The Doctrine of Non-Resistance

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

I am becoming increasingly convicted that not only was Jesus a pacifist, but that we are called to be pacifists as well. And I am not the only one. Leo Tolstoy was a born-again Christian who believed very strongly in 'non-resistance to evil', which is counter to what most Christians have been taught by The Church. He directly influenced Gandhi in this way (they corresponded), and MLK indirectly (with his writings). I took the following excerpt from his book, "The Kingdom of God is Within You", written in 1894.

I decided to use this excerpt from WLG because I love that it has been made into a succinct declaration. WLG's son says the Society for Nonresistance who adopted the following declaration did not last for long before the members disbanded. The explanation given was because its proponents felt like their mission for slave emancipation would be hindered by being a part of such a radical group.

As much as I am proud of my military son, and as much as I love me a gun-totin' badass bf, I have to believe that Jesus is God and God is Love. And God's love is the only thing that can change the world, or save the world. And anything involving war between men is anti-Gospel....

Thoughts? (please at least skim article before responding)

​

"DECLARATION OF SENTIMENTS ADOPTED BY PEACE CONVENTION.

by

William Lloyd Garrison
​

"Boston, 1838.
​

"We the undersigned, regard it as due to ourselves, to the cause which we love, to the country in which we live, to publish a declaration expressive of the purposes we aim to accomplish and the measures we shall adopt to carry forward the work of peaceful universal reformation.

"We do not acknowledge allegiance to any human government. We recognize but one King and Lawgiver, one Judge and Ruler of mankind. Our country is the world, our countrymen are all mankind. We love the land of our nativity only as we love all other lands. The interests and rights of American citizens are not dearer to us than those of the whole human race. Hence we can allow no appeal to patriotism to revenge any national insult or injury...

"We conceive that a nation has no right to defend itself against foreign enemies or to punish its invaders, and no individual possesses that right in his own case, and the unit cannot be of greater importance than the aggregate. If soldiers thronging from abroad with intent to commit rapine and destroy life may not be resisted by the people or the magistracy, then ought no resistance to be offered to domestic troublers of the public peace or of private security.

"The dogma that all the governments of the world are approvingly ordained of God, and that the powers that be in the United States, in Russia, in Turkey, are in accordance with his will, is no less absurd than impious. It makes the impartial Author of our existence unequal and tyrannical. It cannot be affirmed that the powers that be in any nation are actuated by the spirit or guided by the example of Christ in the treatment of enemies; therefore they cannot be agreeable to the will of God, and therefore their overthrow by a spiritual regeneration of their subjects is inevitable.

"We regard as unchristian and unlawful not only all wars, whether offensive or defensive, but all preparations for war; every naval ship, every arsenal, every fortification, we regard as unchristian and unlawful; the existence of any kind of standing army, all military chieftains, all monuments commemorative of victory over a fallen foe, all trophies won in battle, all celebrations in honor of military exploits, all appropriations for defense by arms; we regard as unchristian and unlawful every edict of government requiring of its subjects military service.

"Hence we deem it unlawful to bear arms, and we cannot hold any office which imposes on its incumbent the obligation to compel men to do right on pain of imprisonment or death. We therefore voluntarily exclude ourselves from every legislative and judicial body, and repudiate all human politics, worldly honors, and stations of authority. If we cannot occupy a seat in the legislature or on the bench, neither can we elect others to act as our substitutes in any such capacity. It follows that we cannot sue any man at law to force him to return anything he may have wrongly taken from us; if he has seized our coat, we shall surrender him our cloak also rather than subject him to punishment.

"We believe that the penal code of the old covenant--an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth--has been abrogated by Jesus Christ, and that under the new covenant the forgiveness instead of the punishment of enemies has been enjoined on all his disciples in all cases whatsoever. To extort money from enemies, cast them into prison, exile or execute them, is obviously not to forgive but to take retribution.

"The history of mankind is crowded with evidences proving that physical coercion is not adapted to moral regeneration, and that the sinful dispositions of men can be subdued only by love; that evil can be exterminated only by good; that it is not safe to rely upon the strength of an arm to preserve us from harm; that there is great security in being gentle, long- suffering, and abundant in mercy; that it is only the meek who shall inherit the earth; for those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword.

" Hence as a measure of sound policy--of safety to property, life, and liberty--of public quietude and private enjoyment--as well as on the ground of allegiance to Him who is King of kings and Lord of lords, we cordially adopt the non-resistance principle, being confident that it provides for all possible consequences, is armed with omnipotent power, and must ultimately triumph over every assailing force.

