Nonviolence Begets Nonviolence

Mr Clemson,

If you were working to promote equal rights during the 1964-65 time frame, then by now you are well into your 60s. You may have never thought that you'd see the progress that has been achieved. Thank you for your commitment during what was a very dangerous era in the struggle.

I remember reading Philip Yancey's similar discussion in What's So Amazing About Grace? I was struck by the possibilities that could follow from grace being extended on a national or international scale. (If I recall correctly, Yancey talks about Civil Rights in the U.S. and about the Truth and Reconciliation Committee in South Africa.)

This was in 2003, and I remember wondering what might have happened had the U.S. not responded to violence (i.e., 9/11) with more violence. What if, instead of bombing Afghanistan and then invading Iraq, we had pledged not to produce more violence? We wouldn't have solved every problem we have now, but I think we (meaning the global community) would be in a much different place.

Thanks, Mr. Clemson, for your courage.

"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."

Perhaps if Israel allowed shelling from Hamas to continue and pursued negotiations, the world media would correctly identify the reality of hard-core hate they have for innocent Palestinians and Israelis.

That was such a wonderful opportunity. Unfortunately, we were not up to it.

Could we mention Viola Liuzo.

You miss the pont. Nonviolence is supposed to go both ways -- and in fact, a recently-published commentary noted that Israel broke cease-fires over 95 percent of the time. Furthermore, Israel has the upper hand, politically and economically, and you better believe that the Palestinians understand that (not so with African-Americans in the South). For that reason Palestinian militants themselves evoke considerable sympathy with the Arab "street" despite their self-destructive actions.

In fact, Yancey spoke from personal experience -- he admitted that he himself was a racist to whom King showed the error of his ways.

Apropos this article, I have never understood how religious people, particularly those who take every opportunity to announce and display their Christianity, fail to see their own hypocrisy in so many areas, such as their appetite for war, greed, racism, torture, deceit, corruption, judgment, physical, emotional, and financial violence and injustice towards those weaker than themselves or who they dislike and the poor. It is one of the reasons that I refuse to call myself a Christian or affiliate with any church, although I am committed to God and my own spirituality. For example, a wealthy and proudly self-proclaimed Christian who owns and operates a racetrack in my state has recently come to power in a state office vowing to crack down on abortion for any reason. As I understand it, Jesus was against gambling, and taught that judgment was the province of God. At no time did he ever speak of punishment, exclusion, banishment, torture, persecution, or the wrath of God, although acts of nature, disease, and brutality have routinely been ascribed by religious leaders in all times to God. He did teach, however, that ALL mortals are sinners and are ALL loved by God.

Nor do I accept Jesus worship, as he, like the "founders" of other religions, specifically requested NOT to be worshiped and repeatedly stated that that activity be directed ONLY to God (by any name), OUR father, and also repeatedly exhorted us to treat ALL others as we would like to be treated ourselves, to LOVE one another, to be humble, charitable, merciful, and forgiving towards each other, and to be respectful of the Earth and its creatures. Jesus never used any threats or made any requirements; he just said that salvation came only by surrendering to the will of God, which he described in his teachings, and that judgment was reserved ONLY for God.

Actually, virtually no religion was "founded" by anyone, but began as a cult following of a great teacher, whose freely-given spiritual counsel was invariably subverted in one way or another and distorted by those who proclaimed themselves to be the leaders of the one true faith after the death of the teacher, systematically denigrating women, forming political hierarchies, passing judgments and discriminating, adding man-made restrictions and requirements, seeking to dictate spirituality, morality, and conscience, and accumulating wealth and power. None of these actions are found in any accounts of the life of Jesus or other spiritual teachers, and they have led to much needless war, torture, suffering and the spilling of countless gallons of blood in the name of God because of the hubris of those who believe that anyone who is or thinks unlike themselves are heathens, backwards, or less than human, when simply following the teachings of Jesus and other the great teachers faithfully and in good conscience leads to morality, for which we are EACH responsible directly ONLY to God and none other. I find this particularly disturbing because so many religions preach that there is but ONE God, though known by many names, even within a particular religion, but each seems to think that only their beliefs represent God's will, even though the basic message of all the great teachers is the same. Where the religions vary, the hand of man is visible.

In my early religious training I was taught that we humans are created in the image of God, but since the image, color, or sex of God is unknown to man, which of us is made in God's image, and how dare mere mortal arrogate to themselves the right to designate ANY human being to be wrong, sinful, or lesser than any other based upon how and who and in what way to love?

