against evil, but we must not do so with the weapons of war and violence. Among many other texts, one primary place Jesus teaches this is in His instruction to love our enemies.
There are six elements to nonviolent resistance, which differentiates it from pacifism and they are summed up well by Martin Luther King Jr. (King, Stride Toward Freedom, 1958, 84-88)
First, one can resist evil without resorting to violence.
Second, nonviolence seeks to win the “friendship and understanding” of the opponent, not to humiliate him.
Third, evil itself, not the people committing evil acts, should be opposed.
Fourth, those committed to nonviolence must be willing to suffer without retaliation as suffering itself can be redemptive.
Fifth, nonviolent resistance avoids “external physical violence” and “internal violence of spirit” as well: “The nonviolent resister not only refuses to shoot his opponent but he also refuses to hate him.” The resister should be motivated by love in the sense of the Greek word agape.
The sixth principle is that the nonviolent resister must have a “deep faith in the future,” stemming from the conviction that “the universe is on the side of justice.”
Near the end of our email exchange, Derek listed several wars that had been “won” by the use of violence. The definition of “winning” is somewhat debatable. While one country might have forced another country to “lie down,” was the cost of human life on both sides “worth it”? Is this “winning”?
He points out that pacifism caused the death of thousands. I do not deny it.
But note carefully that I am not defending or recommending pacifism. I am recommending active nonviolent resistance.
What is most surprising about nonviolent resistance is that where it has been used in human history, it has a better “success” record than does violent resistance (or war).
In one chapter of his book, Engaging the Powers (which is a book every Christian should read), Walter Wink lays out the history of nonviolent resistance and shows how when it is properly used, nonviolent resistance is more successful than war at stopping evil and violence. In fact, in many cases where violence was completely and repeatedly unsuccessful, nonviolent resistance brought about the change that violence had attempted to accomplish, but failed.
In a TED talk a few years ago, political scientist Erica Chenoweth talked about her research comparing nonviolent and violent campaigns, and she said that while she used to believe that violent resistance was more successful than nonviolent resistance, the data she collected blew her away and changed her mind forever. She said, “I collected data on all major nonviolent and violent campaigns for the overthrow of a government or a territorial liberation since 1900,” she says — hundreds of cases. “The data blew me away.” Below are some charts of her research, and you can read more about it here.
You can watch her TED talk here:
There is so much to be said about nonviolent resistance, but I’ve said enough for now, and the only real point of this post was to invite you into the conversation I had with Derek. Where was I wrong? Where was he?
What could have (and should have) been clarified? What is your perspective on nonviolent resistance, pacifism, and war?
Leave your comments below!
Do you know Leif Hetland? (Global Missions Awareness). He is going into the darkest places in the world, bringing God’s light, love and joy. He meets with Muslim Leaders in Pakistan. He is willing to to lay down his life and demonstrates non-violent resistance in the power of the Holy Spirit. Radical Love.
Do you know Leif Hetland? (Global Missions Awareness). He is going into the darkest places in the world, bringing God’s light, love and joy. He meets with Muslim Leaders in Pakistan. He is willing to to lay down his life and demonstrates non-violent resistance in the power of the Holy Spirit. Radical Love.
I don’t agree that pacifism is the same as ‘being passive’ — indeed I have come to understand that pacifism and nonviolent resistance are similar concepts.
But your point holds. Nonviolent resistance is still resistance, and I believe one could make a strong case that this a core teaching of Jesus.
One point that you didn’t make is understanding the fundamental difference between the Kingdom of God and the kingdoms of this world. As Christians, we are first and foremost citizens of the Kingdom of God. And this kingdom is separate from the kingdoms of this world.
The goal of the state is to protect and advance its society — the kingdoms of the world are interested in power and economic gain. These priorities are often misaligned with the Kingdom of God, where enemy-love and self-sacrifice are core values. So when our first priority is fighting the enemies of the state in order to protect our economic interests and way of life, whose kingdom are we serving?
I believe that even if our western nations were overrun by a new political power, we would still live our lives as citizens of the Kingdom of God. Perhaps one day we may be barred from worshiping publicly, or Christianity may be banned by the government. Of course that would make our lives much more difficult and we would lose privileges we currently enjoy. But there are many countries where this is currently the case, and in some of those places the church is thriving and growing — you would certainly know who is committed when you face real physical consequences to following Jesus.
Jesus’ subversive kingdom is not on the same level as the governments of this world; it is not dependent on what they do or don’t do. The actions of our government affects our lifestyle and our freedoms. I believe these things are worth fighting for, but only to the extent that it does not contradict the way of Jesus.
