The following extensive article is based on participation in a course by Michael Bischoff (Clarity Facilitation) at St Joan’s – “The History and Strategies of Nonviolent Alternatives to War.” Some thoughts have been added by the author after reading the Gospels following the class; Michael’s course material is extensively quoted.

“How blest are the peacemakers; God shall call them his sons.”
(The New English Bible, Cambridge University Press, 1970, Matt 5, v 9)

Pat O'Regan is a technical and business writer. He has been attending Mass at St Joan's for the past year and a half, finding a renewed and burgeoning commitment to his faith in the loving company of the St Joan's congregation. Pat hails from a small Minnesota farming community -- Montgomery -- and is a graduate of St Thomas University and the University of Minnesota. Pat can be reached at Patxtra@aol.com.
The Imperative to Violence

The world is a violent place. History moves from war to war, without letup. In this society, violent crime is a commonplace (anyone else been mugged?). A recent survey found that one in three women worldwide are subject to violence in their lifetimes (yes, physical violence is largely the province of men). One shutters to contemplate what resides in the hearts of our fellow creatures. The highway patrol, who should know something on this score, urge people not to become confrontational on the freeway – it could be deadly. Personally, I make it a firm rule not to make eye contact with an angry male.

All that being the case, the argument can be made that violence is necessary for self-defense. If a mugger means to hit you over the head, will you not fight back? Don’t countries have the same right, even obligation, of self-defense? Many will say that those who espouse nonviolence are able to do so peacefully only because others have suffered the rigors of being violent on our behalf.

And a further argument can be made: Are not those who say that the only way to stop the killing is to stop the killing wrong? At least in the short run, it can be argued, if the violent inflict casualties for which there is no response, they see the opponent as weak, and so inflict more casualties: Think U.S. embassies in Africa and destroyer Cole fol-lowed by the attacks on the World Trade Towers.

In addition, from a slightly different point of view, what are we to do about the fundamental human drive (so it would seem) to respond with violence. Two examples will help to emphasize why many people insist on retaining the violent option:

We all remember the tape of bin Laden and his cronies laughing at their success.

We all have a tendency to imagine that other people are like us. Often, that is not the case.

So what is one to do with the lunatics of this world – the Hitlers and bin Ladens – who come to positions of power and are perfectly willing to employ murderous means to achieve their lunatic ends? Many of the older people in the parish were involved, in one way or another, in the Second World War. Some 40 or 50 million people were killed because one lunatic wanted to improve the human race. His perverted aim was to promote blond hair and blue eyes! He was not insane – one wishes he had had that excuse – just an evil lunatic. “I am the hardest man on the face of the earth,” the Fuhrer said. Who can disagree with that self-assessment? Throughout history the world has been splattered with large- and small-scale leaders of that ilk – Mao, Idi Amin, Papa Doc, Stalin, Pol Pot, the list is long. It defies sense to think that such people should hold positions of power. But, of course, they do. So what can be done with people like that – obsessed with domination, consumed with their lunatic murderous missions? Is there an answer, short of violence? Must we stand by meekly and let these lunatic leaders and their thuggish or wrong-headed hordes kill us? Surely we can defend ourselves? It gets down to the question of self-defense – the just war concept.

The Nature of Violence

Not since high school have I hit anyone. But I had an alcoholic and violent father, now long deceased. In other words, I was a child of violence, and I can tell you, we children of violence understand the nature of a rancorous heart – it is a part of us, impressed upon our psyches, indelibly, no more to be eradicated than our bones or connective tissues.

Violence derogates both the perpetrator and, sadly, the victim. My father, in his rages – foaming, spitting, red-faced, wild eyed – was animal-like. Indeed, we are never less human than when we perpetrate violence on others. (Some time ago, I heard the talk by Sister Ortiz at St Joan’s. She was tortured in Guatemala. Fine, that I can handle. But she said they made her assist in torturing another. Those brutes knew something of human nature, didn’t they? She’s still alive; she can even smile.)

Lincoln put the matter well in speaking of the bloody depredations of the Southern raiders Quantrill and Bloody Bill Anderson (from memory): In a situation like that the vermin and reptiles come crawling out from under the bushes. Or, in another context, “We must free the slaves, or be ourselves enslaved.”