I also learned that God is everywhere: withinin each of us and every other living creature, and in vegetation, water, sky, mountain, air, rock and grain of sand. Jesus and the other great teachers taught wherever they happened to be, and it seems that mostly the teaching took place outdoors in Nature. So how dare any disciple of God dishonor ANY living being and Nature and why is it necessary to have great establishments, requirements to attend services, and pay a designated amount towards the maintenance of the establishments and the hierarchy upon pain of shame or ejection from the group? The only plausible answer for me is mind control and the accumulation and trappings of wealth and power and the claim to superiority over and right to Nature andcontrol, intimidate, abuse those who put their trust in them to relay the message of the teacher, the Animal Kingdom, and Nature itself.

All Glory be to God in the Highest!

electriclady - Some points: You write: "At no time did he ever speak of punishment, exclusion, banishment, torture, persecution, or the wrath of God," also " judgment was reserved ONLY for God." -- Not true: One example is Luke 13:1-5 where people asked Jesus if those who were killed by the collapse of the tower of Siloam or those who were killed by Pilate were worse sinners than other people. Jesus said, "I tell you no, but except you repent you will all likewise perish." Jesus here was speaking of judgment.

You write: Jesus "specifically requested NOT to be worshiped and repeatedly stated that that activity be directed ONLY to God" -- again not true: Jesus accepted worship -- a couple of examples are Matthew 8:2,3 and, in a second example, Jesus did not correct Thomas in John 20:28 when Thomas referred to Jesus as "my Lord and my God." The reason Jesus did not correct him was that He was God. It is called the Godhead, the Trinity. In Genesis God says, "Let us make man in our own image." Notice "us" and "our." Father, Son, and Holy Ghost all are God, all are self-existent. They are separate personages, but one God. Can't understand that? Psalm 145 says, "God's greatness is unsearchable." Nobody said we should be able to understand it.

You write: "even within a particular religion, but each seems to think that only their beliefs represent God's will, even though the basic message of all the great teachers is the same." Also not true: John 14:6 Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." That is exclusive. The basic message of human teachers is that the basis of acceptance with God is human merit (Proverbs says, "There is a way that seems right unto a man but the way thereof is the way of death." ) The concept that acceptance with God is based on merit is the way that seems right to man -- and this is the essence of man-made (false) religions. The gospel, on the other hand, teaches that the basis of acceptance with God is the sacrifice of Jesus Christ for our sin. Good works then are the result of, not the basis of, acceptance. That is the big divide between the gospel and all else. They are not the same, and the message of "all great teachers" is not the same.

Also, God created Nature, and we can see God's handiwork in nature, but nature is not God. Romans 1 mentions those "who worship the creature rather than the Creator."

Anyway, thanks for your post.

RE: Nonviolence is supposed to go both ways
huh? I missed that memo.

how dare mere mortal arrogate to themselves the right to designate ANY human being to be wrong, sinful, or lesser than any other based upon how and who and in what way to love?

You missed a spot.

The goal of nonviolence is not victory but reconciliation. If we're serious about suggesting nonviolence in that part of the world we need to encourage both sides to see its efficacy, and in truth some Palestinians and Israelis have done just that over the decades. Unfortunately, conservative Muslims and Christians have ignored these efforts.

I wrote what I did because nuclearferret seems to think the violence on Israel's part is purely defensive while the Palestinians hate Israelis because of their religion. Both are categorically false.

I believe he was saying hamas would be shown as hating Israelis and doing sevier harm to the Palestinians. If that happend it would allow a time that both sides could see the value in peace over arms.

I must have missed something . The arrogagate of agreement of a false hope inthe world is just as arrogant of not agreeing . Your bringing forth judgement here . One person was condeming Christians with persoanl personality stereotypes , followed by an attemt by a person , at least he tried , to put their Faith in God and not people . Not everyone wants to listen , but Thank God for those of us who spread the Gospel and are not ashamed . Perhaps a better method would be sharing how you do it better ?

Exactly. But, as I was saying, Hamas was voted in by the Palestinians themselves because 1) it was seen as standing up to Israel and 2) probably more importantly, Fatah, the more secular party of which Yassir Arafat was the honcho, was shown to be corrupt. If Hamas was seen as more interested in power than anything else it too will go down; however, it also was a humanitarian organ.

electriclady281--I'm glad to know there are others out there who feel the way I do. I agree, and I hope that there are many more who share your sentiments, and will LIVE their beliefs, instead of TALKING about them.

