Thoughts on Non-Violence, Part 6: Self-Esteem
October 18th, 2006 | by Scott |One of the problems that arises in the debate about the biblical foundation for non-violence is a result of flawed theology.
–If you believe that there is going to be a literal, physical war when Jesus returns at the end of some seven year rapture, then you are less likely to see the validity of beating a sword into a plowshare.
–If you believe that God chooses who He will for salvation and the rest of people are just out of luck, then life becomes an us/them proposition.
–If you believe that the world must go to hell in a handbasket before Christ returns, then the prospect of social justice becomes less attractive.
Another barrier to our understanding of non-violence and its implications is our own sinful hearts. Anger, fear, worry and the lionization of the self are stumbling blocks on our way to having peaceable spirits.
I want us to begin to look at these heart issues and how they might preclude us from being non-violent. Let’s look first at the issue of the self.
Self-aggrandizement has plagued us since the fall. The desire to be like God is ever before us. It would be part of the downfall of the Israelite nation. They were known for chasing after their own desires over above those of their God.
In more modern times, men such as Adler, Rogers and Maslow have perpetuated the idea of the self and its fulfillment as being the ultimate end of man. The impact that these men have had in our society in general, and the church in particular has, unfortunately, been monumental.
There has been a shift in our time, within the church, to a gospel, borne not out of discipleship and self-sacrifice, but, instead, of self-love and self-aggrandizement.
The unbiblical doctrine of the self and its actualization and glory is rarely, if ever, questioned. Instead it is embraced as being the foundation for a meaningful life.
Today, it seems that there is little difference between the church and the world when it comes to the view of the individual. Many Christian writers either tout self-esteem and self-actualization or assume it in their writing.
I’m not saying that feeling good about yourself is a bad thing. But the example we see from Jesus is not self-fulfillment but instead self-denial.
Jesus was never self-oriented. Instead He was others-oriented.
He was never concerned with esteeming Himself. Instead He humbled Himself to the point of the cross.
But much of the talk about non-violence today centers upon the notion of protecting ourselves, defending ourselves, standing up for our own rights.
But Jesus did not protect Himself, He surrendered to others. He did not stand up for Himself but knelt to serve them.
If Christ did not esteem Himself, how can we, of mere flesh and blood, presume to do anything more? How arrogant are we if we profess that we should esteem ourselves when Christ continually lessened Himself?
To be truly non-violent then we have to understand the example of Christ. His example was about that of self-abnegation not exalting Himself or His rights.
It was about considering others better than Himself. And He was God!
If we begin to truly view people as Jesus views them, then our propensity to lash out in violent words or deeds dissipates.
The words of A.W. Tozer will serve us well: “So keenly do we men enjoy dominion that we like to think that we hold in our own hands the power of life and death. We love to think that hell will be easier to bear from the fact of our having gone there in defiance of some power that sought to rule us.”
23 Responses to “Thoughts on Non-Violence, Part 6: Self-Esteem”
By Jon on Oct 18, 2006 | Reply
Between you and Jeff I am going to wear our webster.com looking up meanings of words you guys use.
By KS on Oct 18, 2006 | Reply
Scott: Good points. I think many (including myself) can look at our rights as the most important.
I would say that my main struggle is not with defending myself, but in defending those close to me, and those who cannot defend themselves. While I don’t think I’d have a problem if someone punched me (in wanting to retaliate), I would go nuts if they punched my wife/daughter/friend/you name it here.
How do you think Christ would respond in this senario? I know we’ve mentioned the writing in the sand, but what if that did not stop the stoning of the woman? I have a hard time picturing him to allow someone else to be harmed.
By Jon on Oct 18, 2006 | Reply
Christ was about self denial yet I think more importantly He made time to be alone with His father and be refreshed. I know I don’t spend as much time in the word and in solitude just talking, mostly listening, to God. To me that is where it starts.
By Scott on Oct 18, 2006 | Reply
Kenny, I hear you. I would stop at nothing to defend my wife and children. I hope that I can grow to the point, however, where my first inclination would be to search out every avenue possible for a non-violent form of defense.
Ultimately, I think Christ would know the best way to respond in those situations. My prayer is that I attain more of His heart so that I, too, can know the best way forward.
Jon, those quiet times are a part of the self-denial.
By a reader on Oct 18, 2006 | Reply
2: Christ did respond to such a scenario when he asked, “Who are my mother and my brothers?”
By JTB on Oct 18, 2006 | Reply
Scott: much as I agree with what you’ve stated here, every time I see a statement about being others-oriented without qualification, I cannot help but hear the feminist critique–that this is a message directed to men in power, but not disenfranchised women and others excluded from privileged positions of power (for whom the message of other-centeredness can encourage a dangerous self-annihilating submission). Is this (in your opinion) primarily a message to (male) power? As I ask this I can’t help but point out that all discussions on this series of posts have been vigorously male–almost exclusively men, assuming a male point of view (sometimes even showing up explicitly in our hypothetical scenarios, in head-of-household assumptions). I know this is a tangent, so don’t get too diverted…just wanting to know your feeling on this.