"We advocate no Jacobinical doctrines. The spirit of Jacobinism is the spirit of retaliation, violence, and murder. It neither fears God nor regards man. We would be filled with the spirit of Christ. If we abide evil by our fundamental principle of not opposing evil by evil we cannot participate in sedition, treason, or violence. We shall submit to every ordinance and every requirement of government, except such as are contrary to the commands of the Gospel, and in no case resist the operation of law, except by meekly submitting to the penalty of disobedience.

"But while we shall adhere to the doctrine of non-resistance and passive submission to enemies, we purpose, in a moral and spiritual sense, to assail iniquity in high places and in low places, to apply our principles to all existing evil, political, legal, and ecclesiastical institutions, and to hasten the time when the kingdoms of this world will have become the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ. It appears to us a self-evident truth that whatever the Gospel is designed to destroy at any period of the world, being contrary to it, ought now to be abandoned. If, then, the time is predicted when swords shall be beaten into plowshares and spears into pruning hooks, and men shall not learn the art of war any more, it follows that all who manufacture, sell, or wield these deadly weapons do thus array themselves against the peaceful dominion of the Son of God on earth.

" Having thus stated our principles, we proceed to specify the measures we propose to adopt in carrying our object into effect.

"We expect to prevail through the Foolishness of Preaching. We shall endeavor to promulgate our views among all persons, to whatever nation, sect, or grade of society they may belong. Hence we shall organize public lectures, circulate tracts and publications, form societies, and petition every governing body. It will be our leading object to devise ways and means for effecting a radical change in the views, feelings, and practices of society respecting the sinfulness of war and the treatment of enemies.

"In entering upon the great work before us, we are not unmindful that in its prosecution we may be called to test our sincerity even as in a fiery ordeal. It may subject us to insult, outrage, suffering, yea, even death itself. We anticipate no small amount of misconception, misrepresentation, and calumny. Tumults may arise against us. The proud and pharisaical, the ambitious and tyrannical, principalities and powers, may combine to crush us. So they treated the Messiah whose example we are humbly striving to imitate. We shall not be afraid of their terror. Our confidence is in the Lord Almighty and not in man. Having withdrawn from human protection, what can sustain us but that faith which overcomes the world? We shall not think it strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try us, but rejoice inasmuch as we are partakers of Christ's sufferings.

"Wherefore we commit the keeping of our souls to God. For every one that forsakes houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for Christ's sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.