In God everything, everything in God...

electriclady281 I really like most of your post. I agree with the pasion you have with the errors of the surrent church system. We as a collective church ignore so much and turn our head to even more. I also struggle to call myself a christian. I do not identify with any denomination or church building. We who love and follow God are the church. Before christians moved into church building and into the mainstream they were a band of people loveing all giving all and when the put names on there church is was the name of the town they lived in. They met where ever they could spending no money on temples like the pagans. My only problem is with not worshiping Jesus. His name has power and identifing yourself with Christ on the Christ is essentail to God's plan. We must die to self(our will, our right to be herd and be right, security, comfort, pride, ect) and be resurected with christ. He gave all for us and while he was on this planent he pointed all praise to the father(an example of humility for his people who want to elavate themselves or others above anyone on earth) but know he is back on the throne and worthy of all praise.

I can agree with Electriclady281 also. I had to leave the southern Baptist church I was in for a few years once it was allowed that politics could enter the church. The last 6 months I was there I couldn't stand to hear praise of George W. Bush spoken from the pulpit.

Yes you did miss something. So did I. I should have put the paragraph in quotes as it was written by electriclady just above. Mine was an inappropriate post replying to hammerud that he did not finish replying to electriclady. That is what "You missed a spot" meant.
I have no idea whether there is a useful idea contained in the paragraph or not.

The only problem with leaving church is that it says in Hebrews "Do not forsake the assembling of yourselves together, as is the manner of some..." Although the church is full of all sorts of faulty people like me, I don't feel comfortable with disregarding such a clear statement. Attending church would be an opportunity to "let your light shine." Maybe some of the hypocrites there would be changed by observing Christians who were not hypocrites.

Thank you electric lady for taking the time to articulate so many truths that I have been seeking. Like many others here I consider myself a Christian, since that is the basis of my beliefs, but I don't affiliate with any church. I have an extreme aversion to the man-made rules imposed on Christianity, sine they often become the dominant thought.
I have struggled with the concept of being a pacifist. Non-pacifists always come up with the argument that you sometimes have to become violent to protect yourself or your family or your community. I finally rejected that idea since I believe that it is not a sufficient reason to go against God's will. That it demonstrates an ultimate lack of trust in God to think you have to violate his will to do what you decide is right. True pacifists often die and if you are going to trust in God and do his will, you must accept that and remember that we are all going to die, it's only a question of the circumstances.Having accepted that, living everyday life by God's will has become reamarkably simple.

I don't think anyone will really ever understand just what Jesuswas in the sense of being "divine" or what it was about him that set him apart. Too often we forget that he spoke in metaphors and to attach too much importance to the words while ignoring the lesson or idea he was trying to describe leads nowhere. Personally, I think when he said that he was the way, the truth ,etc, he was not requiring personal worship of himself. I think he was expressing the idea that the way of life, the way of being and living in the world he was teaching was the only path to God. Put another way, to believe in him is to live according to his teachings. He demonstrated this by his non-violent acceptance of his fate as God's will. For those reasons I think a persons who never heard of Jesus Christ could still be called a Christian if they lived their lives consistent with Christ's teachings. I think God is big enough and clever enough to give every human born the opportunity to choose living according to God's will.

As for not having a church, isn't this sort of a church meeting when people get together on a blog to focus on God?

I find that fascinating as well - that so many Christians, whom I believe to be sincere believers, don't mind killing the enemy. At all.

scat - You say "Too often we forget that he spoke in metaphors and to attach too much importance to the words..." The problem when you go down this path is that Scripture then ceases to be a solid foundation of truth. It all becomes mushy, and the frame of reference for discerning what is and what is not true erodes. Jesus said that "the Scriptures cannot be broken..." and that every "jot and title" will be fulfilled. When Paul spoke to the Bereans, he commended them because they "searched the Scriptures to see whether those things were so." Acts 17:11 In other words, the Scriptures were a solid frame of reference that provided a basis for assessing whether something that is said is true or false. Electriclady, who I believe is a very sincere person, made a lot of statements that quite frankly do not track with Scripture, and I pointed some of those things out. You make statements about pacifism. I look at such statements in light of Scripture. This is a fallen world. There is danger and evil. God does not expect us to hide our heads in the sand. I guarantee if someone was threatening my family, I would protect them. In Luke 22:36-38, Jesus said ".... he that has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one..." Jesus was thinking of the sword in the context of protection, not aggression. He recognized that this is an evil world, with real dangers. That is why we have police and a military. Another verse is Luke 11:21 where it mentions "a strong man armed keeps his goods." The bottom line here is that extreme pacifism does not track with God's Word, which recognizes the dangers, and need for personal protection, within a fallen world. My final point is that Jesus Christ was God, the Creator. Tons of verses on that. As I said in a previous response, Psalm 145 says, "God's greatness is unsearchable," so when you say "I don't think anyone will really ever understand just what Jesus was in the sense of being divine" you make a good point, but we need to understand that He was God. That understanding is a fundamental point as to whether a person is truly a Christian or not. The "doctrine of Christ" has to do with who Christ was and what He did. Scripture states that "whoever does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God." 2 Jn 9 So we need to understand that, as God, He was able to pay for our sin against God. If He was anything less than God, His sacrifice for sin against God would have been insufficient. That is why it says in Hebrews, "... it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sin."
Also, regarding church attendance, the Hebrews verse I quoted earlier is clear. There are bad churches, no doubt; but there are good ones. I go to a good one. Check out the website of the one I go to in Virginia -- www. calvarybaptistonline.org Those who go there do not think they are special or better than anyone. We all are sinners saved by grace. Anyway, I really appreciate your post and hearing your thoughts. I felt a need to share my thoughts.

