Sunday Musings - January 7, 2023
Today I want to visit an issue which I have previously visited.
It seems especially salient to visit this topic as we approach the remembrance of Martin Luther King Jr and focus on what came to be his beliefs regarding nonviolence. The serious historian and scholar will be aware that Martin did own guns as a younger man. He also applied for a gun permit when he and his staff were getting death threats. His application was rejected. As I understand it, he gradually came to embrace the belief that nonviolence was not only moral, but the most powerful option.
Those who believe that Jesus taught nonviolence will often point to such teachings as that contained in Matthew 5:38-43. “You have heard, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, but I say offer no violent resistance to one who does evil.” Again, in Luke 6:27-29 “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, and pray for those who abuse you. To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other one,” In Matthew 7:12 he is reported to have said, “So in everything, do unto others what you would have them do to you., for this sums up the Law, and the prophets.”
Many who call themselves Christian correctly point to the fact that Jesus himself lost his temper at times. In a scholarly article entitled “The Myth of a Non-violent Jesus” Jeffrey Mann makes a compelling argument that, in fact, Jesus did not intend to suggest non-violence in all situations. He points to the example of the ‘need” to lock up the murderer to protect others.
Mr. Mann also quotes C. S. Lewis from Mere Christianity, “Does loving your enemy mean not punishing him. No, for loving myself does not mean that I ought not to subject myself to punishment - even to death. If you had committed a murder, the right Christian thing to do would be to give yourself up to the police and be hanged.” Mann continues “Capital punishment may or may not be the good public policy, but we ought not oppose it because we are supposed to “love” everybody. Failing to punish a dangerous criminal is not behaving with love toward the rest of our neighbors.” (realclearreligion.org)
Many good people who are deeply spiritual within the various religious frameworks laugh at the suggestion that non-violence would be a reasonable response to a Hitler, Putin, the leaders of Hamas, or those who designed and implemented the deaths on 9/11. Those same good people would justify a violent response to someone who was threatening his or her children or spouse. Many of those who participated in the January 6 attack on the United States Capital sincerely believe they were serving the great good for the greater number.
Numerous theologians with whom I have talked have concluded war is sometimes the most moral response. Military forces have commissioned clergy as officers to pray to defeat one’s enemy and to assure the soldier that he nor she are doing what is necessary.
One cannot easily dismiss those who sincerely believe that non-violence is a sophomoric response to the obvious danger of those who do not honor the rights/the sacredness of others.
What then is a cogent argument to what seems so logical and moral to many good and intelligent people. I suggest that we look to the rigors of science which teaches us:
o Many factors affect the ability of an individual to consider the rights and needs of others - genetics, nutrition, environment, disease and other factors determine the reality which a person experiences. There may a need to keep those unable to consider the rights and needs of others in a protected, loving environment, but to treat them as if they have a choice of reality could be considered immoral.
o There is no evidence that punishment works long term. Teaching is not punishment. It is our job to invite our children and others to explore the evidence for nonviolent solutions.
o Violence does not long term create a more loving society although many may suggest that the current behavior of such governments as Japan and Germany offers proof that violence can bring peace. Yet, that argument ignores the longer arm of history prior to and following the events of WW II and other wars.
o Life lasts but a nanosecond. All we own is our own integrity which we can construct on a bedrock of humility. If one refuses to be threatened by the possibility of death the power of the violent person is nill.
The reader may correctly remind me we are still left with the question of how do the Ukrainians or the 22 other nations actively fighting a violent enemy respond? Do they turn the other cheek, hurls more bombs, kill more of them, outlast them, or stand tall in love knowing many will be killed before such leaders are forced to give up?
As we prepare to honor MLK Jr and to consider nonviolence it may behoove us to humbly admit this is a tough subject with no easy answers. We know, despite our guns and other weapons, the world does not feel safer for most of us in 2024. No amount of killing will convince Mr. Putin that he does not need to attempt to prove his worth and the worth of Russia by being a violent bully. Killing another 22000 Palestinians will not convince the remaining Palestinians that they have no right to a country and to the same safety and respect Jews and other citizens of Israel deserve. Verbally or otherwise violently attacking political opponents in this country will not convince them we must love and respect all people, including them. Committing a mass shooting will not result in a more just community. Avoiding personal pain by treating oneself or others with disdain or disrespect will not create a base for creating a more loving and just world.
I am not suggesting that one martyr oneself, one’s family or one’s country by passively welcoming the oppressor. Martin Luther King, Jr. was not passive and did not present himself as weak. He did refuse to hate in response to hate. He did refuse to accept that some are deserving of respect and others are not. He sincerely accepted that while we should not seek death it is not the end. Today, Martin Luther King, Jr., Jesus, and other such powerful teachers live on only if we proudly and strongly love. No one can stop the power of our love. They may indeed kill us, but they cannot force us to kill or use our voice to be violent.
