Nonviolence - A Brief History: The Warsaw Lectures

7 Jesus and Nonviolent Liberation

85 Chapter 7 Jesus and Nonviolent Liberation As we seek to understand the nonviolence of Jesus, we will do well to set aside some of the questions that tend to be debated the most—questions which, however, lead the argument away from the heart of the issue. We should first set aside the question which was given classical shape by Leo Tolstoy: are we to take literally the words of Jesus on the Sermon on the Mount which tell us not to resist the evil person and to love the enemy? Tolstoy’s interpretation represented a dramatic narrowing of the question. He set aside problems of general literary interpretation in favor of the simple meaning of the text. He centered on just one text instead of the larger context. He centered upon the moral discourses of Jesus to the neglect of his other teachings and the narrative of his life . . . . That dramatic selectivity has powerful value for some purposes, but it also provokes serious misunderstandings and defense mechanisms which we do well to avoid. We shall also set aside the negative counterpart of Tolstoy: a kind of antilegalism which says that Jesus must not have been completely opposed to all kinds of violence, since there were soldiers whom he dealt with lovingly without making an issue of their prohibited profession and because he himself used a piece of cord to move animals out of the temple square. Likewise, we do well to set aside discussion of the complex critical questions having to do with the difference between the way the canonical gospel account reads and the original events behind that 86 Nonviolence account. The editorial perspective of Luke is different from that of Matthew, or of John . . . . These matters are of real importance, but to begin with them would improperly divert us from our primary concern. The issue which has been posed for us by the history of Christian thought on the matter is whether we should or should not see Jesus as a political figure. There are numerous reasons for arguing that we should not: a. Jesus came into a society where many believed themselves to be near the end of history. He seems to have shared the understanding that the coming kingdom of God would put an end to ordinary historical process. It then made no sense to care about creating or maintaining institutions, or any of the rest of the concern for ordinary political life. If the expectation of the impending historical end has any meaning, it is that political process matters less. b. Jesus was intentionally personalistic. He reduced all relationships to matters of face-to-face openness and love. Ethical questions of a structural character do not come into view from that perspective. c. The purpose of Jesus was to give his life as an atonement for sins. The meaning of his death is therefore ritual or soteriological . It would be misunderstood if we were to speak of anything about his public life leading up to that event as representing political or even ethical decisions. d. There is the docetic understanding of Jesus as not really making human decisions because of his unique metaphysical dignity as Son of God. In these and other ways, most of the Christian tradition has given us a picture of a depoliticized Jesus. For some few people (like Tolstoy or some monks or mystics), it follows that we should be depoliticized in turn. On the other hand, for most Christians it means that in our political activity we should not be guided by the teachings or the example of Jesus. 7 — Jesus and Nonviolent Liberation 87 It was appropriate to ask first this general and formal question —“Is Jesus political?”—in order to sharpen our sensitivity as we read the gospel accounts. I now propose only to look at very well-known texts, adding nothing original to the reading of them by way of erudition but only the light that falls on them when we ask straightforwardly, “Is there political meaning here?” Our first document indicating with some fullness who Jesus was expected to be is the annunciation: You must name him “YHWH liberates” He will be great and will be called the Son of the most high the Lord God will give him the throne of his ancestor David.1 The response of Mary to this information is the text we call the magnificat, which describes a...