A few random comments.

Electriclady: There would seem to be a difference between "worshipping" Jesus and "honoring" His sacrifice. As someone else pointed out, He did say, "I am the way, the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father but through me." That is why we pray TO the Father, but THROUGH Christ.

Scat: I agree with your interpretation of non-violence extending even to self-protection and protection of family, as hard as that is for most to comprehend. Despite comments here to the contrary, I doubt anyone would have expected Jesus to pick up a sword even if Mary was being threatened. (Indeed, not only did He specifically tell Peter that "those who take the sword shall perish by the sword," but He also restored the ear of the centurion who was injured. Nor would Gandhi have "aken up the sword" under any circumstance, even for self-protection or the proteection of his family.

hammerud: Although I agree with your Scriptural clarifications of some of electriclady's comments, I believe you err in two regards. First, Jesus' comment about "every jot and tittle" did not refer to whether some Scripture is interpretive, metaphorical or allegorical. It is. That does not mean Scripture as a whole becomes "mushy." And although I also accept Jesus' statement about "the way, the truth and the life" as literal, Scat is correct that it is just as important (if not moreso) that we understand that "Put another way, to believe in him is to live according to his teachings." That is why we are called to live "Christ-like lives."

I also disagree with your interpretations of Luke 22:36-38 and Luke 11:21. Re the first, taken in context, Jesus is speaking primarily to Peter about Peter's later "betrayal" (denying Jesus three times). It is in THIS context that he talks about "selling his garment" and buying a sword. Because it is Peter who uses that sword to cut off the ear of the centurion, this giving Jesus the opportunity to teach the "he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword." Thus, Jesus "suggestion" that Peter "sell his garment" and get a sword was stated in light of future events that only Jesus could see.

Similarly, re Luke 11:21, the context is the accusation that Jesus must be a devil because He casts out devils, which leads to His famous comment that "If Satan be divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand." He then speaks of how others cast out devils, and how He does it. The remainder of this passage is: "And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore shall they be your judges. But if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you. When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace: But when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him all his armour wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils. He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth." Thus, the context is not "protection of goods"; that is simply being used as a metaphor.

Re, "[Jesus] recognized that this is an evil world, with real dangers. That is why we have police and a military," I would actually warn you here that this is an incredibly dangerous comment. The "world systems" are not of God, they are of Satan. Thus, those things that the "world systems" spawn - including police and the military - are NOT of God. Does this mean we do not need "law and order" in order to avoid "chaos?" No. But we only need that law and order BECAUSE Satan has set up the world systems as he did. But do not confuse this with "God's plan"; as so many have commented here, Jesus' ministry was based on love, peace, humility, forgiveness, compassion, patience, charity, selflessness, service, justice and truth. NONE of these leave room for violence, war, etc.

It is important that we not do as the so-called "Christian Right," taking Scripture out of context to support a particular interpretation. Scripture must always be read in context - i.e., what came immediately before, and what comes immediately after. Otherwise, we end up "cherry-picking" rather than seeing the deeper, broader truth behind Scripture.

Also, while you are correct that there are "good" churches and "bad" churches, as with other here I reject the majority of the mainstream, organized, hierarchical, capital-C Church. There is an old saying: "Religion is about laws, rules and behavior. Faith is about a relationship with God and Christ." From what I have seen the broader capital-C Church is more involved with the former - occasionally to the near exclusion of the latter. One does not need to "forsake the assembling of yourselves together"; there are home churches and community churches that do a far better job of nurturing a relationship with God and Christ than the mainstream churches tend to do.

Finally, re applying all this to the Gaza situation, I think it is instructive to note that Gandhi and his followers liberated a country of 350 million people from the grip of the mightiest military power in the world at the time - without firing a single shot or engaging in any violence. Certainly if they could do this for a country of 350 million, the Palestinians could do it for a population of 1.5 million.

Peace.