As for the victim, if you came to Sister Ortiz’s talk you don’t need edification. Let me add a note: When I was mugged I happened to be staying at a posh hotel. On the night that it happened, the staff was nice enough in helping me and getting me a ride to the hospital for stitches. But curiously, in the days that followed I had the distinct impression – it lingers still: a dismissive regard from the staff: perhaps augmented by an admixture of self-loathing, but apparent – that I had been devalued somehow by the experience. In short, I devalued myself, paying a kind of perverse tribute to the mugger.

The whole question of nonviolence is complex and puzzling. Is a man who would never lay a hand on another, but whose heart is full of rancor and ill-will toward his fellow man peace-loving? Hardly. But look at it another way. Recently, on Public TV, I heard an academic, when asked whether the atom bomb on Hiroshima was evil, say, unhesitat-ingly, that it was. Is this settled? Let’s see – was the fire bombing of Tokyo, that killed as many people as Nagasaki, also evil? (One bomb is evil, but many are not?) If a nuclear experiment, intended for peaceful purposes, went awry and exploded, destroying a city, would that be evil? Was Truman an evil man? Am I evil (I would have dropped that bomb, after giving them a fair chance to surrender, simply to end the war as quickly as possible)? Why, I don’t feel evil. Yes, it gets complex.

But this is skirting the point. Nonviolent people are aware of the complexities. But the point is to get away from the violence.

The Class: The Nonviolent Response (Generalities)

The company of people who promote nonviolence is encouraging. Acquaintance is easy; the atmosphere is heart-warming. At first, one has a slight sense of feeling sorry for them – these poor nonviolent people. But that passes with the thought that the brutish are the weaklings. Nonviolent people are towers of strength and self-assurance.

Michael: Let’s go around the room. Introduce yourselves.

Karen: I’ve taken courses in the Peace Studies program at the University of St. Thomas. I mean to enlighten myself here, and perhaps carry the nonviolent message to people more hard-headed in this regard.

Sarah: I just think there has to be another option. I’ve worked with Mothers Against Military Madness for years. There just has to be a better way than the quick resort to violence.

Barbara: I’ve also been involved in the anti-war movement for years. We just need to learn to promote peace – not just an anti-war attitude, but true peace.

Betsy: I’ve worked in the Global Justice Movement for a long time. I’ve become convinced that there is an alternative to war in this world. The strategy we need to employ is to move from protesting to power.

Michael: Good. In this course, then, we’ll discuss the timely topic of nonviolent approaches to the war on terrorism. But first, in general terms, let’s see how nonviolence works. Basically, we have four approaches to nonviolent action:

The Nonviolent Heart

Violence is easy, reflexive, animalistic, it has no moral authority (to put it mildly). Non-violence is hard, requiring a determined effort of the will to behave, to think and to feel, in a way counter to the downward slant of human nature toward the dark realms of the heart. It asserts its power and dignity. In that light, of course, nonviolence should be our aim and purpose. But I can imagine a U.S. Marine (my nephew, for instance), who is a lover of peace. And I can also imagine a protester in the cause of peace whose heart is as bitterly martial as any warrior.

And, as I indicated earlier, I can see the necessity of violence in certain circumstances. Were I young again, at this time in our history, even knowing what I know about war (Vietnam: combat: 1969-70), I would join the military. This is not heroic; in fact, as I say, it is the easy course, but, as I see it, it is necessary.

When struggling with a moral question, one place for a Believer to turn for help is the Bible.

Christ understood the use of force:

(Ibid. Mark 11, v 15,16): (Jesus) “went into the temple and began driving out those who bought and sold in the temple. He upset the tables of the money-changers and the seats of the dealers in pigeons…”

Must have been quite a scene – Some of those guys would have taken strong exception to any suggestion that they move. What else could he have done?
And he understood the consequences of violence:
(Ibid. Luke 19, v 41,42): (Jesus said), “If only you (Jerusalem) had known, on this great day, he way that leads to peace! But no; it is hidden from your sight.” He goes on to speak of the destruction of Jerusalem. He says it came because the people of Jerusalem did not recognize “God’s moment when it came” (v 44).
He also understood the propensity of the human heart for violence:
(Ibid. Luke 22, v36-38): When Jesus sends the Apostles out to spread the Word, he says to them, “whoever has a purse had better take it with him, and his pack too; and if he has no sword, let him sell his cloak to buy one.” He explains that this is only to fulfill the words of scripture. But the Apostles see it differently, “‘Look, Lord,’ they said, ‘we have two swords here.’ ‘Enough, enough!’ he replied.”
Throughout the Gospels, it is the content of the heart that is emphasized:
(Ibid. Luke 6, v 45): “A good man produces good from the store of good within himself; and an evil man from evil within produces evil. For the words that the mouth utters” (and surely, then, the actions, too) “come from the overflowing of the heart.”
That is where the battle is engaged:
(Ibid. Matt 10, v 34): “‘You must not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother…’”