By Scott Freeman on Oct 18, 2006 | Reply
JTB, wow. You do a great job of being my conscience on these issues.
Obviously, I come at these issues from a decidedly male perspective. And that is my fault.
I hate that this has been an almost exclusively male conversation almost as much as I hate the “scenario.”
I guess where I was coming from was more of a genderless approach to levelling the playing field. That, in our quest for esteeming the self, we do so at the expense of others. With the realization that God loves us equally we are able to humble ourselves and value people of all backgrounds, beliefs, races and genders.
However, I do see the fine line that exists between self-abnegation and victimhood that daunts those not born straight white american males.
As much as I like to think otherwise, my patriarchal mindset still gives me fits.
But there is still the aspect of the “victim” in Scripture almost being encouraged to maintain that status: Onesimus being sent back to deal with his captor. Slaves being admonished to work joyfully.
You pose a great question and one I need to reflect on some more. I think immediately about how our culture of war effects most detrimentally those who are not in positions of power–women, children, etc.
How do you see this applying?
By JTB on Oct 18, 2006 | Reply
How does this apply to the question of nonviolence as a part of the Christian ethic? Obviously I don’t think that we should interpret nonviolence as necessitating an embrace of victimhood–for others or ourselves (nor is that really what I hear you saying). That comes close to the “passive” sort of caricature of nonviolence that so many abhor. That is a misunderstanding of nonviolence, which, properly construed is just as (or I would argue, more so) concerned with justice as any advocate of force. I think that there is a case to be made for nonviolent resistance, which assumes a robust self able to speak for self and others in the face of violence and oppression. The difference, concretely, would be like the difference between advising a woman to flee abuse (a nonviolent solution, resisting the perpetuation of abuse) and advising a woman to stick it out because suffering is a way of being Christ-like. You’d be surprised how often the second sort of “pastoral” advice is given. (Funnily enough, there doesn’t seem to be a plausible scenario in which our fictitious woman is advised to defend herself or her hypothetical children with equal or superior physical force. I wonder why that is, she says, tongue in cheek.)
Anyhow, don’t think I’m accusing you of perpetuating patriarchy in the blogosphere…but I would question whether there is such a thing as a “genderless” approach.
By jasonk on Oct 18, 2006 | Reply
“I pledge my son to Heaven for the gospel,
though he’s kicked and beaten, ridiculed and scorned.
I will teach him to rejoice, and lift a thankful, praising voice.
And to love Him who bore the nails, and crown of thorns.”
–Keith Green
Those words jumped to mind when I read the comments on this thread.
By Scott Freeman on Oct 18, 2006 | Reply
JTB, thanks for helping me expound on my point. Dying to self does not mean that nothing else exists. Instead Christ rules and dwells within. His non-violent approach is consistent with the first example you give.
You are probably right, there is no genderless approach. Just as much as I can’t look at things clearly from a minority standpoint, neither can I look through the eyes of a female.
I have far to go on this journey.
So, if someone came into your home and was attacking your husband, what would you do?
By JTB on Oct 19, 2006 | Reply
I could probably trust Brent to take care of himself, in a responsible nonviolent way.
But as a new mom I can’t say I would attain the ideal were Clare threatened. (But I would, as Bonhoeffer did, consider violent action a failure and offer my guilt up to God.)
A final thought from a feminist thinker (Haraway) who’ll be important in the dissertation: solidarity, not similarity. We can’t help our origins, but we can choose whom to ally ourselves with. Hope I haven’t been too preachy. Women shouldn’t be doing that, you know.
By justin on Oct 19, 2006 | Reply
Scott,
what does this passage mean?
36 He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it. And also take a bag. If you don’t have a sword, sell your coat and buy one. 37 It is written, ‘He was counted among those who had committed crimes.’—(Isaiah 53:12) I tell you that what is written about me must come true. Yes, it is already coming true.”
By justin on Oct 19, 2006 | Reply
also, can I be in your links section?
By T.H. on Oct 19, 2006 | Reply
Scott - Thanks for the latest installment of this timely series. Sorry that I’m just now getting a chance to comment.
The idea of kenosis in Philippians 2 has quickly become one of the most intriguing passages to me about the Incarnation, atonement and therefore non-violence because of it’s implications about who Jesus is. This is probably due, in part, to a grad school read from this past summer. What particularly stood out to me was the selfless and self-emptying nature of Jesus, which resulted not in an abandonment of power, but in the actualizing of power. That in the incarnation of Jesus we have a model for what it means to truly be powerful. When we no longer live for self-actualization (he emptied himself), but learn to discover our identity through our connectedness to others and God, and we no longer live for self-preservation (he became obedient to the point of death), but live with the freedom that life can only be found in death – then we become what we were meant to be. “To be like Jesus is to be fully human.”
