I have a young friend, John, who loves to think deeply. I find his thinking refreshing. Jesus seems to take his mind where I would never go. Awhile back we were meeting over dinner and he made a statement that has stuck with me. He said as a Christian he was committed to physical, emotional and relational non-violence. Wow, I’d never thought of non-violence in those terms.
I don’t want to get into politics. Usually in Christian circles we think of non-violence as a political issue; i.e. I’m against war. I think it would be pretty hard to portray Jesus or the early Christians as particularly war inclined. But, we don’t need to get into international politics here. I want to go another direction.
Physical Non Violence
We are all aware of Jesus’ statement about turning the other cheek. I personally don’t think we should spiritualize that. Jesus was pretty clear on how we treated our enemies, and it was really counter intuitive: you love them, you don’t seek revenge and you don’t strike back, even physically. Jesus never struck back. He had horrendous violence perpetrated against him, yet his only proactive behavior in the whole violent affair was to heal the ear of a man named Malchus who had his ear cut off by Peter. He then rebuked Peter saying that those who live by the sword, die by the sword (Lk 22:49-51; Jn. 18:10; Mt. 26:52). I believe that Jesus life demonstrated physical non-violence.
Emotional Non Violence
Most people I know carry around emotional scars, often from their childhood. Many of these scars have to do with some central person in their lives practicing emotional violence. To this day I can remember certain statements that teachers said to me which humiliated me. Most of us can remember deep emotional wounds perpetrated by parents, grandparents or siblings. And, we often carry with us the scars left by classmates and peers.
Jesus was pretty good at letting religious leaders have it if their behavior distanced others from God. He could also be clear and frank. But there was one thing about Jesus. Everything he did was aimed at loving others. If Jesus rebuked you, you never had to doubt he loved you. Words can be more wounding than Peter’s sword. I think Jesus would have us practice emotional non violence.
Relational Non Violence
The two most common ways to wound a relationship is through the abuse of power or through manipulation. Both actually revolve around having power over others. Blatant abuse of power is when someone uses their position or status to force someone else to do something that violates their free will. That’s abuse. There’s no place for that in the Church, even though it is as common as a blue sky.
Manipulation is power abuse’s kissing cousin. Manipulation is when we try to get someone to do what we want, against their will. The manipulator’s twist is that they try to do it in such a way that they can’t actually be held accountable for the control. Manipulators want to be able to say, “I didn’t say that” or “I didn’t mean it that way.” Shame is one of their key weapons. This is relational violence. Neither the abuse of position or status nor manipulation are acts of love. We Christians should be relationally non violent. We should only want what Jesus wants for the other person. Our will for their life should be a non issue. And that means avoiding the most vial Christian manipulative statement of all, “Thus saith the Lord.”
- Have you ever thought of non violence in emotional or relational terms?
- Has it ever occurred to you to ask the Holy Spirit to remind you or areas where you are emotionally or relationally violent so you can repent and apologize?
- Given these definitions, would you consider your church experience to be non violent?
- Which do you think causes longer term damage, a slap across the face or a cruel damaging word?


Pre-order Today!
I have been seeing the Biblical call to non-resistance as far more than not participating in warfare. Our response to those who hate us is to love them. Our response to those who would steal from us is to love them. Our response to those who attack us is to love them. Our response to those who would cheat and defraud us….well, you see where this is going. Not participating in war is but one aspect of the greater call of non-resistance.
Ross I get what you are saying in general. However the view seems overly simplistic to me. Don’t we have a responsibility to protect the innocent? For example in Oslo, Norway 76 people died, mostly children, because there was no one who would stop an evil man. Was it wrong to stop Hitler?
The old test is filled with examples of God directing His people to deal with wicked people. My opinion is that if we have an opportunity to stop a murder and we do nothing but bless the murderer we are guilty of aiding in murder.
This is a complex issue. I see what you are saying. I think there is much more in the whole of scripture.
Darrell,
That is the “Yeah..but” argument. Yeah I know Scripture says this but what about *insert situation*. The situations don’t trump the Scriptures.
As for this: “My opinion is that if we have an opportunity to stop a murder and we do nothing but bless the murderer we are guilty of aiding in murder.”
Like Peter who tried to stop the unjust arrest and murder of Jesus with a sword? I don’t recall Jesus looking very favorably on that…
Arthur, you are correct of course, that Jesus stopped Peter…that was because Jesus knew the Father’s will here and His time had come. As to Darrell’s argument being “Yeah but…”, he didn’t merely point to one specific current evil and try to play it as a trump card to the scriptures but to the Old Testament as well and then again at the end of his post Darrell calls us to the “whole of scripture as well.” Let us not forget Jesus response to the money changers and his calling out a group as a “brood of vipers.” These are things to consider and things to inquire of the Lord about.
This blog is wonderful and important to ponder before the Lord. I am addressing only the physical “violence” discussion here as that is a different discussion from emotional and relational violence.
Darrell said he sees this as a complex issue and having given it some thought over many years, listening to the violent and non-violent sides of the argument, Would it be a godly act to watch a child being assaulted? Would the good Samaritan have stood by and waited for the robbers to be done beating the man in order to help him if he had within his power a way to stop the assault? What would that look like in our day? A call on our cell phone to 911? I am convinced that I would pray and if my pepper spray were on me the assailant would likely be warned once and then sprayed with sorrow in my heart that I was “hurting” someone but knowing that there is a greater good in it and that standing by would be passivity at best, not walking in righteousness. We don’t have any right to violence as a means of correction any more than our anger would produce a righteous life if we gave full vent to it. It would seem prudent that we ask our Father what to do in everything and do all He calls us to do just as Jesus did. Take every thought captive and submit them to the Lord and ask for His will to be done and follow Him in each situation rather than making a rule of an extreme. Our hearts are deceitful. The use of physical force can be very self-satisfying, a way to trump someone and or force our will on them, and a prideful act. Adhering to non-violence as a rule could also be misguided at best (and could spring from pride as well, pride that “we’ve got it right and others as fools”) in that it would permit evil to continue without ever asking our Father’s will. I think it’s easy to talk about these things in a “lab” environment but when evil is coming against someone, we’d best be listening for our marching orders, neither running pell mell with our sword nor going beyond turning a cheek to turning a blind eye.
Saw this today and wanted to add it for further consideration:
“True faith is never seen as passive – it is always obedient.”
Author: John MacArthur
Source: The Gospel According to Jesus
Hi Nancy,
I think it is a good quote. I especially like the emphasis on obedience. However I don’t think passivity and non-violence are connected. They are two separate issues. One can be extremely proactive, obedient and still non-violent.