Tag Archives: Christian nonviolence

Consistently Inconsistent: A look at the #MikeBrown "riots" #Ferguson

Anomie—The condition in which society provides little moral guidance to individuals. It is a pathological condition by which the social bonds between the community and individuals are broken down causing social disorder. In other words, the social mores used to construct right and wrong, justice and injustice, law and order are influx. This term aptly applies to the current situation in Ferguson, Missouri. Rioting in the city over the death Michael Brown at the hands of police officers is a result of anomic conditions caused from the social confusion created by tensions that are pervasive the criminal justice system. Routine injustices towards African Americans at the hands of police officers have contributed to the anomic state that has been expressed in the form of rioting by creating an antagonistic state in which citizens cannot trust their police force.

For those who have not heard the story Michael Brown, and 18 year old African American male and recent high school graduate, was shot dead in the streets of Ferguson, Missouri on Saturday August 9th, 2014. Reports state that there is no indication that he neither provoked the officer nor was the young man armed. While at first this may seem like an isolated incident the tragic reality is that it has happened far too often. Other recent incidents include Barry Montgomery Jr. (a paranoid schizophrenic African American male, who was beaten by 20 officers on July, 14) and Eric Garner (another African American male, who was murdered by a police officer using an illegal choke hold). Perhaps one of the most famous recent examples is Oscar Grant III. The 2013 feature film Fruitvale Station, starring Michael B. Jordan as Grant, tells the story of how another unarmed African American male was shot while on his back in handcuffs. Although police brutality by no means is a new phenomenon, especially in the eyes of African American, these recent accounts have made it necessary to examine the discord created by the inconsistencies that permeate policing culture in the United States.

As recently as yesterday Fox News reporter Brian Kilmeade with the support of Alveda King condemned the civilian protesters in Ferguson as criminals who had forgotten Dr. Martin Luther King’s message of non-violence. Both claim that if King were around today the he would not engage in the forms of protests happening in Ferguson today. Who can say what King would or would not do today? For that matter is this question even relevant? What is relevant is the fact that in making such claims both King’s niece and Brian Kilmeade have overlooked the root cause of protests and it’s societal implications. They overlook the fact that continued police brutality destroys the social bonds between officers and the communities they serve. Furthermore, this bond is further weakened by the lack of consistency in within the judicial process. How does one resolve the conflict between the rules and regulations that are to be followed and the ones to be ignored. How much more so when the ones who create or enforce the laws do not follow them themselves. This is the case with pathological violence that has been perpetuated against African American males and its subsequent effect on their communities. In Les Miserable Victor Hugo writes: “If the soul is left in darkness, sins will be committed. The guilty one is not he who commits the sin, but the one who causes the darkness.” This statement holds true for rioters in New York, California, and Missouri. What is worse the crimes they commit or the flaws in a system that has helped to perpetuate the crimes? Before we criticize the protesters or their choice for actions we must first examine the system that has created them.

Anabaptist Theology & Black Power: A Subaltern Ethics Of Peace #AnaBlacktivism

Please read the first three posts in this series before proceeding to read the following essay:

Anabaptist Theology & Black Power: Intro

Anabaptist Theology & Black Power: Christ The Center

Anbaptist Theology & Black Power: An Anti-Colonial Confessing Church

Tyler Tully’s third and final AnaBaptist distinctive is the naming of the Radical Reformation’s preferred type of moral agency: nonviolence. As Tyler so articulately put it as agents of God’s Shalom,

“More than merely being non-violent on a personal level (a measure that all Anabaptists will not flinch from) we are dedicated to producing God’s Shalom in our communities. Therefore, we stand against violence in all of its forms (Empire, oppression, poverty, war, etc.) while we live in justice as an alternative community. Shalom is more than the absence of conflict (Pax Christi), it is the peace that surpasses all understanding and the project of the Holy Spirit as God’s Reign fosters wholeness through reconciling the hierarchies of class, race, ethnicity, age, sex, gender, sexuality, and ableism.”

