Ethics without Universal Truth
I’m beginning to believe that ethical practices that are enacted in a particular place and time by a particular people and that are likely to be practiced by a limited number of persons are the only ethics that can be practiced non-violently. Things like Jesus asking his Father to forgive the people who are crucifying him, or a Roman soldier pretending to be a priest so that he would die rather than the priest (St. Alban). It’s things that are held to be universally practical that seem to lead to violence, because we suppose that everybody should act the same as us.
This is an interesting observation. I’ve long been confused as to if (and then how) Christians should translate their non-violent ethic into politics. I tend to think that we should live out the ethic of Christ in a deliberately counter-cultural way, which excludes us, in a sense, from participation in the kingdoms of this world. Does that make sense?
Thanks for the comment!
“Does that make sense?”
Yes and no.
First off, let me admit that I’m rethinking this blog post. I said it on another blog and thought I should write it down. Sometimes I don’t know how to think or say the truth faithfully without saying it out loud and testing it. I suppose that’s why I said “I’m beginning to believe.”
This isn’t a post against universal truth, or to say that if a truth is universal that it can not be practiced non-violently. Rather that our ethics need to spring from the particular and be radically contextualized in order to be practiced non-violently. I’m still thinking this through, as you can tell.
I’m going to disagree with some of your language. Not because I want to be a pain in the ass or an ungracious blog host, but because, as I said: that’s my way of discovering how to think and speak truthfully.
Here goes:
Christians don’t need to translate our non-violent ethic into politics. Non-violence IS a type of politics. u.s.americans tend to think of politics only in terms of the state. That is a recent phenomenon. Politics is the art of social arrangement (me definition, open to correction).
I might go as far as saying that non-violence is the only type of politics, because the moment we assume the right to force other people to do our will we’re not arranging ourselves socially but dominating.
So I want to seriously qualify what you said when you said we are excluded ‘in a sense, from participation in the kingdoms of this world.’
We can not avoid but participating in the kingdoms of this world. To quote N.T. Wright, his kingdom is not OF this world, but it is most definitely FOR this world.
We can’t withdraw from the kingdoms of this world because our central practices (eucharist, baptism, discipleship) are re-enactments of Jesus’ own participation with the kingdoms of this world. It is, of course, a participation that is not OF this world. He overcomes evil with good (Rom 12).
It is not counter-cultural per se (‘against’ culture) but plays a role within culture: to be the point where God’s kingdom and the kingdoms of this world meet in the present.
So our relationship with the kingdoms of this world is highly qualified by our participation in the life of the world to come. I think that’s what you’re saying that I agree with.
But if non-violent, self-donating enemy-love is at the heart of Christianity, then faithfulness requires engagement with rather than withdrawal from the powers of this world.
Which, as I read it, isn’t so different from what you said.
I just want to be careful how we use the words ‘counter-cultural’ or ‘excluded’ because Christians who espouse non-violence are often accused of having a ‘withdrawal ethic’.
We may. But in those cases we aren’t being faithful.
Two levels of non-violence:
(1) Non-initiation
It is hard enough to get folks to buy into this, and it is the easiest.
(2) Non-retaliatory
(a) To get people to buy into this, I think it is best to start by teaching it as a “strategy”. Non-retaliation can OCCASIONALLY help a person obtain their goals better than reflexive retaliation.
(b) Next, get people (read: “ourselves”) to realize the “long-run” issue. Thus, in the long-run, non-retaliatory habits make us the kind of person we want to be and makes our world the kind we wish to raise children.
(c) “We should never hurt others, even in self-protection” — this level may be extreme and naive. Or, it may be true. But why even delute the conversation when # 1 and # 2 a & b are learnings that are hard enough in themselves without distracting the learner with the tough big question. Step by step. We see more clearly as we build levels of skills.
Just my thoughts.
Your point is well-taken.
The story of how Trocme and the other Christians at Le Chambon resisted the Nazis non-violently looks like a ‘successful strategy’. We certainly need such stories.
However, the words ‘success’ and ‘strategy’ set the table in a way that might undermine Christian purposes. If your purpose is to live faithfully to Jesus, nonviolence could seem to others like a very bad strategy. It may lead to more violence rather than less, as the world doesn’t have a lot of options to shut people up.
The denial of self-defense may be extreme and naive. But, for Christians, the call of Jesus is a call to die to the self. It’s embodied in our most important practices (baptism, eucharist) and our most important stories (the gospel, the saints). It’s what nearly everything else springs from.
Other purposes (convincing others to believe what I believe, successfully creating world peace) are too dependent on living truthfully. Without dying to self we’ll probably just keep repeating the pattern of trying to rule the world, even if we do it in the name of non-violence.
“We see more clearly as we build levels of skills.” I totally agree with you. ‘Seeing’ itself is a learned skill.