He sounds like he is looking for affirmation not answers. He has made up his mind and is looking for people to tell him why he is right. Also, he seems to bef illed with hate and anger. He will not be able to understand christian love unless he can rid himself (perhaps with Jesus’ help) of these feelings.
He sounds like he is looking for affirmation not answers. He has made up his mind and is looking for people to tell him why he is right. Also, he seems to bef illed with hate and anger. He will not be able to understand christian love unless he can rid himself (perhaps with Jesus’ help) of these feelings.
When you blog, most posts include your opinions and that tends to attract people who want to “set you straight”. Quite often these people have their mind made up and are not interested in dialogue. They’re looking for an opportunity to get their “truth” in front of a large audience. If they succeed in getting their comments posted on your blog, they’ve succeeded.
If they can get people to disagree with them and argue with them, that affords them a chance to lay out even more of their positions on the topic in question when they respond to those comments.
In my opinion, this person is convinced they are right and everyone who sees things differently is wrong. I do not see that the person wants to discuss anything, but instead wants to show how they are right based on God, religion, the Bible or whatever, whereas everyone who does not agree with their opinion is wrong.
I have never labeled myself either way; however, having read the dialog, I would refer to myself as nonviolent-resistant. Why? Because people do not attack me. People see me as unthreatening as strangers come in and out of my life for decades. Can I defend myself? Most assuredly. Does God ever bring violence my way, potentially yes, but I have an unthreatening persona, which is the peace the Spirit has given me, and seems to quench a violent spirit.
There has been exceptions, for example, Muslims. One threatened to hunt me down and fire-bomb my house if I didn’t stop preaching that infidel message. At the time I had been witnessing Jesus for a few years on Caribbean sites. Needless to say I didn’t stop — I preached more than ever. And there was no doubt he meant what he said. I firmly believe God stopped that assault.
Another time, a witch tried to use God to gain my confidence — her place burned down a week later. I have no doubt that any child of God who takes up his cross and has faith in Jesus; and follows Him, will be protected by Him. Yet, suffering is no sign, obviously, that God has left His child — we all know that.
God authorizes killing, but He does not authorize Murder. Just as God kept the Apostles alive up to a point, He keeps us. I know I always have to be mindful that God periodically tests us for our benefit. So, far I have kept my peace in the Spirit, and it has been enough to avoid violence.
I have been in situations where someone wanted to see “if I was for real;” and tried to see if he could make me fearful — that never worked.
Having said all of that, I will add that I am capable of defending myself; yet I have not felt so fearful that I had to run and arm myself. I am convinced that perfect love casts out all fear, which goes a long way in navigating this brutal world.
Here’s the caveat — When it come to Muslims, I have to be realistic. First of all the american blacks, for example, were seemingly, at one time all Christian in conviction. I knew several through racism alone that became Muslims; and it grew and grew. They felt chased away from even church by the racist status quo, and segregation. I have had witnessing sessions in the middle of busy Manhattan with Muslims. If I tried that now, I’d be as dead as a doornail.
Discernment, and wisdom are necessary — hard and fast rules can’t always be applied. For example Muslims think that anyone who isn’t a Muslim is of the devil. The american black Muslims all believe white people are jins….evil spirits. when they are recruiting others, they point to the segregated churches, the american history; and they would not hesitate to kill people. Now with ISIS encouraging violence with such a show of military strength; it has given Muslims all over the world adrenaline.
I thank God He doesn’t test me so hard, as I carry my cross.
The Derek’s of the world are a scary bunch. A few years ago I would have “sided” with him. But my eyes opened by the grace of God. At the same time I stopped watching FOX as well (and have never regretted it). I no longer get news from any major news outlets as they are pure propaganda to keep the war industry going.
“War Is A Racket” by Major General (US Marine Corp) Smedly Darlington Butler exposed it a long time ago (published in 1930’s). It still rings true today. I would wager that Derek has never read it or even knows about its existence. Such works are kept hidden from history courses at all levels of education in the US.
We live in a heavily propagandized nation. Patriotism has been the tool to get us into unnecessary and ungodly wars. Wars that have brought death and misery
to innocent and unarmed people.
ISIS is in my opinion a front group of NATO to keep the War in the ME going. War is money.
The “Just War” idea is largely a tool to keep the ignorant average American in line and on the front line. That tactic doesn’t resound in a decadent society like ours so you have to bribe young people with money for college.
Now to your topic. After leaving the Repubilican Party and really the whole political system. The fraud that goes on in the name of freedom and democracy makes me ill. I have thought about pacifism. Non violent resistance appears to be an aggressive form of it. Probably a better response as the Christian is called into action-non violent action.