If historic AnaBaptist pacifism is an interpersonal practice, it cannot but be a social policy as well. For many Neo-Anabaptists who take their cues from the writings of influential theologians such as Stanley Hauerwas, the unquestionable commitment to Christian nonresistant love means that liberation theology and postliberal emerging Anabaptist theology are entirely at odds. Take for example NeoAnabaaptist author Brian Zahnd, who had a conversation with someone who had a question about liberation theology. Zahnd automatic answer, like many post-Christian Anabaptists, “Liberation theology is ultimately violent.”

zahnd libtheo

I challenged him on that talking point. I disagree that Liberation Theology is inherently violent, in fact, it’s problematic to say it is as such given the historical records. What matters more however as I have shown in the previous two posts, is that white Post-Christian theologians continue to dismiss questions of historical inquiry (Elisabeth Shussler-Fiorenza’s gender critique of The Politics of Jesus, for example) in order to put forth a Docetic hegemonic narrative. During the discussion with Zahnd, even my fellow #AnaBlacktivist Drew Hart took the time to chime in,

While Zahnd claims to be AnaBaptist, the one link he provided to support his argument was an essay supporting Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger’s position on liberation theology. It did little to prove that liberation theology, and conveniently excluded the imperial violence initiated by the United States against liberation theology’s communities in Latin America and Haiti. It is interactions such as these that lead me to wonder where do talking points like this come from. As a student of John Howard Yoder, Stanley Hauerwas usually remarks in the same manner as Zahnd when it comes to questions about Liberation Theology. LT is violent, not because of anything that liberation theologians have done, but because of the questions that they ask when it comes to notions of “peace” and “nonviolence.”

To use a specific example of a post-Christian white Anabaptist criticism of liberation theology, I turn to an essay by Yoder from Cross Currents in 1973/1974 entitled, “Exodus and Exile: The Two Faces of Liberation.” Yoder’s critique of Liberation Theology centers on his first accepting liberation language as an appropriate way for biblical language to make a leap from the past to the present, and secondly, his asking that there be a more honest account of Exodus, and the biblical narrative as a whole. If the Exodus story is a model for revolution, then what should the nature of that revolution look like? To this effect, Yoder makes a few observations. Number 1: The Exodus was not a program born out of human initiative, but God’s miraculous redemption of enslaved Hebrews. Number 2: The Exodus was more of a social withdrawal with the intent originally of God’s people leaving to worship the Almighty. This means that it was not a some sort of religiously sanctioned political coup. As Yoder put it, “Moses was no Bonhoeffer. The old tyranny is destroyed not by beating it at its own game of intrigue and assassination, but by the way the presence of the independent counter community (and its withdrawal) provokes Pharaoh to overreach himself.” Number 3: The Exodus is about the formation of a people group and not the the product of the event. Yoder explains, “To say it another way, to be oppressed together is not sufficient to constitute a people. Nor being a people yet sufficient to be the people of God. Exodus is not a paradigm for all kinds of groups for all kinds of salvation. Exodus is a particular form of withdrawal into insecurity.”  

Up to this point, Yoder has made points that liberationists basically agree with (with a few minor disagreements), but I now point you to the fourth observation: The community formed at Mount Sinai is the presupposition of Exodus. “The slogan ‘Exodus before Sinai’ presupposes that ‘liberation’ is a single and final event; that is the claim that justifies treating its violence as a legitimate ethical exception. Yet Sinai was to become the place of a new bondage. Exodus leads not to the promised land but to the desert, partly by loyalty to the values of Egypt.” Sinai is, according to Yoder’s narrative reading of Exodus, THE FALL of Israel. “Liberation is from bondage and for covenant, and what for matters more than what from.” So Sinai for Yoder is ambivalently both a fall and a formal, legislative event, for YHWH giving of the Ten Commandments to the judgments of Moses and his fellow judges. Aaron and his golden calf represents liberationists who want to take matters into their own hands to foster social change.