(Ibid. Mark 7, v 21-23): Jesus said, “For from inside, out of a man’s heart, come evil thoughts…these evil things all come from inside, and they defile the man.”

(Ibid. Matt 15, v 19,20): “Wicked thoughts… – these all proceed from the heart; and these are the things that defile a man;”
But at first glance, Christ’s message is puzzling:
(Ibid. Matt 5, v 27,28): “‘You have learned that they were told, “Do not commit adultery.” But what I tell you is this: If a man looks on a woman with a lustful eye, he has already committed adultery with her in his heart.’”

This defies common sense and psychology. Of course there is a world of difference between doing something in one’s heart and doing it in fact. I had always thought that this statement of the Lord’s was a metaphorical reach, a mere call to a higher state of goodness, but not intended as a moral absolute. But why then does he say it, and so clearly?
Read on:
(Ibid. Matt 5, v 21,22): “‘You have learned that our forefathers were told: “Do not commit murder; anyone who commits murder must be brought to judgement.” But what I tell you is this: Anyone who nurses anger against his brother must be brought to judgement.’”

So we have a parallel construction here, and one leg of the construct is com-mitting murder, the other is nursing anger at your brother! But to my non-theologically-trained mind, it sounds like he means it. One is finally forced to yield and admit, “Oh, he means what he says.” He wants us to change out hearts to be nonviolent places. That is paramount.
The message is resounding:
(Ibid. Matt 5, v 44,45): “‘But what I tell you is this: Love your enemies and pray for your persecutors; only so can you be children of your heavenly Father.’” Which is not to say there won’t be enemies – it says there will – but love them.

(Ibid. Matt 5, v 38,39): “‘You have learned that they were told, “Eye for eye, tooth for tooth.” But what I tell you is this: Do not set yourself against the man who wrongs you. If someone slaps you on the right cheek…’”

(Ibid. Matt 18, v 35): “And that is how my heavenly Father will deal with you” (eternal torment), “unless you each forgive your brother from your hearts.”
From your hearts.

But people are not inclined to be that way. Christ was clearly teaching a message that was wildly different from the common lives of people, then as now (a beggar was the same as Caesar, women were the same as men, what is in your heart is as meaningful as what you do, etc.). This caused some misunderstanding:

(Ibid. Mark 3, v 21): “When his (Jesus) family heard of this, they set out to take charge of him; for people were saying that he was out of his mind.”

When Jesus first told the Apostles that he must suffer greatly, die and rise from the dead, “Peter took him by the arm and began to rebuke him. But Jesus… rebuked Peter. ‘Away with you, Satan,’ he said; ‘you think as men think, not as God thinks.’” (Ibid. Mark 8, v 32,33)
But we can change, and Christ shows the way:
(Ibid. Matt 11, v 29): “‘Bend your necks to my yoke, and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble-hearted; and your souls will find relief.’”
Must we then stand by meekly and let the lunatic leaders kill us? No, of course not. I have never heard a condemnation of the military from the pulpit, or otherwise, at St Joan’s. I have only heard a positive promotion of peace. In my reading of the Gospels (read, unlearned opinion), Christ is not a pacifist. He never condemns violence for a just cause.
(Ibid. Luke 20, v 24-26): “‘Show me a silver piece (Jesus said). Whose head does it bear, and whose inscription?’ ‘Caesar’s’, they replied. ‘Very well then,’ he said, ‘pay Caesar what is due to Caesar, and pay God what is due to God.’”
What Christ does do, emphatically, is demand a change in the heart – toward love of one’s fellow man. He insists that people not sink into the easy way of rancor, not cave in to ill-will, as we are inclined to do, but rather to stand firm against the tendency to violence, as an answer to violence. The old, easy, tired and unimaginative approach of violence should give way to a new way of living – nonviolence, a place in the heart of peace and love.