"Firmly relying upon the certain and universal triumph of the sentiments contained in this declaration, however formidable may be the opposition arrayed against them, we hereby affix our signatures to it; commending it to the reason and conscience of mankind, and resolving, in the strength of the Lord God, to calmly and meekly abide the issue."


~~~

 

[sorenx7]

I am not in a place in which I can look up anything. I know it is inspirational to read, for example, the Beatitudes when Jesus said things such as blessed are the peacemakers, etc. But I do think people have the right of self-defense.

 

[tkae.]

I would take on the Jainist interpretation of nonviolence if it weren't so much fucking work.

As a libertarian I believe in nonviolence, but also self-defense. But I err on the side of nonviolence, because self-defense is a slippery slope. Think of it like property rights. If i'm defending my property, I can be rightly offended by someone littering intentionally (repeatedly throwing it right into the middle of my yard). However, what if someone's trash can tipped over and some of the trash got on the edge of my property? Do I have the right to defend my property as though it was intentional?

Now if they deliberately littered on my property but I didn't see them, how can I know it was intentional and wasn't the trash can falling over? I would be violating nonviolent principles by justifying any self-defense on the assumption that the littering was an intentional aggression since I can't be sure it was intentional without having seen the act.

A more relevant example. I'm on a plane, and someone is hogging the arm rest. That's clearly a violation of my half of the rest. In terms of self-defense, I should be allowed to stand up for myself and assert my right to half of the arm rest. That's very likely to lead to a confrontation. Probably not physical, but you never know. And maybe they're just tired and aren't intentionally hogging it. Maybe their parent died and they're flying home from the funeral. How can I know I truly know the line without crossing it?

On the other hand, I could remind myself that it's a fucking arm rest and isn't worth an argument. That's the most nonviolent path of them all.

The flaw of the argument you posted it that passive submission is the ideal. It is not. There are times that resistance is necessary, because if you passively submit to an authority that has you do things your ideology considers immoral, what was the point of you having that ideology in the first place? Passive resistance is the ideal. Standing up for yourself by refusing to do things you consider inappropriate, but not actively resisting the authority. For example, Gandhi used passive resistance. MLK used passive resistance. Jesus used passive resistance when he refused to renounce his divinity or to stop his preaching.

Passive submission is basically just surrender, and when it comes to morality surrendering is tantamount to conversion, which defeats the purpose.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Passive submission is basically just surrender, and when it comes to morality surrendering is tantamount to conversion, which defeats the purpose.

But conversion in Christ can lead to surrender in this non-resistant way. So there is no room for other conversion, because you have already submitted your heart to Christ and God. You can be forced to obey and be enslaved by others, but in your heart you will always belong to God, and, for the purpose of this thread, through your non-resistance, will be living like Christ.

Which is the epitomical way to live I believe.

 

[Poki]

I don't like whats written above as a whole. I do like a lot of the ideas and concepts within, but its to simple to work in all situations. We should use this as a guide though in regard to the big picture and anything that alters should be on an only as needed minimalist approach as possible.

I do not like the following

"Wherefore we commit the keeping of our souls to God. For every one that forsakes houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for Christ's sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life."

It is a stab of revenge that should not be included and taints this whole doctrine from what its sole purpose is.

I don't like the way this is worded as it is saying we will turn on man based on our belief. "Our confidence is in the Lord Almighty and not in man." It would read much better if it said "We will turn to the Lord Almighty for our confidence, and not toward man".

Got a bunch to do to really run through it with a fine tooth comb.

Overall its good, but it needs tweaking.

 

[ZNP-TBA]

I would take on the Jainist interpretation of nonviolence if it weren't so much fucking work.

As a libertarian I believe in nonviolence, but also self-defense. But I err on the side of nonviolence, because self-defense is a slippery slope. Think of it like property rights. If i'm defending my property, I can be rightly offended by someone littering intentionally (repeatedly throwing it right into the middle of my yard). However, what if someone's trash can tipped over and some of the trash got on the edge of my property? Do I have the right to defend my property as though it was intentional?

Now if they deliberately littered on my property but I didn't see them, how can I know it was intentional and wasn't the trash can falling over? I would be violating nonviolent principles by justifying any self-defense on the assumption that the littering was an intentional aggression since I can't be sure it was intentional without having seen the act.

A more relevant example. I'm on a plane, and someone is hogging the arm rest. That's clearly a violation of my half of the rest. In terms of self-defense, I should be allowed to stand up for myself and assert my right to half of the arm rest. That's very likely to lead to a confrontation. Probably not physical, but you never know. And maybe they're just tired and aren't intentionally hogging it. Maybe their parent died and they're flying home from the funeral. How can I know I truly know the line without crossing it?

On the other hand, I could remind myself that it's a fucking arm rest and isn't worth an argument. That's the most nonviolent path of them all.

The flaw of the argument you posted it that passive submission is the ideal. It is not. There are times that resistance is necessary, because if you passively submit to an authority that has you do things your ideology considers immoral, what was the point of you having that ideology in the first place? Passive resistance is the ideal. Standing up for yourself by refusing to do things you consider inappropriate, but not actively resisting the authority. For example, Gandhi used passive resistance. MLK used passive resistance. Jesus used passive resistance when he refused to renounce his divinity or to stop his preaching.

Passive submission is basically just surrender, and when it comes to morality surrendering is tantamount to conversion, which defeats the purpose.

I think you and I adhere more to the Non-Aggression principle. It's not pacifist.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

i have not researched the difference between pacifism and non-resistance. I sort of assumed it was the same.
[MENTION=25403]ZombieNinjaPirate[/MENTION] I suppose you mean by non-aggression, self-defense but not going beyond that?

 

[ZNP-TBA]

i have not researched the difference between pacifism and non-resistance. I sort of assumed it was the same.
[MENTION=25403]ZombieNinjaPirate[/MENTION] I suppose you mean by non-aggression, self-defense but not going beyond that?

More or less. Refraining from initiating the use of force against others. It is completely valid to respond with force if it is initiated against you. For example, I would never use my firearm I own in any other way aside from self-defense and occasionally having fun at the shooting range.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Okay, thank you.

