Thoughts On Non-Violence: A Manifesto
February 26th, 2007 | by Scott |It’s July 18, 64 AD and a fire breaks out in the Circus Maximus. Over the course of the next five days much of the city of Rome is devastated by the fire that rages (if the history, specious at best, holds out).
For many, the suspicion goes to their megalomaniacal emperor, Nero. His desire to seal his legacy is tied to his expansionist dreams for the Great City. Nero was obsessed with his popularity and the thought of being accused of such a crime was too much to bear.
Understandably, the Romans were devastated by the conflagration. Homes were consumed, lives snuffed out and livelihoods were compromised. Not only that but much of their religious life went up in flames.
Shrines, idols, temples were destroyed. There was only one group that did not suffer the loss of their religious identity–Christians. And because they were seen as being hostile to the empire and due to their close ties to the hated Jews Nero used them as a convenient scapegoat.
Persecution began as a result of Nero’s deflecting the suspicion onto this nascent sect.
In the midst of this period of Christian persecution (that saw the executions of both Peter and Paul) Peter wrote a letter of encouragement to those Gentile Christians who were living in fear of the sword. That message, 1 Peter, is a lesson in non-violent living.
Here we see the early church working out its practice of turning the other cheek, living in community and comporting themselves in such a way that even their enemies could see that they are different.
Peter’s Message: Live as Christ lived.
2:13–Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor (!) as supreme,
2:15–For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people
2:16–Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God.
And the money passage (1 Peter 2:19–25):
this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. 20 For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God. 21 For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. 22 He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. 23 When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly. 24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed. 25 For you were straying like sheep, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.
For Peter it was imperative that these early believers did not live the way of the sword but by the way of the cross. The live and example of Jesus was normative for the believer in the early church. His example was that of non-violence, turning the other cheek, loving your enemy. Even a despotic tyrant such as Nero.
1 Peter is a manifesto for non-violent living. For the first pronounced persecution of Christians in world history was met without arms or retaliation. It was met with the very person of Christ.
5 Responses to “Thoughts On Non-Violence: A Manifesto”
By Jason Bybee on Feb 26, 2007 | Reply
Great stuff, as always Scott. I came across a title today in my grad reading that I thought you might find interesting. J. Denny Weaver has written a book entitled “The Nonviolent Atonement”. He writes to refute the Anselmian view of atonement that has become the dominant Western understanding. Out of his Menonite heritage, Weaver develops an atonement theology that rejects all violence. I haven’t read it, but I thought you might want to add it to your reading list sometime.
By Scott on Feb 26, 2007 | Reply
Thanks, Jason. That title sounds right up my alley. I’m putting it on my list now. Anselm needs a few more shots across the bow.
By jasonk on Feb 26, 2007 | Reply
By non-violent atonement, is Weaver referring to the violence typically associated with the cross?
By Jason Bybee on Feb 26, 2007 | Reply
JasonK,
Without having read his work, I can’t say for sure. But based on the context in which his work was referenced, I think he would oppose the Anselmian view that Jesus had to die in order to satisfy some sort of violent characteristic manifest in the Trinity. Rather than basing atonement on violent assumptions, I think people of Weaver’s camp would point to God’s satisfaction with the entire life of Christ, not just his expiating death. His death, though violent, may just be the natural outcome of living obediently in a world controlled by the powers. Personally, some of this just sounds like semantics to me.
Maybe Scott can read it and give us a fuller synopsis!
By Jerry on Mar 27, 2007 | Reply
Regarding 1 Peter, it is now the position of academic scholarship that Peter’s audience did NOT suffer persecution from the sword but that it was mostly verbal with some economic pressure (hence it is probably not helpful to frame the book in the context of Nero’s persecution). The Christians desire not to attend civic and social functions in honor of the gods brought accusations that they did not care about their local polis and were atheists. 1 Peter’s admonitions, if read carefully, have to do with the avoidance of participating in “slander battles” with pagans.
What makes this interesting is that 1 Peter may be an extremely important book for our current context, where we are not in danger of physical persecution but where our assemblies are well known and our movement receives much slander. Our engagement with such a context might heed Peter’s advice. We should not be involved in returning slander but in good works. We hope that any such slander is undeserved, if not, we should be careful to make it so. We may have to simply soften or silence our rhetoric and display our faith through action. If we can return any evil visited upon us with kindness, then we might create an opportunity for someone to “ask about the hope we have.” This goes back to some of the things you are talking about elsewhere. I think if we can read 1 Peter not in the light of persecution by the sword but in the light of societal/relational pressure, we might see ourselves as having more in common with its audience and take its message more seriously.