Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount is seen by many Christians as a moving summary of his message to the community of Christian disciples. For Christian anarchist thinkers like Tolstoy, Ellul, Elliott, and Andrews among others, it also contains Jesus’ most poignant statement on violence – his call to turn the other cheek – a statement which, they argue, cannot but ultimately imply a condemnation of the state for its theoretical and practical monopoly over the allegedly legitimate use of
violence. This paper offers an overview of this radical political exegesis, thus showing why, for Christian anarchists, the very core of Christianity cannot but imply a form of (non-violent) anarchism

Alexandre Christoyannopoulos (1252407)

English

Loughborough University Institutional Repository

A Christian Anarchist Critique of Violence: From Turning theOther Cheek to a Rejection of the StateAlexandre ChristoyannopoulosAbstractJesus’ Sermon on the Mount is seen by many Christians as a moving summary ofhis message to the community of Christian disciples. For Christian anarchistthinkers like Tolstoy, Ellul, Elliott, and Andrews among others, it also containsJesus’ most poignant statement on violence – his call to turn the other cheek – astatement which, they argue, cannot but ultimately imply a condemnation of thestate for its theoretical and practical monopoly over the allegedly legitimate use ofviolence. This paper offers an overview of this radical political exegesis, thusshowing why, for Christian anarchists, the very core of Christianity cannot butimply a form of (non-violent) anarchism.Key Words: Anarchism, Christianity, non-resistance, Sermon on the Mount,violence.*****1. Introduction‘What a fine place this world would be,’ a Christian anarchist quipped decadesago, ‘if Fundamentalist Protestants tried to exemplify the Sermon on the Mount.’1There are, however, divergent interpretations of this Sermon – including perhapsits most famous passage, where Jesus speaks of love and non-resistance. Thepurpose of this paper is to introduce the anarchist interpretation of Christianity bysummarising the scattered comments Christian anarchists have made on thisparticular passage.Space restrictions prevent a more detailed analysis of these comments here, butprecisely such a detailed analysis, along with that of other passages (includingRomans 13 and ‘render unto Caesar’) as well as more in depth exposition anddiscussion of Christian anarchism more generally, can be found in ChristianAnarchism: A Political Commentary on the Gospel. The passage in question here iswhere Jesus says:Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and atooth for a tooth:But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shallsmite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat,let him have thy cloak also.A Christian Anarchist Critique of Violence__________________________________________________________________20And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with himtwain.Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow ofthee turn not thou away.22. Jesus’ Three IllustrationsIn the first illustration, both Wink and Elliott suggest, Jesus is depicting asituation which his followers would immediately recognise as humiliating, andwhich, in that society, would consequently call for an appropriate, equally forcefuland humiliating response to uphold one’s dignity. The response Jesus recommends,however, goes against these local expectations. For Elliott, Jesus is saying: ‘dowhat your attacker least expects: behave in the opposite way.’3 This, Elliottcontends, confuses the attacker, who now ‘is no longer in control of the process heinitiated. He is, in a very real sense, disarmed!’4 Similarly, Wink claims thatturning the other cheek ‘robs the oppressor of the power to humiliate.’5 Both Elliottand Wink therefore agree that Jesus’ surprising response in this first illustrationdisempowers the attacker and forces him to regard the victim in a different light.Elliott and Wink develop a similar analysis from the other two responsesillustrated by Jesus. The second, they argue, would unmask and put the blame onthe social and legal system which brought this about, such that Jesus’recommendation would again be ‘a practical, strategic measure for empowering theoppressed.’6 As to the third, they agree that Jesus’ suggested response is ‘a way ofsubverting authority’ in that ‘the victim is claiming the power to determine forhimself the lengths to which he is prepared to go.’7 Jesus’ illustrations of non-resistance imply a critique of the expectations of his contemporary society and seekto empower the victim through a counter-intuitive response.3. A Purposeful ReactionAt the same time, Jesus’ non-resistance is not just a completely inactive,uncaring acceptance of evil, but rather a very specific, strategic response.However, views diverge among Christian anarchists as to exactly what kind ofaction is allowed and what kind of resistance is forbidden: resistance to certaintypes of evil, resistance by evil, or any resistance at all. These importantdisagreements are discussed in detail elsewhere.8Wink, for instance, maintains that a ‘proper translation’ of the Greek word for‘resist’ shows that Jesus was rejecting passive ‘flight’ or violent ‘fight’ andrecommending ‘militant nonviolence.’ Ballou, similarly, argues that while Jesus isproscribing violent resistance, evil should still be resisted – just never with evilmeans. Tolstoy, however, sometimes appears to disagree – but his own position isunclear. At times, he interprets Jesus’ recommended reply as not admitting anyform of resistance at all, yet sometimes Tolstoy seems to imply that only violentresistance is being forbidden.Alexandre Christoyannopoulos___________________________________________________________________21Either way, the point to note here is that although there may be disagreementamong Christian anarchists and pacifists about exactly what form of reaction isallowed by these verses, they all (Tolstoy included) insist that the Christianresponse is a very real and radical (non-violent) reaction – a form of action, agenuine, purposeful, tactical reaction.4. Beyond Lex TalionisThis radical response implies a disapproval of something about his politicalcontext, namely: the cycle of violence inherent in lex talionis, the law of retaliationenshrined in the Old Testament.First, however, it is worth noting that lex talionis is not a licence for unlimitedviolence. Rather, the idea behind it is justifiable or fair retaliation. Equallyimportant, however, is how this ‘fair’ and ‘just’ level of retaliation can be used as abasis for reaching an alternative solution: a ‘fair’ and ‘just’ level of compensation.Lex talionis therefore provides the basis for either retributive (punitive) orrestorative (compensatory) justice – principles which also permeate contemporarycivil and criminal law.In the above verses, however, Jesus calls for a different approach. Instead ofmerely avoiding an excessive reaction in line with the limit on violence placed inthe Old Testament, Jesus is proposing that his disciples go further. Both the old andnew commands are informed by the same intention, but non-resistance to evil goesfurther than the more rigid law of reciprocity. For Christian anarchists, the reasonJesus does this has to do with the way the law of retaliation can – and usually tendsto – spiral out of control and feed a cycle of violence and revenge.5. The Cycle of ViolenceChristian anarchists interpret Jesus’ instruction as a comment not just on theOld Law, but also on human practice past and present. They generalise Jesus’comments on lex talionis to the broader political question of how to deal with eviland achieve justice in society.To begin with, they remark that although forceful resistance is almostuniversally accepted as the justified method for humanity to confront injustice, thismethod plainly does not work, because it only multiplies evil, creating an unendingcycle of vendettas. If the justice of the retaliation is not recognised by its victim,what to one party is only fair retaliation becomes unjustified aggression to theother. In other words, an eye for an eye eventually makes the world go blind. It ishard to overestimate how important this realisation is for all Christian anarchists.For Christian anarchists, violent means only produce further violence, and theyfatally corrupt and destroy even the worthiest of aims. ‘When evil means areemployed,’ Berdyaev insists, ‘these ends are never attained: the means take centralplace, and the ends are either forgotten, or become purely rhetorical.’9 Countlesshuman goals have been fatally compromised by the violent means which wereA Christian Anarchist Critique of Violence__________________________________________________________________22adopted in an attempt to reach them, but which ended up taking centre stage whilethe original goal became ever more elusive.Nonetheless, its proponents always try to justify violence (both to others and tothemselves) by evoking venerable goals. This is understandable, and proponents ofviolence usually wholeheartedly believe that the superior ends they long for can beachieved by the violent means they succumb to. Yet the resort to violence isprecisely where evil seeps in.Besides, those who are coerced will only obey while they are weaker than theirtyrants. But ‘as soon as they grow stronger,’ Tolstoy warns, ‘embittered by thestruggle’ and ‘everything they have had to suffer,’ they, ‘in their turn, force theiropponents to do what they regard as good and necessary.’10 Reactionary violencepromises counter-reactionary violence.One of the fundamental problems with violent methods, Christian anarchistsargue, is that ‘once we consent to use violence ourselves, we have to consent to ouradversary’s using it, too.’11 Adopting violence as a method to attain one’s goalsimplies the recognition of violence as a legitimate method.Worse, the use of violence creates justifications for further violence. That is,‘every act of violence can explain and seek to justify itself as a response to anearlier act of violence’ – hence the danger inherent in lex talionis.12 ‘As fire willnot put out fire,’ Tolstoy therefore believes, ‘so evil will not