Is God Nonviolent?:Theological reflection on violence and war

Is God Nonviolent?:Theological reflection on violence and war

In our day of heightening sensitivity to the role of religion in violent conflict—“terrorism,” “wars on terrorism,” retributive criminal justice practices, religious-supported nationalist movements—the question of how we understand God in relation to violence has never been more urgent.

Certainly, not only pacifists have a stake in this question.  And not only religious people have a stake.  The urgency of the question stems not so much from the need to “get it right” about how God actually is (as if human beings could actually nail this down). Rather, the urgency stems from the reality that our view of what God is like greatly shapes our behavior.  How people act in relation to their view of God affects us all.

The connection between our view of God and our behavior in relation to violence may be understood in four possible ways.  Most people who believe in God believe God is violent and that human beings thus are also appropriately violent, at least in morally justifiable circumstances.  As human existence grows ever more precarious, though, this simple assumption grows more problematic—violence, it becomes increasingly clear, leads to more violence.  The spiral of violence more clearly all the time becomes a threat to the viability of human life itself.[3]  And, of course, for Anabaptist Christians, the assumption that human violence is appropriate has always been questioned.

As a second logical possibility, one could presumably believe that God is nonviolent but that human beings need not be, though I am not aware of anyone taking this stance.

A third view would be that God is not nonviolent—but human beings should be.  Some of those who believe human beings are called to nonviolence understand this calling to stem more directly from the specific teaching of Jesus, not God’s own pacifism.[4]  Perhaps based on the biblical portrayal of the “warrior God,” perhaps based on the need to allow God freedom from anthropocentric moral restraints, perhaps based on the necessity of recognizing God’s need to use violence in effecting final justice in relation to a rebellious creation, perhaps based on an awareness of nature itself as “red in tooth and claw”—many pacifist Christians answer our question, “Is God nonviolent?” with a clear “No, but we should be.”

Other pacifist Christians hold a fourth view, that God is nonviolent (or, more precisely, that we should view God as nonviolent) and that human beings are called also to be nonviolent.  In this view, human nonviolence is both what God through Jesus commands us to embody and what has become a necessity for the sake of our survival in the contemporary world.  And, God’s nonviolence is the necessary grounding for human nonviolence.[5]  If nonviolence does not go with the grain of universe, if our deepest ethical imperative does not cohere with God’s very character, we are in the end hopeless romantics to think that nonviolence is a realistic human possibility.  And if nonviolence is not a realistic human possibility, pacifism is indeed parasitic idealism of the worst sort—calling us to live in ways that are impractical, irresponsible, counter-productive, needlessly guilt-inducing, and (ironically) conflict fostering.

Traditionally, Anabaptist pacifists have not concerned themselves with speculation of the sort implied by this question.  They have not worried a great deal about the logical ramifications of their pacifism in terms either of theological coherence or of the applicability of nonviolence to the wider world.

Various factors have contributed to the transition from what Mennonite sociologists Leo Driedger and Donald Kraybill call “quietism” to “active peacemaking.”[6]  Some of these include (1) general acculturation that has pushed Anabaptist Christians to think more broadly, to identify more thoroughly with their wider culture and seek to apply their pacifist convictions as widely as possible; (2) increasing participation in social movements inspired by the transformative nonviolence of Mohandas Gandhi, with their optimism about the wide applicability of pacifism; and (3) growing engagement with philosophical and theological currents that may provide deeper intellectual grounding for a more positive view of human possibilities in the world (for example, Process thought, the I-Thou philosophy of Martin Buber, and liberation theology).

What follows is a sketch of an argument for the fourth option (God and human beings as nonviolent).

Is God nonviolent?  Yes, I believe God is.  However, the evidence is ambiguous.  People from opposing points of view cite data from every area of consideration to support their views.  The debates continue without resolution.  We get mixed messages about everywhere we look.

Let’s think in terms of the standard sources for theology: scripture, history or tradition, and present experience.

Scripture

On the one hand, the Bible seems clearly to present God as directly involved in violent acts as well as commanding human beings to commit violence.  The evidence is so well known and so massive that we really don’t need to say much about it.  If we draw our conclusions from the perspectives of the many specific biblical references, we have to say that the God of the Bible is violent.  If we go from the particular to the general, from individual stories of violence to general conclusions, and give equal weight to all these individual stories, then we have to conclude that the Bible clearly teaches that God is violent.