Lastly, Yoder’s fifth observation is asking of liberation theologians, why isn’t there not “some broader review of all the great events which Scripture put in the light of the Word of God at work: the taking of Canaan, the pluralism of the age of the judges, the rise and fall of the Kingdom, the dividing of the Kingdom, exile.” Israel ultimately fails in its experiment with empire according to Yoder, abandoning nationhood and returning to YHWHistic peoplehood after returning to exile. “Ezra and Nehemiah reestablish the community precisely without national sovereignty.” ” Now, in order to agree with Yoder that liberation theology is more about impatient believers who want to have their way with the nation-state, one must presume that liberation theology is nothing more than a nationalist political movement with religious language to justify it. This loyalty to the nation-state and its values, as well as an emphasis on separation on groups for the protection of minorities is probably what Yoder and his subsequent white post-Christian male disciples fear to be violent. However, this would require an anachronistic reading of the biblical text. There is no “nation-state” as we know, empire yes, oppressive institutions such as slavery, yes, but nation-state, no. If anything, Israel is more in line with the city-state structure more common in the Ancient Near East. Also, if I must add concerning Ezra and Nehemiah, while their project started out as noble, its conclusion resorts back to a reactionary exclusion of other people groups, against the prophetic, universalizing & reconciling thrust of pre- and post exilic prophets like Isaiah.

As far as the nature of the narrative that Yoder considers an alternative to the Liberationist telling of Exodus, I want to make a few points to move us into James Cone and Black Liberation theology. First of all, one must call into question the notion of “greatness” of some of the aspects of “the taking of Canaan, the pluralism of the age of the judges, the rise and fall of the Kingdom, the dividing of the Kingdom, exile.” The so-called pluralism of the age of judges is only made possible because the 12 tribes of Israel continue a cycle of remembering and forgetting YHWH who rescued them from Egypt (see Judges 6 for ex.) This forgetfulness leads to THE real FALL OF Israel, in 1st Samuel 8, where the prophet greiviously announces God’s concession of giving the people what they want: a king. But there’s a catch, there are laws the king must follow. Both empire and the exile are not first positive goods, but negative consequences of Israel’s disobedience and unfaithfulness to the Exodus God. The Exodus story of God redeeming God’s people. While Yoder is right to point out that Moses is Israel’s great teacher who was educated by the hybrid experiences as an enslaved Hebrew, an Egyptian prince, and a desert shepherd, Yoder unfortunately depoliticizes Moses in the process. Moses as a former Egyptian prince confronts Pharaoh with YHWH’s miraculous power. Moses prays as an intercessor, sparing many lives of his people. As Open Theists point out, God has a special relationship with Moses where God changes God’s mind on Moses’ behalf. In other words, both examples show that Moses really participates in the liberating mission of God. To be political from a liberationist perspective is to partake in the life of the Exodus God. God both initiates human movement freedom movements as Most Moved Mover, and works with humanity as covenant partners. Moses was a friend of God, remember? In Black Theology and Black Power, the image that Cone uses is the biblical symbol of God as like an eagle carrying Israel (and oppressed communities) on God’s wings.  This symbolic language is to express God’s liberating activity in history, and not only does God redeem us, God allows humanity to co-create with Godself.  

Liberationist ethics therefore is a departure from the virtue ethics and theories that center around social-formation.  Liberationist ethics start from God’s free grace and pathos coming to those on the lowest rung of the social latter.  In this model, God is free to work outside the Church in order to accomplish God’s mission of freeing all humanity from sin for the sake of covenant.  The Exodus God breaks down even the most faithful of dualistic categories, Church and World, to create a Church for the World.  In Cone’s BTBP, Cone recognizes that God can use persons that aren’t even in church for the purpose of liberation.  The Spirit of God inspires persons like King Cyrus (see 2nd Chronicles 6 and even Ezra) to bring about peace and communal justice for the common good. This is why in Cone’s A Black Theology of Liberation, Cone contends that God can use black culture to reveal Godself. One example of this is when Cone points out in his latest work, The Cross And The Lynching Tree, that “Blacks found hope in music itself–a collective self-transcendent meaning in the singing, dancing, loving, and laughing. They found hope in the stoic determination not to be defeated bu the pain and suffering in their lives” (page 13).