In Jesus we are given a model that says weakness is not a characteristic that one be embarrassed of or need be explained away, but a virtue worth embodying in our own lives. “One must loose their life in order to find it.” “My power is made perfect in weakness.” These seem to be less about an empty spiritualized pop-psychology, and more about discovering our compass for the person that would truly follow after Jesus.
Thanks JTB for your insightful critique on us guys and our “manly” approaches to theology. What are you studying for your dissertation?
By Scott on Oct 19, 2006 | Reply
Justin, I think that this is Jesus’ way of demonstrating that the sword WAS an option for Him. Yet, He didn’t use it. Obviously, He knew that as well. One sword won’t make much of a dent against an army. Or would it?
I’m working on my links. Will get you in there.
By Scott on Oct 19, 2006 | Reply
T.H., thanks for your comments. This post hasn’t seemed to gain the traction of previous entries. However, I really feel that it is the root of our problem with non-violence.
I’m amazed with the prevalence of “self-idealization” in Christian literature. Schuller, Dobson, Crabb, et al have made it a cottage industry. But it runs so counter to the way of Christ. To humble ourselves means that we automatically elevate the status of others.
I was struck by something I heard Bill Maher say. (I know a lot of you can’t stand him, but listen to his point.) He said on a panel a few weeks back that Christians automatically look upon non-Christians as if they are inferior. And when I am honest I realize that I have done just that. I have thought that I was somehow more special, more valuable to God by virtue of me having chosen Him.
When I do that it’s easy to construct a theology that says I should stop at nothing to preserve my way of life, my values, my liberty.
And if that means the wanton destruction of others, so be it.
Yet, Scripture tells us that if we humble ourselves we will receive that power you talk about. A power that results in our being exalted.
It’s interesting the perpetual inversion of the Jesus life from common convention.
By KS on Oct 19, 2006 | Reply
Not to say we are “better” than non-christians. But I feel we need to think our choice in lifestyle (and more importantly who we choose to serve) is a better choice than those who do not. We need to be humble and understand we did not deserve to be saved, but we must also do our best to convince others to follow our example.
I am not saying this to anyone on this blog, but many times I feel we do not attempt to spread Christianity because we may come across as “preachy”. I feel this is not good either. We need to have humility in ourselves, but lift up Christ and not “agree to disagree” with others who do not think he is Lord.
That might be taking something you had no intention of meaning and running with, Scott, but it is something that I see all to often now in the Church.
By justin on Oct 20, 2006 | Reply
Right, but how many people do you know that respond well to someone trying to explain to them how bad their life is, cause many times in this country especially, most of our needs are met. Someone who feels their life is pretty much fulfilled isn’t going to respond well to you telling them their life isn’t fulfilled. Its why we should live radical lives that show the world what Christ has done for us, rather than telling them.
Preach the gospel daily. Use words when necessary (to quote st frances of asissi)
By JTB on Oct 20, 2006 | Reply
T.H., the dissertation is hardly underway yet but I have at least gotten the proposal approved; my area is theology & science and my topic is “theological anthropology and the posthuman.” Sometimes I say my topic is cyborgs. But that generally gets me a blank stare in response.
By T.H. on Oct 20, 2006 | Reply
JTB - Theological anthropology was our focus this past summer in Systematic Theology. I had to read (and re-read, and then even read again) a good bit of material along the lines of personhood, identity, cognition, social consciousness, and other not so classical works to supplement our more traditional theological readings. It was the first time I had ever really been exposed to that particular level of philosophical and scientific thought, especially along the lines of theological anthropology. I don’t think we ventured to far into the posthuman discussion though!
By JTB on Oct 21, 2006 | Reply
T.H., are you at ACU? This sounds suspiciously like the interests of a certain professor of my acquaintance…
By T.H. on Oct 21, 2006 | Reply
JTB - yes and no. I took my first 30 hours of M.Div, long distance, and primarily through one-week courses over the past five years at ACU. Fred was my systematic prof. I wondered if you might have a connection there when you told me about your dissertation.
Now I’m enrolled at Lipscomb due in part to my proximity to Nashville and the overwhelming desire to finish my M.Div in less than 10 years! I’m really missing ACU right now!
By JTB on Oct 22, 2006 | Reply
My dad did the same thing with his MDiv, for the same reasons. And the good news is, he did complete the degree and life goes on!
Thought it had to be Fred. He was a great mentor/advisor/boss during my time there. I had the privilege of working for him while he finished up his dissertation–which means I got to read it about 8,000 times…