This is the God who brought the overwhelming flood down upon Noah’s generation, who rained fire and brimstone upon Sodom and Gomorrah, who brought death to all of Egypt’s young children, who massacred hundreds of Hebrews when they idolized golden calves, who ordered the massacre of every man, woman, and child in various areas of Canaan in the time of Joshua—and I could go on.  If I were to do so it would likely become clear that I was proving too much.  That is, this violence of God in the Bible becomes too much to believe.

We need to recognize that the biblical materials contain other evidence.[7]  The God of the Genesis one creation account—in contrast to other gods—does not create in the context of violence but in peace.  The God of the Hebrew people from the calling of Abraham and Sarah down through the exile and beyond is a God in many ways who barks more than bites.  The God of the actual story is mostly characterized by patience and persevering love, a God whose saving intentions toward the Hebrews find expression, time after time, in acts of unearned love and mercy.  The story gives the impression that God has determined to work within the framework of historical processes, bringing salvation ultimately through mercy, not through coercive power.

This is how God is shown in the life and teaching of Jesus and the first Christians: the merciful father of the wayward son in Jesus’ parable, the one who brings rain on the just and unjust alike, that one who—in Paul’s words—loves us even while we are God’s enemies.

The ambiguity of the Bible’s portrayal of God in relation to violence can be seen in a paradigmatic way in the Book of Revelation.  One way of reading the book, focusing first of all on the specifics, concludes that Revelation portrays God as profoundly violent. Another way, focusing more on the overall message of the book, concludes that Revelation actually portrays a God who through persevering love ends up healing even God’s enemies—the kings of the earth and the nations (Revelation 21).

The Empire of Pharaoh: Genesis 47:13-22

Culture, religion and history are human's construct. In making history and building community, we tend to overlook the plight of the people. While trying to be faithful to one's master to gain higher status and protect one's position in his master's kingdom, the helpless condition of the people are always taken as an advantage to exploit and manipulate for their own advantage. The text speaks of that predicament. The famine came. Food grains finished. People were looking for food everywhere. People were hungry and dying because of the shortage of food grains. It was a time for Pharaoh and Joseph to support and give them food grains preserved and collected by the people. But they took “empty stomach” as an instrument to build empire.

“Now there was no food in all the land; for the famine was very severe, so that the land of Egypt and the land of Canaan languished by reason of the famine. And Joseph gathered up all the money that was found in the land of Egypt and in the land of Canaan, for the grain which they bought; and Joseph brought the money into Pharaoh's house. And when the money was all spent in the land of Egypt and in the land of Canaan, all the Egyptians came to Joseph, and said, “Give us food; why should we die before your eyes? For our money is gone.” And Joseph answered, “Give your cattle, and I will give you food in exchange for your cattle, if your money is gone.” So they brought their cattle to Joseph; and Joseph gave them food in exchange for the horses, the flocks, the herds, and the asses: and he supplied them with food in exchange for all their cattle that year. And when that year was ended, they came to him the following year, and said to him, “We will not hide from my lord that our money is all spent; and the herds of cattle are my lord’s; there is nothing left in the sight of my lord but our bodies and our lands. Why should we die before your eyes, both we and our land? Buy us and our land for food, and we with our land will be slaves of Pharaoh; and give us seed, that we may live, and not die, and that the land may not be desolate.” So Joseph bought all the land of Egypt for Pharaoh; for all the Egyptians sold their fields, because the famine was severe upon them. The land became Pharaoh’s and as for the people, he made slaves of them from one end of Egypt to the other.” (Gen 47:13-22)

We often read Joseph from the perspective of the elite. Joseph is considered as a man of God with great wisdom, a man who can see the future, a good planner, a person who has ability to mobilize people, a person with high morality, a God-fearing person, and an able administrator. But if we read from the people’s perspective, we see that he protected and contributed to an unjust system and relationship and supported and collaborated in building the empire.

Taking the advantage of famine, Joseph made the Pharaoh an unchallenged ‘capitalist’, a ‘dictator’ and a ‘landlord’, and finally an empire. For building Pharaoh's empire, Joseph did four things. In all these, people were the losers and became victims.

It was the time for Joseph to give and share the food... But...

First, he gathered all the money from the people in exchange of grains. He made people moneyless. Second, he gathered all the properties and livestock from the people in exchange for grains. He made people property-less.

Third, he gathered all the lands from people in exchange for grains. He made people landless.

Fourth, he bought all the bodies of people in exchange for grains. He made people slaves.

Do we also contribute in building an empire?