Yes it is true that James Cone would call into question pacifism and nonviolence, but the questions he were asking were not whether or not nonviolent action was legit, but who was exacting violence, and whose violence were we naming! Liberationist inquiries about cases for nonviolence, critiquing the privilege and manner in which pacifists were making their claims is grounded in a theology of the cross. “To speak of nonviolence in a Christian context was to speak of Jesus’ cross, which meant suffering without fighting back violently” (TC&TLT, page 149). But one cannot talk about the Cross without talking about the history of the Lynching Tree in the North American context. We cannot separate the Exodus God’s story of redemption from the history of Jesus suffering with crucified people. #AnaBlacktivism takes the Anabaptist concept of the Third Baptism in order to free pacifist Christians from abusing the Cross. With one of James Cone’s earliest critics from within Black Liberation theology, the late Major J. Jones, we can see nonviolence a theology that we participate in more than a social ethic. With Gustavo Gutierrez, we can affirm that God does choose the oppressed in order to liberate the oppressed and the oppressors. God freely chooses the foolish and the lowly, the persons at the margins for the service of teaching the dominant culture nonviolence as well as the history of violence done to them.  An #AnaBlacktivist theology of nonviolence would make the case for Christ’s model of peacemaking by coming from a place of particularity and the naming of particular forms of suffering. 


This is the fourth and final part of 4 for  my contribution to the MennoNerds Synchroblog: MennoNerds on Anabaptist Convictions. “As MennoNerds, we all have found certain distinctives of Anabaptism to be central in our expression of faith.  This article is part of a MennoNerds Synchro-Blog in the month of May on Anabaptism. For the list of distinctives go here. For the list of articles, go here

Why I Didn't BECOME A Pacifist

My Life Long Journey As A Non-Violent Christian

This blog post is in response to Kurt Willems’s post from a few days ago, asking “For those who hold to some version of “nonviolence:” What caused you to embrace this conviction?”; See Also Christian Salafia’s “Embracing Pacifism: How Learned To Hate The Bomb.

1st Lt. George W. Bush in uniform Español: Ten...

1st Lt. George W. Bush in uniform Español: Teniente George W. Bush mientras estuvo en la National Guard. Svenska: George W. Bush i sin nationalgardsuniform. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Unlike Kurt and Christian, I do not have a grand conversion story when it comes to being a pacifist. Growing up, there were several key teachers trying to influence me one way (the American pro-nationalistic way of war) and the way of Jesus (pacifism and universal neighborly love). Every night before we went to bed as little tykes, between the ages of 3 through 5, my mother used to read us from an Old King James Bible that had the Septuagint in it (yes, uhmmmmmm hmmmm). We learned about the Old and New Testament, and the Red Letters were the words from Jesus, and what he taught. Christ’s teachings we learned were supreme, and were to rule in our hearts. We were to take his words seriously and obey them. Competing for my soul was this cartoon show called, G.I. Joe: American Hero. I don’t think that anyone was as big of a fan of this program than I was growing up. My parents believed that most cartoons were safe, and with no real moral consequences that could contradict my religious beliefs. Boy were they wrong! Just as The Smurfs were a evil satanic ploy to teach kids about how to be Socialist and anti-Jewish, G.I.Joe and He-Man Masters of the Universe were some of my earliest teachers of what it mean a man. G.I.Joe, they were so heroic, and masculine and so not racist against Eastern Europeans, I mean sorry, C.O.B.R.A.