A recent story in the UK revealed how a muslim electoral candidate (who previously had worked in British Army Intelligence) had tried to bribe the racist English Defence League (EDL), offering to pay them to attack the muslim community in which he was a leader. His plan was that having secretly provoked the crisis he would then take public credit for bring it to an end, and so be swept into power as a community hero. Having been caught (the EDL revealed his scheme) rather than admitting guilt and feeling shame he defend himself, arguing that this was realpolitik, and that this was no different to what he had been trained to do by Army Intelligence. What is the famous Mossad motto? “By deception, thou shalt do war.” My point is, before anyone goes guns blazing, he should be very certain he knows who his enemy really is.
Link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3005845/Exposed-Star-Tory-candidate-plotted-race-thugs-stage-fake-EDL-demo-cynical-bid-win-votes.html
My second point is that the debate about pacifism, nonviolent and violent resistance is not usually presented as contextually responsive options but as exclusive moral positions. This framing creates a dilemma that confuses, divides and incapacitates the individual or community caught with in it. All dilemmas are constructed and cannot be resolved within their own terms. The only way to resolve a dilemma, except by the use of power, is to rethink the issue in a way that doesn’t construct a dilemma. In this case, my thinking is that one needs to understand what is necessary for a community to live peacefully and healthily in it’s environment and with it’s neighbors, and to resist with the minimum force necessary, any attempts to destroy those essential conditions. In simple terms, if someone is shouting at you breaking their fingers is not usually an appropriate response, but if someone has their hands around your throat and threatening your life, breaking their fingers or even killing the individual maybe an appropriate response.
Sock Monkey, I would agree with you in general. I think the level of threat to the person should be met by equal or reasonably greater force necessary to end the threat ( Police, security guards used to be taught this). If defending your home, self, and/or loved ones, and the threat demands that perpetrator dies… so be it. Such a tragic consequence would actually benefit society as a whole. The perpetrator could no longer hurt another person.
Some Christians in the earlier centuries were destined to be martyrs for the glory of God. So I would assume this has not changed through out the other centuries as well. But this is different I suppose.
I just have a few things to say about Nelson Mandela. Being a South African and living through the years of apartheid crumbling, I feel I need to clarify a few things. Mandela belonged to a group that did use violence to try to dismantle apartheid. He was put in prison for terrorism amongst other things. After he was released, he was a changed man and his tactics were better. But many of the whites voted against apartheid because they feared civil war, not just because they hated racism. We used to have bomb threats in our schools and violent protests. Mandela did become better when older and did a great thing for our country. I don’t discredit him – maybe apartheid would still be here without him. I have a question – what would you do if the lives of your family were threatened by a violent person and their only escape was if you killed the violent person?
Your apartheid comment connects with my point about making sure you know who your enemy is. The enemy of the white south africans was not black south africans but rather the system of oppression the majority of whites supported and facilitated which made life intolerable for the blacks. As you mentioned, bringing down apartheid was an act of self-defence for the white population, averting a civil war.
Self-defense implies abstaining from unjust acts of violence against others: unfortunately this requires both honest self-awareness and empathy (qualities that seem to be short supply). If a man I am beating threatens to kill me and my family I think killing him is not my only option, I could try not beating him.
Sock monkey, in response to your comment about white South Africans, many of us didn’t consider blacks the enemy. Not all the blacks were terrorists and not all the whites were racist. Even as a child I was disgusted by the apartheid laws.
I’m totally confused to your answer to my last question.
I said the majority of whites, not all. Many whites were courageous opposers of apartheid. What confuses you in my comment?
I wrote “majority” not all. I’m fully aware there were white south africans who courageously opposed apartheid. What in my comment confuses you? Perhaps my writing wasn’t clear. If I attack someone and they in reply threaten to kill me, it would be sensible to stop attacking him. Apartheid was an unjust system of oppression and violence. As you acknowledged, stopping it averted a civil war. Living peacefully is not just about protecting ourselves but about acting with empathy and humanity towards others so that we do provoke them to violence. That’s not a very confusing concept is it?
>The enemy of the white south africans was not black south africans but rather the system of oppression the majority of whites supported and facilitated which made life intolerable for the blacks.
Apartheid was quite literally the result of Afrikaners trying to solve the “poor Afrikaner” issue. This is not to deny that the Afrikaners felt that they were God’s Chosen People, nor to deny that they saw blacks as being a cursed race, based upon injunctions in the Bible. Nonetheless, the fact remains that the driving force behind apartheid was economics.