destroy evil.’13According to Tolstoy’s Jesus, ‘by taking revenge, we only teach others to do thesame.’14Christian anarchists urge every human being to decide where they stand on this.The question of how to respond to evil cannot be avoided. Lex talionis appears tooffer a solution, but inherent in it is a tendency for reciprocal violence to spiral outof control. For the vicious cycle of violence to be broken, humanity needs analternative method for responding to injustice and reaching moral aims.6. Overcoming the Cycle of ViolenceChristian anarchists believe Jesus both taught and lived out such an alternative,which is that ‘evil can be overcome only with good.’15 It is not an easy method,and at first, it can appear counterintuitive in that it implies ‘renouncing the marksof victory.’16 Christian anarchists, however, believe it is ‘the only possible way ofbreaking the chain of violence, of rupturing the circle of fear and hate.’17No Christian anarchist pretends that this is painless. Overcoming evil with loverequires a willingness to endure violence or evil without doing violence or evil inreturn, even – in fact, especially – when treated unjustly. Hence it requiresforgiveness and sacrifice – including the sacrificing of one’s right to restitution orretaliation.Only such an attitude of love, non-violence and forgiveness makes healingpossible. Non-resistance, and its concomitant willingness to suffer unjustly, clearsAlexandre Christoyannopoulos___________________________________________________________________23the ground for reconciliation; it exposes the destructive violence of the situationand makes a moving plea to overcome it.Some might object that non-resistance is contrary to human nature in that itgoes against the natural instinct of self-preservation. Ballou replies that actually,non-resistance is ‘the true method of self-preservation.’18 For him, resistancedivides and actually destroys humanity, whereas non-resistance actually preservesit. Accordingly, non-resistance is the only method which can actually preservehumanity in the long run.Christian anarchists thus firmly believe in a strict continuity between ends andmeans, because the means eventually become the ends. Violence leads to violence,resistance to resistance. By the same token, peace, love and forgiveness can onlybegin with peaceful, loving and forgiving pioneers. The cycle of violence cannotbe broken by cathartic or exemplary acts of violence; it can only be overcome bylove and non-resistance.Of course, such non-resistance is not easy. It requires an absolute commitment,and this means a willingness to suffer, even to die, rather than to resist. Thus non-resistance is not cowardly; it requires courage.Besides, non-resistance is what Jesus undeniably demands. We might think it isutopian or foolish, but for Tolstoy what cannot be denied is that Jesus clearlycalled his followers not to resist. A faithful follower of Jesus therefore cannotresist, cannot participate in violence.7. Anarchist ImplicationsThe state, however, is founded on violence. To enforce law and order, itdemands from its citizens a monopoly over the legitimate use of force. Hencecoercion is essential to government, to all governments. The state is founded on thevery thing Jesus prohibits.Christian anarchists reject the differentiation between ‘violence,’ with itsnegative connotations, and the state’s use of ‘force.’ Violence founds the state andpermeates its day-to-day administration. The state ‘cannot maintain itself save byand through violence.’19 The resulting tragedy is that although the state promises toprotect from evil, it itself ‘produces evil and extends it.’20The state is also more visibly violent, hence unchristian, in that it wages war. Indoing so, it breaks the older commandment not to kill. Thus ‘murder is committedin an organized way and upon a colossal scale by the state.’21To those who might retort that a distinction should be made between murderand war, Ballou asks rhetorically: ‘how many does it take to metamorphosewickedness into righteousness?’22 One person must not kill, several persons mustnot kill, but states may do it and it’s not murder – but how many does it take?Christian anarchists see no valid reason to distinguish between people acting ontheir own and people doing the same thing through the state. Christian commandsapply in both cases.A Christian Anarchist Critique of Violence__________________________________________________________________24As Ballou explains, ‘what [a man] does through others he really doeshimself.’23 When the state resists evil, its citizens who have consented to it holdingpower to resist evil are just as responsible for its behaviour as they would be if theyhad resisted evil themselves.Hence it is because of their absolute commitment to non-violence that Christiananarchists refuse to endorse the institution and conduct of the state. For them,Jesus’ teaching therefore ‘involves nothing less than the entire abolition of allcompulsory legislation, Law Courts, police, and prisons, as well as all forciblerestraint of man by man.’24 Christianity, that is, involves anarchism.Hennacy