The social formation via media is what piqued my curiosity in public school around when I was in second grade, during the time of Operation Desert Storm. These were the days of George H W Bush interrupting my viewing of “Attack of the Killer Tomatoes” and “Swamp Thing.” I was bussed from my middle-class suburb to a nice traditional school, where there were strict dress codes, strict behavior rules, and no separation between honors and normal students. After encountering racism in first grade and being race conscious from that time forward, I sensed there was an exclusion of people of color, even in what we read in Social Studies, my favorite subject. By the time I was in third grade, I addressed this exclusion by personally reading as many stories and books about Native Americans and African Americans as possible. This practice of reading up on the history of violence and exclusion in the U.S. helped me to resist the colonizing public education and entertainment I was ingesting. I cannot even say that the churches and Sunday Schools I was raised in enriched me in my pacifism. Sunday School consisted of lauding the praises of Hebrew Bible heroes like King David and then the sermons (at black Southern Baptist churches) would of course expand this teaching on David to uncritical recognition of the Pastor (I refuse to call anyone back then reverend, only Jesus should be revered).

Years later, I am in high school, arguing with literally a white supremacist skinhead (he really was, because he wanted to be like one of his parents)about gun violence and war each day. He was determined that our debates would end up in fist-to-cuffs. Back then, I remained caught up and interested in contemporary Christian music because of a life-changing experience at an FCA camp where all of the counselors were singing the praises of this new man of God: George W. Bush. I kept quiet, I didn’t know any better since I was a Democrat at that time. A year later when Bush “won,” my mother told me worriedly that Bush was a warmonger. I was confused. But didn’t Bush say he would practice a “humble foreign policy” unlike Bill Clinton? It didn’t take long for George W. Bush to declare war on Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Before 9/11 happened, I had always been a quiet, passive advocate for non-violence. After 9/11, I started to become vocal about it, that the difference between true Christianity, and Bush’s Christianity was one that took Jesus’ teachings seriously.

My second favorite band at that time, DC Talk had a song, “The Red Letters,” about the red letters, the words of Jesus, where we find life, and truth and goodness. This is far from the truth. As I began reading the Bible, from the Old Testament to the New, I saw the Good News of peaceableness, and a non-violent ethic everywhere. Reading Augustine of Hippo and Abraham Kuyper in college made me a Calvinist, but I could not be swayed from my life-long pacifism. I was filled with excitement when I read about the earliest Christians like Tertullian who were both FROM AFRICA and PACIFIST. Those two facts meant so much to me. Church history and Tertullian’s witness inspired me to join my college’s Peace Action as a founding member as well as the Fair Trade Group.

The nationalistic fever that took a hold of college students in 2003 during Operation Iraqi Freedom was the first time I saw (and was dreadfully frightened by) the link between nationalism (false patriotism) and uncritical thinking and war-mongering. It was not until seminary that I found myself re-reading Martin Luther King Jr.,and being introduced to Stanley Hauerwas, and then John Howard Yoder. It was in Yoder’s work that I had found myself not just politically being anti-war, but seeing my advocacy of nonviolence as a necessity. There is truth, there is hope, there is love in all of the letters of the Bible, but not because of these sacred scrolls themselves, but because the One whom they testify to, Christ Jesus. Now, some may say that they are “New Testament Christians” and therefore are pacifists, but I feel this position is far too neglecting valuable parts of the Hebrew Bible. If the building of the Temple is one of the most significant parts of the Hebrews’ stories, would not the king who built it and why he was chosen also be just as important? I think so, and the fact that Solomon never went to war as the reason why YHWH chose him to build the Temple should be part of what informs believers’ commitment to nonviolence.

Being a pacifist, now I value media and edutainment that promotes nonviolent politics; I am informed by Jesus’ teachings and there is really no competition. The politics Of Jesus has a monopoly on how I see the world. When I read books or watch television programming that contradicts Jesus’ nonviolent ethic, like the prophets of the Old Testament, I must join them in nonviolently denouncing these mediums. Writing, tweeting, blogging, preaching, speaking up for the oppressed (that other part of Proverbs 31 we don’t talk about) is the way of the Savior, who came preaching peace (Ephesians 2:17).

President George W. Bush addresses the class o...

President George W. Bush addresses the class of 2007 at this years Academy’s commencement. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

For those of you all that are pacifists/confessors of non-violence, what was the turning point for you? For those that like to throw shade on pacifism/nonviolence, what are your hang-ups?

Enhanced by Zemanta