On the Topic of Nonresistance: Part 2

And so another blog post is written.  Welcome back!

I'm still not sure how to organize this, so I'm just going to start typing and see what happens.  I suppose I can always just write some massive summarized blog later that puts all the pieces in order.  I do encourage discussion on this topic here, I feel that it is a topic that works better when people are tossing different ideas around.

To start, I've been asked to clarify what I mean by absolute nonresistance.  Also I've been asked when in church history Christianity took on nonresistance as a tenet or belief.

I'm not entirely sure how to define absolute nonresistance, so I'll give a few examples of what I mean and then expound on them a bit, and see if that helps demonstrate the idea of absolute nonresistance.

• I do not believe that corporal punishment is a problem as far as child raising, etc.  The Bible gives instruction that using a rod to punish a child is appropriate.  (Proverbs 23:13,14 and Proverbs 29:15 are two examples).  Certainly, caution should be taken that the child is being punished out of love  and not anger, but this is a different topic.
• I do believe that all military violence is wrong.  The sole purpose of the military is to be prepared to act in a violent manner should such action be deemed necessary.  Even Cold War actions such as nuclear stockpiling, which are not violent in themselves, are supposed to be a threat because they can and are intended to be used in a violent manner.
• I believe that violent action taken against any person for reasons such as self-defense, defense of family or friends, defense of a larger group of people (utilitarianism), etc. are all wrong.  I believe this because I do not feel that it is necessary for someone to protect themselves or others using violent means- I will discuss this later.
• I do not believe that violent means taken by any party to punish another person or party is right.  By this I do include the Judicial system and any other systems that may use this.  This point also delves into the idea of Christian interaction with their governments which I may write about some time.  I will probably mention it to some degree however in order to cover some of what I discuss in nonresistance.
• When I say "any person" or "any party," I am referring to Christians.  I don't believe it is right for non-Christians either, but I'm directing these posts at Christians, because I believe that our knowledge of Scripture, etc. makes us accountable for our actions.  I can't hold non-Christians to scriptures that they do not know.

 I think that should clarify what I meant hopefully.

As far as when I believe nonresistance became a Christian tenet, when I read the New Testament, I see that throughout Jesus' entire life, He lived a life of peace.  There is the account in which he took a scourge and drove out the moneychangers in the temple (John 2:14-16, Luke 19:45, 46, Matthew 21:13, 14, Mark 11:15-17).  I believe this to be a case of "righteous anger."  Now, if we are to follow Jesus example, is it not possible that we might also have these cases of righteous anger as well and be obligated to act upon them?  Well, there are a few things that I believe should be noticed here.

1. First off, nobody was killed.  (I don't believe in physically beating people either, I'll come back to this.)
2. Secondly, (I have not researched this and so I cannot state this with absolute certainty), it is possible that the culture of the time made such action appropriate to an extent.  I believe it's possible that in those days, such acts were supposed to be an exclamation in themselves, that the action of flipping over the tables and driving away the moneychangers with a scourge was intended to relay a very clear message of the wrong that was being done.  There are probably some cultures that still tolerate such "messages."  "Actions speak louder than words" is certainly one way to teach.  You'll notice that although the priests, scribes, etc. did seek to destroy Jesus, no legal action seems to be implied as being taken.  Jesus does not seem to have broken any laws.  I do not see any of the current law of the time, the Ten Commandments, being broken.  If you went into some establishment today and started to flip tables, etc. for any reason, regardless of the message, the police would be contacted and you would probably find yourself in jail and with a fine.  There is no mention here of Jesus being brought before a council or anything like this. Thus, it would seem that Jesus had sent a message via His actions and the culture of the time found this type of thing to be acceptable.  (Not that the moneychangers liked it, but they understood the message and nothing could legally be done against Jesus.)  Like I said before, I have not researched the customs of the time, but this is what I see implied.  Would I see actions that imply mild violence such as this to be acceptable based on whether or not the culture accepts this?  Yes, I would.  However, I believe that it would need to be the same type of message.  Jesus' basic message was basically "You should know better than this, and this needs to stop!"  It was also relayed to people who were informed as to the law and should indeed have known better.  Even if the moneychangers themselves were not Jews, the message then was relayed as a rebuke to those who ultimately even allowed this to take place in the temple, those who had a responsibility to take care of the temple, etc.  Concluding this sub-topic, I don't think that it is appropriate to use any kind of violent means, even mild violence in an accepting culture, in order to declare a message to people who have no knowledge of God.  They don't know any better.  This is where mission work comes in instead.  (If anybody has any knowledge on whether the culture of Jesus' time was accepting of such "action messages" you're input is appreciated.  It's definitely something I should look into as well.)

So for the most part, I believe that nonresistance has always been what Jesus taught us to do.  I don't believe  that the church at some point started to accept nonresistance, it just always has been that it should be that way.  Even looking at the early church in the Bible, there are no accounts of the church fighting back against persecution.  There are accounts of them fleeing from it, but not countering it with force.  In fact, when Saul was persecuting the church, it actually was a benefit to the spreading the Gospel, because the people who fled, took the Gospel with them and shared it with others that they met in those places they went to.  "Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word" (Acts 8:4).  Persecution is not something to fight against.  God uses it to His benefit.

With that, I'll close today's post.  Please, by all means, chime in with your own ideas, concepts, comments, and thoughts.  I'm certainly not perfect, and I appreciate any contrasting ideas.  I am biased on the topic, and so if there are contrasting ideas or different interpretations to scriptures that I talk about, I don't want to be misinterpreting scripture or stating something as definite when it may not be.  Checks and balances are helpful.

Have a blessed week!