Resisting the Empire

“Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung round his neck and he were thrown into the sea. And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched. For everyone will be salted with fire. Salt is good; but if the salt has lost its saltness, how will you season it? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with one another.” (Mark 9:42-50)

Context – Divide, Manipulate and Rule

A central message of the Gospel of Mark is that people should live in peace and prosperity. The Romans succeeded in colonizing Palestine and ruled over them. Division, instigation of civil wars, manipulation and exploitation of people kept the empire in power.

a.         The Roman Empire: Palestine became subjected to the rule of the Roman Empire in 63 B.C.E. The empire remained in firm control over matters of foreign policy and serious domestic dissent (e.g. capital punishment). Heavy imposition of tribute to a foreign power offended religious sensibilities, which ignited zealous feelings of revolt, and hopes for divine revolutionary intervention. For example, a war broke out between the Jews and the Greeks in coastal city of Caesarea. In 66 AD, Florus, under the order from Emperor Nero, attempted to expropriate funds from the temple treasury in Jerusalem. Mass demonstrations resulted in which Jewish civilians were ruthlessly crushed by Roman troops, who also tried to storm the temple. Religious sanctity was violated. Such resistance movement against Roman power was seen as a threat for people’s peaceful co-existence, especially by the empire.

b.         The empire collaborators: Many Jews joined hands with the Empire for want of power and mammon. The Jewish collaborators became a threat for peaceful existence of the people. The Zealots fought against the Jewish collaborators. The Jewish-Roman collaborators became the target of attack everywhere. Like suicide bombing or terrorist tactics in today’s context, a popular form of armed resistance applied by Zealots was political assassination which was called ‘sicarii’ (dagger man). The sicarii directed their attacks against fellow Jews, not against Roman soldiers or officials. It is said that they employed three tactics to fight the collaborators: (a) selective, symbolic assassinations; (b) more general assassinations along with plundering of the property of the wealthy and powerful; and (c) kidnapping for ransom. Likewise, a series of violent clashes and cycles of revenge took place between the Empire, its collaborators and resistance groups during the time of Mark.

c.         The exploited poor: Under the Empire, the poor were oppressed in various ways. They were made to pay multiple taxes to the Romans, to the local political leaders like Herod, to the temple and to the tax collector. Increase of debt was one of the key problems that contributed to tension and unrest. The aristocracy increased the capital through usury. The poor who took the loans were rarely able to meet the established terms. Peasants were reduced to selling off or forfeiting their farms and becoming part of a rural proletariat of growing size and volatile political ambitions. That was one of the reasons why the rebels led by Eleazer burnt the public archives where the records of debt were kept. Tension between urban and rural communities grew. The more Hellenistic urbanism penetrated in Palestine, the deeper the contradictions and imbalance grew between the different needs of city and village. While the urban elites, masters of the great states consume far more luxury goods and taxes, the living condition of the rural masses deteriorated due to various forms of exploitation which ignited hatred, injustice and violence.

At this time of Roman Empire that Mark is talking about God's reign. He called people to work together for realization of God's reign. The reign of God is characterized by freedom and fellowship, friendship, forgiveness, respect, reconciling, love and justice. It is an active action.

Mark's Model of Resistance

In an empirical where communities were driven with all sorts of political, economic, social and religious conflicts and manipulation, Mark opined that a salted way of life alone can bring a lasting shalomic community. It means invisible but active presence in a given context. That God's reign visualized by Jesus and sought to be realized by him is a community of shalom for all. It is life marked with abundance and ‘taste’, shared by the people in this world. It is shalom and tranquility of life, of abundant life. But this abundance, for Mark, does not necessarily mean material abundance alone, but also abundance of life, of freedom, of love, of relationship, of joy, of sharing, of mutual self-gift and service.

Mark challenged the violent way of resistance maintained by the empires, zealots, collaborators by comparing the follower of Jesus Christ with salt. Mark challenged to respond to enmity with love. It is a challenge to use moral force that is more powerful than physical force. Physical force can control and dominate. But it does not challenge the freedom of humanity of the other. It cannot change hearts and transform persons. It cannot build relationship. It cannot form community of shalom for all.

While speaking about resistance against evil forces and empire, though Mark recognized God's preferential option for the poor in his liberating act, he did not suggest that once the rich and the powerful are overthrown and the poor and the oppressed take over there will be shalom. Rather, Mark speaks of a radical transformation of society, based on a different set of values—the values of God's reign, namely justice and fellowship, freedom and humility, love and service. His goal was not to make the rich poor and the poor rich, but to create a society of equals. He stood for the transformation of the unjust and unequal structures of the existing social order of his time based on the values of God's reign.