That being said, of course it matters – no matter the contents of one’s heart – whether one is dropping bombs on another’s head or not. And one might add that it is hard to see one being loving and peaceful of someone one is trying to kill. Certainly war, at the least, is antithetical to the state of the heart Christ demands. But isn’t the contents of one’s heart overriding?

Let theologians sort out the parameters of a just war. The question of self-defense can be argued endlessly, but there can be no question about what the content of one’s heart should be. There will be plenty of people willing to prosecute such a war. That being so, there had better be people who insist on prosecuting peace.

Fight if you must. But keep in mind what Christ is saying – You may have a sticky time at the Pearly Gates if nonviolence does not reign in your heart.

The Nonviolent Response – Particularities

Michael: Let’s examine some of the ways of bringing nonviolent pressure to bear. Tell me what you think about these:

The Class’ Nonviolent Response to al-Qaeda

Violence is often reflexive and brutish, animalistic. Effective nonviolence is always carefully thought out and planned; it has a strategy. The class formulated a nonviolent strategy for dealing with terrorism – al-Qaeda in particular. First, we identified the forms of support on which al-Qaeda relies. Then, we identified the kinds of nonviolent action that would have the effect of withdrawing the needed support.

(Michael had us string a ball of yarn from person to person, as the ideas were presented, forming a network among the class. A nice touch: Nonviolence is cooperative, suppor-tive, a tangling of hearts with a common vision.)

Here’s what we came up with:

Michael: So, you can see that there are many nonviolent approaches that can be taken. Fundamentally, the way to undermine terrorism is to liberate oppressed people without war. How to proceed? We can intervene nonviolently by supporting nonviolent movements in the interested countries. We can train exiles in nonviolent action. We can distribute technical assistance. Or expand international sanctions. Or support educational programs. Or fund programs for the relief of poverty and disease. The list is endless.

Ten Principles of Nonviolent Action (from “The Unconquerable World” by Jonathan Schell)

  1. The prime human obligation is to work fearlessly and publicly in accord with one’s beliefs
  2. People should withdraw cooperation from destructive institutions
  3. People should do so without violence
  4. Means are more important than ends
  5. People should not commit crimes today for the sake of a better world tomorrow
  6. Violence brutalizes its user as well as its victim
  7. Actions are usually best aimed at one’s immediate surroundings
  8. Winning state power, if necessary at all, is secondary to transforming one’s immediate surroundings and will result as a matter of course from such transformation
  9. Freedom begins with the person and orients first toward the love of truth, and only then discovers what it hates and must oppose
  10. State power depends entirely upon the consent of the governed.

The Efficacy of Nonviolent Action

Michael gave a long list of historical examples in which nonviolent alternatives to war were efficacious. Here’s just a few:

Current Trends that Influence Nonviolent Action

Nonviolence actions change over time for a variety of reasons. The following points summarize the course material on current trends:

Alternative Strategies in Response to the Iraq Problem- (course material developed by Lisa Schirch and Bill Goldberg, 02/03; see www.emu.edu/ctp/bse for the complete discussion)

The class was in strong agreement that Saddam was not a threat to the U.S. In our view, the Bishops’ Letter stating that the threat posed by Iraq did not rise to the level of a “grave and certain” matter, as required for inaugurating a just war, was correct. If war was not called for, what then should have been done?

What is the answer to dealing with a bully? Short of violence. These people are subject to pressures, internal to their state and external. The following summarizes part of the course material.

Violence is a kind of spiritual death. Nonviolence is a powerful affirmation of the will to life, dignity and a loving heart. It was inspiring to take a course that teaches, convinc-ingly, that nonviolence is a viable alternative to violence. It has not always worked, of course – neither has violence – but it has always enabled the prosecutor to keep a heart that is loving and at peace. Moreover, in stirring examples throughout history, nonvio-lence has changed the world. We must believe in it – if only because the alternative is so dreadful.

References: For those who want more information, there is a wealth of volumes on nonviolence in print. Michael’s picks include the following:
  • Liberation Without War: The Emerging Era of Nonviolent Conflict by Jack DuVall
  • Strategy for a Living Revolution by George Lakey
  • Reframing Terror from the Perspective of Conflict Resolution by John Paul Lederach
  • The Unconquerable World by Jonathan Schell
  • The Politics of Nonviolent Action by Gene Sharp

Back