But for me, I want to follow the Bible as much as possible. And it is pretty clear that if someone strikes you on one cheek, you turn to him the other also. Along with various other verses that preach against self-defense.

 

[Poki]

Okay, thank you.

But for me, I want to follow the Bible as much as possible. And it is pretty clear that if someone strikes you on one cheek, you turn to him the other also. Along with various other verses that preach against self-defense.

Self defense is to defend yourself. If someone hits you, you should block. If someone punches at you you should dodge. You don't let him (her so I don't get accused of all men are evil) continue to beat you. That is the problem with is we all have different degrees of when frustration makes us move. Some something as simple as name calling causes us to"defend" ourselves. Others can take a hit and and give a look like your pissing me off. We even have people who do nothing but dodge and weave and block and the other person eventually gives up and walks away. Your goal is to not be striken on the cheek and avoid aggression as much as possible. The better we can defend, the longer we can avoid aggression. I don't know if anyone is perfect at it. But we all have our tolerances. Shoot to kill, shoot to hurt, or shoot to scare. All differing levels of aggression and all can be triggered by differing levels of being attacked.

All we can do is the best we can and we know this by how much we struggle to control ourselves when it hits.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Self defense is to defend yourself. If someone hits you, you should block. If someone punches at you you should dodge. You don't let him (her so I don't get accused of all men are evil) continue to beat you. That is the problem with is we all have different degrees of when frustration makes us move. Some something as simple as name calling causes us to"defend" ourselves. Others can take a hit and and give a look like your pissing me off. We even have people who do nothing but dodge and weave and block and the other person eventually gives up and walks away. Your goal is to not be striken on the cheek and avoid aggression as much as possible. The better we can defend, the longer we can avoid aggression. I don't know if anyone is perfect at it. But we all have our tolerances. Shoot to kill, shoot to hurt, or shoot to scare. All differing levels of aggression and all can be triggered by differing levels of being attacked.

All we can do is the best we can and we know this by how much we struggle to control ourselves when it hits.

This reminds me of how Jesus was always ducking out of towns when things went south and they wanted to arrest him or harm him. So I can see an argument for dodging being Biblical. But once you are caught and struck, then I believe we are to take it as much as we are able to, and with grace. It is more likely that through seeing themselves in the context of aggressor against passive victim that an abusive person will be able to see the harm they are causing. If their own defense mechanisms become raised, it will be virtually impossible for them to see above them at all.

 

[Poki]

This reminds me of how Jesus was always ducking out of towns when things went south and they wanted to arrest him or harm him. So I can see an argument for dodging being Biblical. But once you are caught and struck, then I believe we are to take it as much as we are able to, and with grace. It is more likely that through seeing themselves in the context of aggressor against passive victim that an abusive person will be able to see the harm they are causing. If their own defense mechanisms become raised, it will be virtually impossible for them to see above them at all.

The issue with that is aggressors are justified in their actions. You have to dejustify them or they will not see it. Dejustify really depends on why they are justified in the first place.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Hmm. Will you elaborate on that last statement please?

 

[Poki]

Hmm. Will you elaborate on that last statement please?

You have to understand why they believe they have the right to do it. A bully may think because I am bigger I have the right to bully. They may have had to deal with that as a child or have seen someone be like that. So you have to dejustify the right to do it in their mind. Simple example and I know the world can be more complicated, but hopefully it gets the idea across. Men and women are both "justified" in certain things due to stereotypes. The basic "fight" becomes "I have the right to do this" and there in starts fighting. Or yeah, you do have the right with starts abuse. Or hit it dead on, that does not give you the right. Sometimes it is via example. Justification gives them the right.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

I see what you are saying, and it makes sense. I think I just do this naturally intuitively, because when I consciously try to think about how to apply some therapeutic strategy to this concept, I get really confused and bogged down in my head.

 

[existence]

But for me, I want to follow the Bible as much as possible. And it is pretty clear that if someone strikes you on one cheek, you turn to him the other also. Along with various other verses that preach against self-defense.

No it is not at all clear.

Also it makes no sense. Why would you want to allow the bully to get more satisfaction?

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

No it is not at all clear.

Also it makes no sense. Why would you want to allow the bully to get more satisfaction?

As searchingforpeace said, if you fight back, you give them justification for their mean behavior.

Perhaps if they feel unconditional love in the midst of their meanness, they will be shocked into feeling something different, or maybe seeing God's love in a new way. ?

 

[Cellmold]

Pacifism is a fundamentally evil and self destructive concept which I refuse to bow to.

If that's what the bible teaches then I'm glad I threw mine away.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

pac·i·fism
ˈpasəˌfizəm/Submit
noun
the belief that any violence, including war, is unjustifiable under any circumstances, and that all disputes should be settled by peaceful means.

synonyms: peacemaking, conscientious objection(s), passive resistance, peacemongering, nonviolence
"he returned from Vietnam with a desire to promote pacifism"



What about it is evil and self-destructive, if you don't mind my asking?

 

[Amargith]

It depends - it can work. The likely reason it worked for Ghandi, for instance, was because soldiers usually tend to feel uncomfortable attacking unarmed people. Meanwhile, those same soldiers were banking on the fear that their army would cause to keep that nation under the thumb of the Queen. It was a calculated strategy. In this case, Ghandi inspired others to not give into that fear and to adopt a 'come what may' policy because the issue was *that* important. It's hard to keep killing people who have no intent to harm you, but just won't do what you're telling them to do.

At the same time - cowards relish in you not defending yourself - for whatever reason, because they're bigger, because you lack the self-confidence or the fighting skills. it means they get to take out all their frustrations on you, without any reprisals. It's utterly convenient to be handed such a scapegoat and punching bag for those peeps as they are often desperate for a release valve like that. And bullies tend to be of this breed. Standing up to them is often the only way to get them to stop. Turning that cheek will only get it bashed in, gleefully, again and again.

Know thy enemy.