To make the Gospel of Jesus relevant and contextual to his audience, Mark used the metaphorical expression of salt. In the ancient world, salt was valued as gold in today's usage. The Greeks called “salt” divine (theion). It is said that the Roman soldiers were given salt as salary because of its high value. Both the words ‘salary’ and ‘soldier’ came from ‘salt’. Jews used salt for purification (II Kings 2:19-23). When the salt was mixed with incense, the sacrificial elements became pure and holy (Ex. 30:35). At the time of Jesus, people associated salt with three special values:

a.         Preservation: There was no refrigerator at the time of Jesus. The climatic condition of Palestine was not suitable to keep food for a long time. Yet people need to preserve food during wars and famine. Salt solved that problem. It was used as a preservative to keep things, particularly food, from going rotten. The fishing community in Palestine heavily depended on salt to preserve fish from rotting.

b.         Healing: As mentioned earlier, both the Jews and the Romans were constantly engaged in war. Soldiers were wounded. There were no medical facilities like today. Salt was considered as one of the best medicines for healing wounds.

c.         Purification: The Romans held the view that salt was the purest of all things, because it came from the purest of all things, the sun and the seas. According to Jewish practice, every sacrifice must be salted with salt before it was offered to God on the alter (Lev. 2:13). Sacrificial salt was called the salt of the covenant (Num. 18:9; 2 Chro. 13:5). Salt made the sacrifice acceptable to God. It purified and made things acceptable to God. Salt had a strong religious significance.

Due to its purifying, sustaining and antiseptic qualities, salt became an emblem of fidelity and friendship/loyalty amongst the eastern nations (Ezra 4:14). To have “eaten of his salt” and thus partaken of one's hospitality, was and still is regarded by the Arabs as a token or pledge of eternal amity. Hence, in the Bible it is used as an emblem of the covenant, thus ‘a covenant of salt’ (Num 18:19 2 Ch 13:5). In this context, Mark might have understood the sayings of Jesus in the passage as a general exhortation to hospitality and covenant loyalty.

Therefore, presenting the reign of God by using the salt metaphor, Mark placed resistance for justice and peace as an imperative social responsibility. He put justice in action. Salt must be “in you” to discern divine wisdom. Mark redirected the fervor of his community so that their expectation of God’s imminent intervention would encourage a “Jesus” response of transformative service and sacrifice rather than a “Zealot” response of military engagement. Armed rebellion does not bring peace.

Gender dualism in Christian theology

There are plenty of voices in Christendom and in the Bible. The voices of love, freedom, inclusion   and liberation but also the voices of patriarchy, exclusion of others and violence. There are texts and traditions that have been used to justify or condone violence against women. It is important to dismantle these traditions and texts. But we can also ask: is there a further task to be undertaken? Feminist theologian Grace Jantzen suggests this is the case when she puts focus on conceptual foundations of traditional Christian thought, whichmake gender violence in fact inevitable. According to Jantzen (quote): “Until these conceptual models are destabilized, reinterpretation of this or that biblical passage or Christian practicewill deal with symptoms rather than causes.”

Jantzen wants to go further than explicit biblical passages and instead investigate a landscape of

Concepts and views that can shape an environment where violence against women can continue

Unchallenged . What conceptual frameworks are Jantzen thinking of? Jantzen finds the idea of the covenant and the forensic metaphors in Christian theology problematic. In her view the covenants of the Hebrew .Bible speak of a God that is a judge and a redeemer and where the people keep or break the law. At the very heart of this narrative a patriarchal gender structure is produced. God is presented as a male deity and the covenants are made primarily with men. Jantzen shows how the idea of the covenant is taken up in the New Testament, or the New Covenant, and how the masculinist gender construction continues with Father God, Christ, his son and the fact that the religious rituals have been in male handsOther feminist theologians give several examples ofconstruction of gender dualism in Christian

theology: Thomas Aquinas among others adopted Aristotelian biological theories which claim that women by nature are misbegotten males. In doing so Christian theology has contributed to the view of women’s subordination and continues to do so through the kind of teaching that presupposes women’s subordination. This maintains and supports an abusive patriarchal culture. Another example is the historical reality of witch-hunting in Church history. Theologically this persecution of women was based on the view that women had a natural inferior moral status and were more corrupted by sin than men. Feminist theologians sometimes use the word “justify” or “legitimise” when trying to describe the link between Christianity and violence. However, it is rarely defined how one should understand words like “justify” or “legitimise”. It is probably simplified to interpret the words in terms of “lead to”. What I understand feminist theologians are doing is drawing attention to that the link between Christian theology and men’s violence against womenexists, rather than how the link is constituted. The latter has no single general answer; instead itmust be scrutinized from case to case.