RSS
More Feeds












God's Politics

Nonviolence Begets Nonviolence

by Barry Clemson 01-08-2009

The dynamics of “violence begets violence” are simple and probably understood by everyone who has ever been in a fight. Unfortunately, the dynamics of “nonviolence begets nonviolence” are not as simple and are not widely understood.  Jesus told us to love our enemies and, when struck, to turn the other cheek. Most people and all nations consider these admonitions to apply only to saints or God. Even the institutional church, with its “just war” doctrine and its cheerleading for particular wars, does not take Jesus’ words seriously in this respect. If we understood the dynamics of “nonviolence begets nonviolence,” we might see what Jesus meant by turning the other cheek.

The USSR sent 300,000 troops into Czechoslovakia in 1968 to stop a process of  democratization. A protracted struggle of nonviolent resistance ensued with the labor unions eventually spearheading the opposition to the invasion. Large numbers of the initial invasion troops had to be replaced within four days because they became so sympathetic to the Czech nonviolent resisters. Such a rapid loss of previously reliable troops is a very high price for an invader.

In 1940 Germany was vastly stronger than Denmark and occupied Denmark with hardly a shot fired. The Danes resisted in subtle ways but mostly gritted their teeth and tolerated the Germans. This largely passive acceptance of Germany ended in 1943 when the Germans tried to arrest the Danish Jews, and the Danes rose up as one and actively, but nonviolently, resisted. More than 95 percent of the Danish Jews were spirited away overnight. In the next six months, almost all of the Jews were smuggled across the bay into neutral Sweden. The Danes reacted heroically, but the German army’s role in all this was most curious.

The German Schutzstaffel (SS), originally formed as Hitler’s bodyguards, was a fanatical and ruthless elite. They were tireless and effective in pursuing the Jews and persecuting the Danes. On the other hand, the Wehrmacht were the ordinary soldiers, the draftees, and these soldiers were a far different story. A number of high-ranking Wehrmacht officers actively helped the Jews escape, and many more looked the other way. Similarly when the Nazis tried to starve Copenhagen into submission, the Wehrmacht basically ignored the large-scale smuggling of food occurring right under their noses. Since there were only a few of the SS in Denmark and the Wehrmacht had become sympathetic to the Danes, the Nazis were severely constrained in what they could do to punish the Danes. The Danish nonviolence begat nonviolence by subverting the Wehrmacht to the point that it would not use violence against the Danes.

My ten months in Mississippi in 1964-65 with the Mississippi Freedom Summer provided a personal perspective on nonviolence begetting nonviolence. Prior to that summer the Klan, often supported by the sheriffs and other parts of the local governments, terrorized and killed local blacks who refused to accept the rigid system of segregation. Mississippi Freedom Summer brought almost a thousand upper class Northern students into the struggle. Before all of us were even in Mississippi, three of our number (Chaney, Schwerner, and Goodman) were killed. Between these deaths and a thousand upper class families lobbying the media and the government, a veritable firestorm of publicity engulfed Mississippi and lasted all summer.

The Klansmen, the hard-core haters, were not converted. They were enraged and attempted more violence. Several things happened. First, the moderate citizens of Mississippi, especially the business owners, were alarmed. All this negative publicity was very bad for business. Others simply took a hard look at the evils of segregation. For the first time in their lives they could not pretend that everything was okay with their communities. The moderate citizens, the ones who were basically decent folks, had to act. And they acted to try to restrain the haters.

Second, the federal government sent a small army of FBI agents to try and find the killers who murdered Chaney, Schwerner, and Goodman. The Klan realized that they could no longer kill with total impunity; they would actually have to be careful about it. And since their modus operandi was to kill in large mobs, the Klan members could never be sure that there wasn’t a weak link who might squeal.

Finally, the publicity generated by the Mississippi Freedom Summer and King’s march from Selma to Montgomery pushed the federal government into passing the 1965 voting rights act. This act, which finally allowed large numbers of blacks to vote, resulted in many blacks being elected to office all across the Old South, thus irrevocably changing the entire system of segregation.

Barry Clemson spent 10 months working with SNCC in Mississippi Freedom Summer, June 1964 to April 1965. He is currently a writer (mostly fiction) whose  work  explores themes of nonviolence, and has had careers in software development, university teaching and  research, community development, and construction.