Something that most people forget, is that under the original plan, Swaziland, Lesotho, Botswana, and South Africa (Basutoland and Bechuanaland, if you prefer the old names) was to be a single country, consisting of roughly a dozen provinces, with a qualified franchise that was based on income, property ownership, and education. After WW1, that plan was changed to also include South West Africa. Indeed, even as recently as 1976, the Boers were looking for a unified South Africa, consisting of Swaziland, Botswana, Namibia, Lesotho, Transkei, Venda, Ciskei, KwaZulu, and the rest of the homelands, alongside the existing four provinces, which were to be broken up into two or three more pieces.
With a little less corruption in the homelands, and no Comblock troops in those countries, that unification probably would have taken place. As things stand, it is the SADF that keeps the governments of Lesotho, Botswana, and Swaziland in power.
Something else that most people are not aware of, is that as far back as 1900, the Boers were aware that, in the long term, apartheid was not a viable option. What they could not find in their Bible, was an economic plan of upliftment, that was viable in both the long term, and the short term. Had they found such a plan, they would have followed it instead. (Oom Paul wrote some very interesting things about this topic.)
Had not the greedy miner, backed by the only country that considers the slaughter of women and children in time of peace to be a legitimate tactic, and also the country that has created the most dictatorships in history, not run his thugs into independent countries, apartheid probably would not have happened.
> After he was released, he was a changed man and his tactics were better.
His wife was the person who popularized necklacing.
> We used to have bomb threats in our schools and violent protests.
> Mandela belonged to a group that did use violence to try to dismantle apartheid.
>I don’t discredit him – maybe apartheid would still be here without him.
Thanks, I understand what you’re saying about apartheid. It was the answer to my question I found confusing. I actually should repose the question: if you’re going peacefully along the way and a violent person attacks your family, would you be willing to harm them to protect your family from harm or death?
Hi Derek,
I have come late to the party so you may never read my comment but if you do I hope you find it helpful. The question of violence and the Christian is an important one. If you want to read a good analysis of what the Bible has to say about self-defense (violence in defense of yourself and others) I recommend checking out the Biblical Self-defense website. The author has a high view of scripture and goes through scriptural does and don’ts regarding the use of self-defense. It will be thought provoking for anyone who also holds scripture in high regard.
I would like to briefly speak to the three “pacifists” that were used in your conversation. First off, Gandhi wasn’t the consistent pacifist that everyone likes to think he was. “The Gandhi Nobody Knows” is a lengthy article out at the Commentary magazine website which you should find very interesting. There is a quote from an open letter Gandhi sent to the British people at the beginning of World war II that I would like to point highlight:
Make of that what you will but I see it as capitulation to evil. How does that make Gandhi noble?
I have heard many things about Nelson Mandela but I have never heard that he was a pacifist. The article “3 Things You Didn’t (Want To) Know About Nelson Mandela” is short but makes for an interesting read, here is a quote:
That is a strange kind of pacifism is it not?
Finally there is Martin Luther King, Jr. (MLK). He has a reputation that has grown beyond myth at this point. If you like him you are a good person and if you don’t like him you are a bigot. Rather than search for articles on him I would like to pass along my father’s impression of him (he is a white man and devout Christian for what it’s worth). My father is one of those persons who believe that actions speak louder than words and he still finds it curious that whenever MLK held a rally in a city that riots broke out within 7-10 days. Why didn’t MLK use the tremendous influence that he had to tell the rioters to stop? If he did do that and the rioters ignored him then maybe he wasn’t so influential after all. Can you enlighten us?
Last but not least I would like to address this comment from Jeremy:
That paragraph shows a superficial knowledge of both Christ and Gandhi. I would be fascinated to learn in what ways Gandhi correctly applied Christ’s teaching? I am sure someone will say that Gandhi “turned the other cheek” but was Christ was really telling his disciples to passively aid and abet evil?
As for being able to learn from Hindus and “communistic groups” I am sure there is much I could learn from them. I doubt that any of it would be good though. Maybe the Apostle Paul had it right when he said Do not be deceived: “Bad company corrupts good morals.” If you can show me how the teaching of these groups are good in any biblical sense I would love to be instructed.
Derek, I hope this has helped you.
Glenn
You will find this interesting in relation to Gandhi: http://buzzlamp.com/glimpse-amazing-past-historic-photos/36/ You should read more about Gandhi. Like all humans, he was far from perfect, but at the same time played an important non-violent role in his country’s response to British Imperialism.
