More from Lohfink, this time on Jesus’ teaching on renunciation of violence:
The radical ethic of renouncing violence is thus addressed neither to isolated individuals nor to the entire world, but precisely to the people of God which has been marked by the preaching of God’s reign.
The thesis that renunciation of violence is possible only for an individual who has no responsibility for others is basically false. . . .Jesus always had in mind Israel or the community of disciples which was the prefiguration of the Israel in which the reign of God was to shine. Jesus’ requirement of absolute nonviolence was thus directly related to society; it had public character. Yet his preaching was not addressed to nations, to states, to society in general. Jesus was never concerned with this audience; he did not address them. He did not seek to establish contact with Herod Antipas or Pontius Pilate in order to tell them how they should govern. The most he would have said to people of this sort is what the author of the Fourth Gospel quite appropriately formulated in these words (John 18:36):
My kingship is not of this world; if my kingship were of this world, my servants would fight that I might not be handed over to the Jews.
We must note the language carefully. There is no reference to heaven. Jesus’ kingdom is indeed in this world. But it is not of this world, that is, it does not conform to the structures of this world.
. . .The true people of God, the true family of Jesus, is not allowed to impose anything through force–neither internally or externally. Members of that people cannot fight for their rights with the means of force which are customary in society and which are often even legitimate. Followers of Jesus should rather suffer injustice than impose their rights through violence.
It must be stressed once again that with all this Jesus sought not only to express an inner attitude, but also to address concrete practice within a new social order. As Mark 10:42-45 has already shown us, Jesus understood the people of God which he sought to gather as a contrast-society. This in no way means that he envisioned the people of God as a state or a nation, but he did understand it as a community which forms its own sphere of life, a community in which one lives in a different way and treats others in a different way than is usual elsewhere in the world. We could definitely describe the people of God which Jesus sought to gather as an alternative society. It is not the violent structures of the powers of this world which are to rule within it, but rather reconciliation and brotherhood.
Telling Stories, Asking Questions, Learning Lessons
Membership in the kingdom means we agree to play by different rules. Unfortunately, that’s a hard lesson to learn.
Hey Neal,
What’s up with your blog?
Brad, I encouraged Neal to start posting again yesterday, too; by e-mail. He said he’s planning to! Good news for a lot of us who miss his words.
Now, to the point. I had an interesting – and civil! – dialog on my blog some time back with someone who had no trouble picturing Jesus mowing down his earthly enemies with a machine gun. I hope that was hyperbole, but somehow I doubt it!
I think there is an epidemic of mistaking earthly conflict for spiritual warfare these days, and that somehow Rambo-Jesus is fighting for “our side” draped in an American flag.
Early Christians chose to perish rather than fight or switch for the better part of three centuries. That speaks an important word to me about how they viewed Jesus’ nature in the days that New Testament scripture was being written and compiled.
Does Lohfink then believe there is no place for violence? Should Christians not actively fight/resist evil? What about “thy will be done on heaven and on earth”? God’s will is that evil not flourish…
In the face of an enemy that wants nothing more than to complete destroy you (i.e. Darfur now or Germany in 1940s), would Lohfink say that Christians should just roll over and die?
I’m hearing this topic a lot lately in blog land. In response to the comment above by “Expat Teacher” in the UK, it sounds like you’re advocating violence for the sake of the Gospel (a sort of Just War). Or it could be that I’m misinterpreting your use of “resist/fight” as being violent, when your intention is otherwise. Could you elaborate?
For some reason, I am increasingly in agreement with statements like this one by Lohfink. However, I see a widening gap between what my heart knows to be true (in this case peaceful resistance and submission for the sake of the Kingdom) and what my body would actually do when faced with personal harm. Unfortunately my beliefs are moving but obedience is running a distant second.
Great quote Wade. I’m interested in your thoughts as well.
Russ is right when he says that this topic is being discussed a lot lately. It is not only being discussed heavily in blog land, but it is also creeping into our discussions at church. To me this means a couple of things, first people are beginning to ponder Kingdom Living on this earth, and second America has been involved in 3 major wars in the past 2 decades. I believe Jesus taught us to deal with evil, injustice and oppression in a new way. A way that had never been attempted. Instead of killing your enemies you pray for them. Instead of seeking revenge you leave room for God’s wrath. Instead of returning eye for an eye you turn the other cheek.
Jesus was crucified because he came announcing a Kingdom that didn’t “fit” with what Israel had expected. I mean come on! They were the people God had chosen to save the world, and the were being ruled by a bunch of pagans, but he showed them a new way to be Israel, to be a “city on a Hill.” It had nothing to do with violently overthrowing the Romans even though they were doing evil.
Just a few thoughts on the subject. I could go on and on about first century Christians, etc., but I will leave the blogging to Wade. This topic should continued to be discussed. Thanks for the thoughtful post.