Tripp York and Justin Bronson Barringer (eds.), A Faith Not Worth Fighting For: Addressing Commonly Asked Questions about Nonviolence (Cascade, 2012), 243pp
You say you believe in Christian nonviolence and almost immediately will be the response but what in x or y situation, surely you would be willing to use violent force? Or, what when the bible says or Jesus says? This book A Faith Not Worth Fighting For aims to answer exactly those kind of questions, to demonstrate that nonviolence is not only an option, but is the option for those who claim to follow Jesus. The book seeks to argue that Christian nonviolence is not impractical or non-biblical.
This collection of essays is the first book in a new series called Peaceable Kingdom, which 'seeks to challenge the pervasive violence assumed necessary in relations to humans, non-humans and the larger environment'.
With a foreword from Stanley Hauerwas, the premenient Christian pacficist theologian, this book brings together a line-up of leading thinkers including Sam Wells, D. Stephen Long, Gregory Boyd, Gerald Schlabach, Robert Brimlow and Amy Laura Hall, amongst others. Hauerwas welcomes the book, as you would expect, and sees it as a 'new stage in the conversation' about Christian nonviolence.
The editors suggest this is an 'easy-to-read' book. I think that might be a little generous in both ways we might interepret this phrase. The book is in many ways a demanding read - the arguments made are theological, philosophical and biblical, that is, there is an academic rigour to them, and the book is uncomfortable read in that challenges us to practice nonviolence in the face of responsibilities we feel we have towards family, nation, etc where they might be threatened. The chapters cover questions such as what about Hitler, what about if a loved one was being attacked, what about the police, what about violence in the Old Testament, what about Jesus' action in the Temple, what about the presentation of Jesus in the book of Revelation.
The two chapters I was most interested in were, what about the protection of third-party innocents and what if someone were attacking a loved one? The latter surely being the most asked question and the former being the question that exercises me. The question of third-party innocents is addressed by D. Stephen Long. After a fairly biographical and descriptive part of the chapter, he attempts to answer the question. The answer being that yes we must be prepared to let our neighbours or other innocents die. Long argues that this response cannot be immoral unless those who advocate just war acknowledge that their position is equally immoral as an in any war 'the innocent will be killed alongside the aggressor.' The just war theorist may respond that they do not intend the death of innocents, whilst the pacifist must. Long responds that is 'to attribute an intention to an action becuase of others' abuses.' Long argues that
'In truth, we live in a sinful, fallen world, where we cannot secure our existence, or that of our friends and families, against all potential aggressors. To live if we can is simply to deny the reality of sin. To live as if we must is simply to deny the resurrection.'
How is this not unjust? How is this not quietism against abuse? Long claims that 'christological pacifism' can only be taken seriously when we work to 'provide ways for securing the lifeof our neighbors by other means than violence.' While I agree with Long, and with the likes of Hauerwas and others, it seems to me that there does need to be a stronger answer to how we might respond to violent oppression and injustice, especially as we see it in other nations, like Zimbabwe or Syria. One response that Shane Claiborne and others will make is the work of Christian Peacemaker Teams. I want to ask what else?
The other chapter on what do I when a loved one is being attacked is written by Amy Laura Hall and Kara Slade. Hall and Slade appraoch this question by questioning the question itself - who is you, who is the loved one, who is the attacker, and what sort of attack is implied? The 'you' they suggest asks whether they you physically could do anything if the 'someone' attacking was bigger, stronger - Hall suggests the 'you' can only evoke laughter in reference to her. They then recognise that 'you' is here is generally asked in reference to a man in defending his family. What would a man 'do' they suggests is bound up with 'assumptions about masculinity' and that to do nothing is to be seen as less than a man. They also, following Yoder, push against the view that the question only has two outcomes - tradegy or successful attempt killing. when it comes to the 'someone' attacking, they suggest that this someone is implied as different - and they suggest behind this is a question of race. The sort of attack implied, Hall and Slade will come down to rape. What they are revealing is that it is culture that often determines the answer to this question and not the gospel. There is more going in this question of what you would do in this situation, which is worth uncovering and so what would become a natural response to resort to violence, becomes less straightforward. They end by noting there is no easy answer, and to keep persisting in that 'frustration' for an answer. Hall and Slade make plain that issues of gender lie behind this question. They make some insightful observations. It would I think be helpful to read some other response to this and the other question that Long explores above.
This is a good book, an important book, and hopefully, as Hauerwas suggests, will take forward the conversation regarding Christian nonviolence, and seeing many Christians recognise that nonviolence is the way of the gospel.
Comments