Written January 7, 2023
Jimmy F Pickett
coachpickett.org
Today I want to visit an issue which I have previously visited.
It seems especially salient to visit this topic as we approach the remembrance of Martin Luther King Jr and focus on what came to be his beliefs regarding nonviolence. The serious historian and scholar will be aware that Martin did own guns as a younger man. He also applied for a gun permit when he and his staff were getting death threats. His application was rejected. As I understand it, he gradually came to embrace the belief that nonviolence was not only moral, but the most powerful option.
Those who believe that Jesus taught nonviolence will often point to such teachings as that contained in Matthew 5:38-43. “You have heard, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, but I say offer no violent resistance to one who does evil.” Again, in Luke 6:27-29 “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, and pray for those who abuse you. To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other one,” In Matthew 7:12 he is reported to have said, “So in everything, do unto others what you would have them do to you., for this sums up the Law, and the prophets.”
Many who call themselves Christian correctly point to the fact that Jesus himself lost his temper at times. In a scholarly article entitled “The Myth of a Non-violent Jesus” Jeffrey Mann makes a compelling argument that, in fact, Jesus did not intend to suggest non-violence in all situations. He points to the example of the ‘need” to lock up the murderer to protect others.
Mr. Mann also quotes C. S. Lewis from Mere Christianity, “Does loving your enemy mean not punishing him. No, for loving myself does not mean that I ought not to subject myself to punishment - even to death. If you had committed a murder, the right Christian thing to do would be to give yourself up to the police and be hanged.” Mann continues “Capital punishment may or may not be the good public policy, but we ought not oppose it because we are supposed to “love” everybody. Failing to punish a dangerous criminal is not behaving with love toward the rest of our neighbors.” (realclearreligion.org)
Many good people who are deeply spiritual within the various religious frameworks laugh at the suggestion that non-violence would be a reasonable response to a Hitler, Putin, the leaders of Hamas, or those who designed and implemented the deaths on 9/11. Those same good people would justify a violent response to someone who was threatening his or her children or spouse. Many of those who participated in the January 6 attack on the United States Capital sincerely believe they were serving the great good for the greater number.
Numerous theologians with whom I have talked have concluded war is sometimes the most moral response. Military forces have commissioned clergy as officers to pray to defeat one’s enemy and to assure the soldier that he nor she are doing what is necessary.
One cannot easily dismiss those who sincerely believe that non-violence is a sophomoric response to the obvious danger of those who do not honor the rights/the sacredness of others.
What then is a cogent argument to what seems so logical and moral to many good and intelligent people. I suggest that we look to the rigors of science which teaches us:
o Many factors affect the ability of an individual to consider the rights and needs of others - genetics, nutrition, environment, disease and other factors determine the reality which a person experiences. There may a need to keep those unable to consider the rights and needs of others in a protected, loving environment, but to treat them as if they have a choice of reality could be considered immoral.
o There is no evidence that punishment works long term. Teaching is not punishment. It is our job to invite our children and others to explore the evidence for nonviolent solutions.
o Violence does not long term create a more loving society although many may suggest that the current behavior of such governments as Japan and Germany offers proof that violence can bring peace. Yet, that argument ignores the longer arm of history prior to and following the events of WW II and other wars.
o Life lasts but a nanosecond. All we own is our own integrity which we can construct on a bedrock of humility. If one refuses to be threatened by the possibility of death the power of the violent person is nill.
The reader may correctly remind me we are still left with the question of how do the Ukrainians or the 22 other nations actively fighting a violent enemy respond? Do they turn the other cheek, hurls more bombs, kill more of them, outlast them, or stand tall in love knowing many will be killed before such leaders are forced to give up?
As we prepare to honor MLK Jr and to consider nonviolence it may behoove us to humbly admit this is a tough subject with no easy answers. We know, despite our guns and other weapons, the world does not feel safer for most of us in 2024. No amount of killing will convince Mr. Putin that he does not need to attempt to prove his worth and the worth of Russia by being a violent bully. Killing another 22000 Palestinians will not convince the remaining Palestinians that they have no right to a country and to the same safety and respect Jews and other citizens of Israel deserve. Verbally or otherwise violently attacking political opponents in this country will not convince them we must love and respect all people, including them. Committing a mass shooting will not result in a more just community. Avoiding personal pain by treating oneself or others with disdain or disrespect will not create a base for creating a more loving and just world.
I am not suggesting that one martyr oneself, one’s family or one’s country by passively welcoming the oppressor. Martin Luther King, Jr. was not passive and did not present himself as weak. He did refuse to hate in response to hate. He did refuse to accept that some are deserving of respect and others are not. He sincerely accepted that while we should not seek death it is not the end. Today, Martin Luther King, Jr., Jesus, and other such powerful teachers live on only if we proudly and strongly love. No one can stop the power of our love. They may indeed kill us, but they cannot force us to kill or use our voice to be violent.
Written January 7, 2023
Jimmy F Pickett
coachpickett.org
RSS Feed