Share or bookmark this post:
  • email
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Mixx
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
advertisement


Comment Code of Conduct

I will express myself with civility, courtesy, and respect for every member of the Sojourners online community, especially toward those with whom I disagree—even if I feel disrespected by them. (Romans 12:17-21)

I will express my disagreements with other community members' ideas without insulting, mocking, or slandering them personally. (Matthew 5:22)

I will not exaggerate others' beliefs nor make unfounded prejudicial assumptions based on labels, categories, or stereotypes. I will always extend the benefit of the doubt. (Ephesians 4:29)

I will hold others accountable by clicking "report" on comments that violate these principles, based not on what ideas are expressed but on how they're expressed. (2 Thessalonians 3:13-15)

I understand that comments reported as abusive are reviewed by Sojourners staff and are subject to removal. Repeat offenders will be blocked from making further comments. (Proverbs 18:7)

  • electriclady281
    Thanks, peacelover!  You can count how many others there are if you can count the stars!
    I think the way to peace in this world and a cessation of the violence that has wracked humanity through the ages, is the individual's bringing to ever-increasing awareness what is unreal and holding to reality in allowance and non-attachment to outcome and judgment.
    electriclady281
  • you said
    "impossible"
  • I still don't get what you're saying.
  • no room
  • BarryClemson
    I would like to thank all of you for your thoughtful, caring, and truly amazing commentary -- this sort of impassioned and intelligent dialogue is exactly what I hoped for when I wrote the little essay that started this discussion.

    Grace and Peace to all of you who contributed
  • scat
    Hammerrud--
    Thanks for your informative response. I have two basic reaso;ns, although there may be more, that I do not take the Bible completely literally. One, the fluidity of language. Over one's own lifetime, one can see how meanings and word combinations change. Second, my experience with human beings is that they usually mess up whatever they get their hands on. We always think we can improve on things. But that does not mean one of us is right and one of us is wrong. All of what we think is influenced by our differing experiences. We are still blind men trying to describe an elephant.
  • hammerud
    scat -- thanks for the thoughtful response. I see Scripture as God's Word, fully reliable, and exactly what God wanted written by the humans that were moved by Him to write. That is what in means in 2 Tim 3:16 with the use of the word "inspiration." It means "God breathed." It is almost like a surfer being carried along by the power of a wave. God used people to pen exactly what He wanted penned, and Jesus' reference to "every jot and tittle," made that point. As far as the blood sacrifice goes, I believe that is the case because that is what God requires in payment for sin, although the full import of that is beyond me. I think it has something to do with the fact that "the wages of sin is death," and "the life of the flesh is in the blood." I guess on the non-violence thing, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I can see your point on a personal level, but in an extreme case where my wife or child were being threatened or abused, I would be violent if necessary. Romans 14 says, "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." Again though, I appreciate your thoughts. You seem to have a heart that loves God. If you are interested in finding a good church, I would suggest trying an Evangelical Free Church. From what I have seen, they are not legalistic and are doctrinally solid. By the way, on the www.calvarybaptistonline.org website that I shared, my wife is in the white jacket and I am the bald portly man standing next to her on one of the pictures that pop up. Blessings.
  • scat
    Hammerud -=- thank you for your insights. I'm not sure we disagree. It's like the fable of the blind men describing an elephant. What we think about depends on what our limited senses and experiences bring to our attention. To me the question of Christ's divinity is as unanswerabl;e as trying to describe God himself. As a practical person, I tend to ponder the things that I have a chance of someday understanding.
    My commitment to non-violence came from several directions. One is the appreciation of history. As humans, we pretty keep making the same mistakes, just with slightly different excuses and more powerful tools. We have fine-tuned our ability to violate others physically or psychologically while making only baby steps forward in spreading God's words of peace. Many churches preach "us vs. them" thinking, thinly veiled bigotry and self-agrandizement rather than humility, love and selflessness. I had always marveled at people who died for what they knew was right. I finally came to understand it when I realized that my plan wasn't neceesarily God's plan and I had to choose his way or mine. Like the Great Philosopher Dr. Phil says -- when you choose the action you choose the consequences. Now I can't think of a better way to do than for doing His will. It's certainly more noble than getting hit by a truck. For me that was my huge step forward in surrendering my will to His. It's why nothing frightens me.