concludes that ‘anarchism is the negative side’ of ‘pacifism and theSermon on the Mount.’25 It is because they take Jesus’ words in the Sermon on theMount seriously, and because they consider the state to be, both in theory andpractice, in flagrant contravention of these, that Christian anarchists believeanarchism to be an inevitable corollary of Christianity. Christian anarchists moveby consistent logical reasoning from Jesus’ command not to resist evil, throughtheir assessment of state violence in both theory and practice, to their ultimaterejection of the state.Therefore, according to Tolstoy, every would-be Christian faces a choice: Godor the state, Jesus’ teaching and example or state theory and practice. It isimpossible to confess both.8. ConclusionChristian anarchists see the broader Sermon on the Mount as a politicaldocument, a manifesto for a Christian anarchist society. They take the politicalimplications of Jesus’ instructions seriously, especially non-resistance to evil. Theyinsist that Jesus is calling for his disciples to transcend lex talionis, to love andforgive evildoers in order for the cycle of violence which has blighted humanity tobe overcome. In that this cannot but require a rejection of state theory and practice,Jesus’ words are a call for revolution – a revolution which Jesus further taught andpracticed throughout the rest of his life, including even in his acceptance of deathby crucifixion.Notes1 P Maurin, Easy Essays, Rose Hill, Washington, 2003, p. 193.2 Matthew 5:38-42.3 MC Elliott, Freedom, Justice and Christian Counter-Culture, SCM, London,1990, p. 176.4 ibid.5 W Wink, Jesus’ Third Way, New Society, Philadelphia, 1987, p. 16.6 ibid., p. 19.7 Elliott, Freedom, Justice and Christian Counter-Culture, p. 177.Alexandre Christoyannopoulos___________________________________________________________________258 A Christoyannopoulos, Christian Anarchism, Imprint, Exeter, chap. 4.9 N Berdyaev, The Realm of Spirit and the Realm of Caesar, trans. D Lowrie,Victor Gollancz, London, 1952, p. 88.10 L Tolstoy, ‘The Law of Love and the Law of Violence’, A Confession and OtherReligious Writings, Penguin, London, 1987, p. 163.11 J Ellul, Violence, trans. C Gaul Kings, SCM, London, 1970, p. 99.12 A Goddard, Living the Word, Resisting the World, Paternoster, Milton Keynes,2002, p. 168.13 L Tolstoy, What I Believe, CW Daniel, London, 1902, p. 49.14 L Tolstoy, ‘The Gospel in Brief’, A Confession and the Gospel in Brief, OxfordUP, London, 1933, p. 269.15 A Ballou, ‘Christian Non-Resistance’, Viewed on 12 February 2007, http://www.adinballou.org/cnr.htm.16 Ellul, Violence, p. 173.17 ibid.18 Ballou, ‘Christian Non-Resistance’.19 Ellul, Violence, p. 84.20 Berdyaev, The Realm of the Spirit and the Realm of Caesar, p. 83.21 N Berdyaev, ‘Personality, Religion, and Existential Anarchism’, L Krimerman &L Perry (eds), Patterns of Anarchy, Anchor, Garden City, 1966, p. 159.22 A Ballou, The Kingdom of God and Peace Essays, Rupa, New Delhi, 2001, p.13.23 Ibid., p. 16.24 A Maude, The Life of Tolstóy, Oxford UP, London, 1930, p. 36.25 A Hennacy, The Book of Ammon, Fortkamp, Baltimore, 1994, p. 99.BibliographyBallou, A., The Kingdom of God and Peace Essays. Rupa, New Delhi, 2001.Ballou, A., ‘Christian Non-Resistance’, Viewed on 12 February 2007, http://www.adinballou.org/cnr.htm.Berdyaev, N., ‘Personality, Religion, and Existential Anarchism’. Patterns ofAnarchy. Krimerman, L. & Perry, L. (eds), Anchor, Garden City, 1966.Berdyaev, N., The Realm of Spirit and the Realm of Caesar. Victor Gollancz,London, 1952.Christoyannopoulos, A., Christian Anarchism. Imprint, Exeter.A Christian Anarchist Critique of Violence__________________________________________________________________26Elliott, M.C., Freedom, Justice and Christian Counter-Culture. SCM, London,1990, p. 176.Ellul, J., Violence. trans. Gaul Kings, C., SCM, London, 1970.Goddard, A., Living the Word, Resisting the World. Paternoster, Milton Keynes,2002.Hennacy, A., The Book of Ammon. Fortkamp, Baltimore, 1994, p. 99.Maude, A., The Life of Tolstóy. Oxford UP, London, 1930.Maurin, P., Easy Essays. Rose Hill, Washington, 2003, p. 193.Tolstoy, L., ‘The Law of Love and the Law of Violence’. A Confession and OtherReligious Writings. Penguin, London, 1987.Tolstoy, L., What I Believe. CW Daniel, London, 1902.Tolstoy, L., ‘The Gospel in Brief’. A Confession and the Gospel in Brief. OxfordUP, London, 1933.Wink, W., Jesus’ Third Way. New Society, Philadelphia, 1987, p. 16.Alexandre Christoyannopoulos is a Lecturer in Politics and History atLoughborough University. Further biographical details and a list of hispublications are available via http://www.christoyannopoulos.com.

A Christian anarchist critique of violence: From turning the other cheek to a rejection of the state

https://repository.lboro.ac.uk/articles/A_Christian_anarchist_critique_of_violence_From_turning_the_other_cheek_to_a_rejection_of_the_state/9469943/files/17094155.pdf

A Christian anarchist critique of violence: From turning the other cheek to a rejection of the state

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Loughborough University Institutional Repository