We know Buddhists, Hindus and others from a variety of religions, including Christians. Our long-time observation is that we can learn much from others, some good and some bad. That applies to people from all of these groups.
We know many angry, bitter, hateful “Christians”, and far fewer (none, to be exact) angry, hateful, bitter Hindus and Buddhists. We understand that some self-designated “Christians” undoubtedly do not follow Jesus, but who are we to know who really does and who does not, and who may or may not be conscripted into the ranks of those in hell? We have known many “Christians”, including several former pastors, who in their old age confessed to family and friends that they had never really believed, but had claimed to be Christians for reasons of their own. I wonder if anyone learned anything from them and if they corrupted the morals of others.
Hi Sam,
Thank you for your response. I knew about the letter Gandhi sent to Hitler in 1939 and while it is interesting I don’t think it makes him a great man of peace. English Prime Minister Chamberlain had a peace pact with Hitler and believed he had secured peace in his time. History has not been kind to Chamberlain and he did more to secure peace in Europe than Gandhi did.
I want to make sure all of you understand where I am coming from on this. As a Christian I have accepted Jesus’ claim that He was the Messiah, the promised savior. Flowing from that I believe that the Bible is God’s word and a reliable and trustworthy guide to what is right and wrong (aka righteousness). The scriptures are what I use to evaluate my life and the world around me.
Does that mean that I handle every situation as I am supposed to and never sin? Of course not! I may, or may not, be a Christian who consistently fulfills what is required of me but there is no perfection for me this side of heaven. I’m not saying this out of false modesty but to make the point that I am not the yardstick by which righteousness is judged. The scriptures are the judge: All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
That being said I will ask again: what can I learn from a Hindu or a “communistic group?” If they hold to principles that correspond to Biblical truth then I will applaud them and say “well done!” It doesn’t matter if I like or dislike them, the Bible is the yardstick. If they disagree with the teaching of scripture I will state that they are wrong even if I admire them.
Let’s take as an example the story Good Samaritan. We all know about the Good Samaritan who helped the man beaten by robbers and no one else would help him. Suppose that the Good Samaritan had found the man while he was still being beaten by the robbers. It is my belief that according to scripture the Good Samaritan would have had to intervene, violently if necessary, to save the beaten man (see the section titled “The Biblical Obligation to Preserve Life” in Biblical Self-defense). If the common understanding of Gandhi is right he would refuse to use violence to help the man being beaten. Who is right? For me it will always be scripture.
I’m sad to hear that you have run into so many angry Christians. My experience is that they are not alone; the world seems to be overflowing with anger anymore. If the Christians actually buckle down and study the scriptures, and take them to heart, they will find a peace that will be a great blessing in the times ahead.
Glenn
> After he was released, he was a changed man and his tactics were better.
It was his wife that popularized necklacing, and he never condemned it. The only change in his tactics, was that other people lit the petrol.
>. We used to have bomb threats in our schools and violent protests.
To quote Mapetla Mohapi: “Bomb threats in white schools are white students playing pranks against the government.”
If that bomb threat was in an Indian school, it was a student trying to get out of a test. If it was in a Coloured school, it probably was a group of students that didn’t want to go to class that day.
If it was in a black school, then it was just another day in a place that wasn’t equipped for teaching anything. At its best, education in the black schools was pathetic.
There is something truly bizarre in seeing mediocre students in standard seven (9th grade) teach students in Matric (12 grade), because the standard seven students had covered the material the previous year, whilst the matric students only encountered it for the first time that year. Yet such was the reality of White education (standard six) and Black education (Matric Certificate) and Coloured education (Junior Certificate)
Or, to take an example that even the students concerned found incredulous:
The example is “Brownian motion”. A white kid would first encounter that concept in standard five (seventh grade). A black kid would first encounter it in chemistry class at Fort Hare (first year of college). An Indian kid would encounter that concept in standard six (eighth grade), whilst a Coloured kid would encounter that concept in standard eight (tenth grade).
> I don’t discredit him – maybe apartheid would still be here without him.
By 1970, one of the major aims of the Broederbond, was to find a way out of apartheid, without plunging the entire volk into instant poverty. As it is, most of the volk did end up in dire straights.
Sometimes the bigger questions in life need to be asked in conversations like these. For example. What did you have for breakfast mate? An egg soda or bacon butty? It’s possible that some of us really do have to much time on our hands which allows our minds to go places that we really should not be visiting. Dealing with the present is plenty enough. I have had a toothache for just under a week now. And if I do not get it sorted soon I am in danger of loosing every pacifist bone in my body and screaming blue murder. Each day brings plenty troubles of its own. So narrow the focus a bit folks.