    I think that as long as we leave ourselves the option of violence we do not move forward. If violence is not an option, then we must use our heads and come up with better solutions. I believe that is what Christ tried to show us. I think He demonstrated that we would not alway;s physically survive the effort. This world is full of evil but it's not always by choice but by ignorance and that can be changed by educating by example. Reliance on the option of violence is a failure to trust in God's way.
    Most of us will never have to deal with the issue of personal physical violence. The same principles apply to day to day relationships with people. Violence in the form of gossip, disrespect, bigotry, lying,etc. is just a precedent to physical violence. so far the only way I have found to deal with that is to take the part of the person being disrespected. It's not always successful.
    I appreciated your reference to the church in Virginia. Unfortunately, that would be a long commute. But you have encouraged me to keep looking.
    The Bible is the most read and examined book in history. There are many layers of understanding, and I believe that is intentional. It may seem murky and mushy when we start to explore its depths, but certain ideas recur clearly enough to serve as a guide. And we have to remember the words were put together by people and thus limited in their clarity and subject to the context of the culture at the time. Personally, I think the whole blood sacrifice thing is man-made and the only reason it may have been necessary is because for many people that is the only thing they understand. So Christ had to die a violent death not because God required it but because mankind did.It was the only way to get mankind's attention. At least that's my theory.
  • scat
    Why not?
  • hammerud
    Maani, Some comments: You say, "First, Jesus' comment about "every jot and tittle" did not refer to whether some Scripture is interpretive, metaphorical or allegorical." I never said it did not mean that Scripture should not be read with an understanding that some things are metaphorical or allegorical, but I disagree that any of the verses I used do not apply to the points I was making. It says in Peter that "no Scripture is of any private interpretation." The points I made are not contradicted by other Scripture. Also, the truth of a given Scripture does not have to be confined to an immediate context. One example was used by Jesus who, when speaking to the Sadducees , referred to the phrase "God is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob," to point out a truth that those individuals were alive because "God is not the God of the dead, but of the living." That truth was an inference from the phrase. In a like manner, it is legitimate to be able to draw inferences from Scripture at times -- the Holy Spirit can enlighten to truths that are related to, but not in the direct context of, a verse or passage; and I am not denying the fact that Scripture can be handled deceitfully. When a person has a good handle on all Scripture certain truths jump out. David prayed, "Open my eyes that I might behold wondrous things out of thy law." Also, on government and military etc. You are right that this is a fallen world, but we also have Romans 13 to consider, as Blue Deacon mentions.
    Appreciate your post though.
  • Elaborate.
  • impossible
  • On what basis?
  • Good point. I still disagree.
  • You would then disagree with Gandhi, who conceived it in the first place; and King, who borrowed heavily from him, as a way to attain justice. Nonviolence should never be confused with pacifism, which I define as peace at any price for its own sake. After all, by that definition the pre-civil-rights South was peaceful but still dangerous.
  • Neither were the letters.
  • We disagree.
  • No, the goal of nonviolence is true justice, which is impossible when you're continually at each other's throats.
  • I thought the goal of nonviolence was nonviolence.
  • Maani
    BlueDeacon:

    Thank you for your comment. Setting aside that Paul may have erred in where he assumed that governments and rulers get their power, you might be interested in the following:

    http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=496

    I realize it is only one interpretation, and an "alternative" one at that. But it does a better job of responding to your comment (and reflecting my own understanding) than I can.

    Peace.
blog comments powered by Disqus
click here for comments tech support
advertise here
  • MOST VIEWED
  • MOST COMMENTED
  • MOST RECENT
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here


HOME | SUBSCRIBE | DONATE | TAKE ACTION | MAGAZINE  
SOJOMAIL | BLOGS | MEDIA | EVENTS | RESOURCES | ABOUT US  
Sojourners | 3333 14th Street NW, Suite 200 | Washington, DC 20010  
Phone 202.328.8842 | Fax 202.328.8757 | sojourners@sojo.net  
Unless otherwise noted, all material © Sojourners 2008