Soul Force

Waging War, Waging Peace

Rev. Paul Sprecher

Second Parish in Hingham, www.secondparish.org

June 1, 2008

Adin Ballou, author of the hymn “Years Are Coming” which we sang earlier, was a Universalist and a Unitarian minister who dedicated his life to non-violence. He believed that non-violence could be effective even in cases of extreme personal danger, such as these from his pamphlet “Christian Non-Resistance in Extreme Cases:”

A few years since, a young man in the vicinity of Philadelphia was one evening stopped in a grove, with the demand, "Your money, or your life." The robber then presented a pistol to his breast. The young man, having a large sum of money, proceeded leisurely and calmly to hand it over to his enemy, at the same time setting before him the wickedness and peril of his career. The rebukes of the young man cut the robber to the heart. He became enraged, cocked his pistol, held it to the young man's head, and with an oath, said, "Stop that preaching, or I will blow out your brains." The young man calmly replied, "Friend, to save my money, I would not risk my life; but to save you from your evil course, I am willing to die. I shall not cease to plead with you." He then poured in the truth still more earnestly and kindly. Soon the pistol fell to the ground; the tears began to flow; and the robber was overcome. He handed the money all back with the remark, "I cannot rob a man of such principles."

…. [Leonard Fell, a Quaker,] was assaulted in a much more violent manner. The robber rushed upon him, dragged him from his horse, rifled his pockets, and threatened to blow out his brains on the spot, if he made the least resistance. This was the work of a moment. But Fell experienced no panic. His principles raised him above the fear of man and of death. Though forbidden to speak, he calmly but resolutely reproved the robber for his wickedness, warned him of the consequences of such a course of life, counseled him to reform, and assured him that while he forgave this wanton outrage on himself, he hoped for his own sake he would henceforth betake himself to an upright calling. His expostulation was so fearless, faithful and affectionate, that the robber was struck with compunction, delivered back his money and horse, and bade him go in peace. Then, with tears filling his eyes, he exclaimed, "May God have mercy on a sinful wretch," and hastened out of sight.[1]

To broaden the context in the consideration of non-violence when danger to family and friends is involved, consider this lighter-hearted situation, from the book Dear Gandhi, Now What? by several of Gandhi’s admirers:

Dear Gandhi,

What if you were alone with your grandmother and she were viciously attacked by a heavyweight boxer armed with brass knuckles? Would you remain nonviolent?

Sincerely,

Earnest Truth Seeker

Dear Earnest,

Following Grandmother's warning, I would pull her shag rug out from under the attacker's feet as he crosses the threshold. That would cause him to fall so that his chin would come to rest comfortably on the far side of the little pillow on which Grandmother rests her feet. The brass knuckles would fly through the air and land harmlessly in the kitchen sink. Grandmother and I would then offer our chagrined visitor tea.

If that doesn't work, Grandmother has other ideas.

Nonviolence demands creativity.

Gandhi[2]

The Congregational Study Action Issue on Peacemaking which the congregations of the Unitarian Universalist Association are continuing to study for the next two years asks: “Should the Unitarian Universalist Association reject the use of any and all kinds of violence and war to resolve disputes between peoples and nations and adopt a principle of seeking just peace through nonviolent means?” If we were to adopt such a posture, it would align us with such traditional peace churches as the Quakers and the Mennonites, who also reject the bearing of arms and the use of violence in any context for the settlement of disputes.

Given our relatively greater theological diversity compared to the historic peace churches, I’m not at all certain how we’ll emerge from these congregational conversations, but I think a brief review of our history as Unitarians and Universalists and some reflections on the teachings of Jesus are relevant to our own consideration here at Second Parish. You may recall that as early as the Revolutionary War, Liberal Christians differed on support for rebellion. Here in Hingham, our first minister Daniel Shute was an enthusiastic supporter of the colonies while Ebenezer Gay at First Parish was much less inclined to support the war – at least at the beginning. William Ellery Channing spoke out stridently against the War of 1812, which he and many New Englanders perceived to favor the slaveholders of the South. You will probably recall the famous night that Henry David Thoreau spent in the Concord jail for refusing to pay a poll tax in support of the Mexican War of 1846-1848, a war which he believed was fought for the sole purpose of extending slavery into new territories and therefore unjust.

During the same era, Adin Ballou was refining his support of non-violence, as described in his book Christian Non-Resistance, published in 1846. He was also the founder of the utopian industrial community in Hopedale, just 50 miles west of here, which lasted as a community from 1841 to 1856, when it was taken over by two wealthy brothers and effectively turned into a factory town. While Channing and Thoreau had opposed particular wars, mainly because of they believed those wars promoted slavery, Ballou opposed all wars – indeed, all violence of any sort – even though he, too, was deeply committed to the abolition of slavery. He maintained his position during the Civil War, even when its purpose ultimately became the abolition of slavery. Ballou’s thoroughgoing commitment to non-violence in turn inspired Leo Tolstoy, the Russian novelist who wrote War and Peace, in his writing of The Kingdom of God is Within You. As Tolstoy puts it in that work,

For fifty years Ballou wrote and published books dealing principally with the question of non-resistance to evil by force…. The practical reasonableness of this rule of conduct is shown [in as well as] independently of Scripture, and all the objections ordinarily made against its practicability are stated and refuted.[3]

It was Tolstoy’s book which most affected the young Mohandas K. Gandhi when he was studying for the bar in London. As he said in his autobiography, “Before the independent thinking, profound morality, and the truthfulness of this book, all the books given me by [my Quaker friend] Mr. Coates seemed to pale in significance.[4] Starting from Tolstoy’s work, Gandhi in turn developed his strategy and practice of Satyagraha –Soul Force as opposed to the force of violence – as a tool to use first in struggles for equality in South Africa and then for the independence of India from Great Britain. We are all aware of the influence of Gandhi’s teachings on Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Civil Rights movement here in the United States, as well as in other non-violent changes of political power such as South Africa and Poland, among many others.

John Haynes Holmes, long-time minister of the Community Church of New York, was another noteworthy proponent of non-violence in our Unitarian tradition. He spoke strongly against U.S. participation in World War I, and he advocated that the American Unitarian Association not support that war. His was roundly defeated at the General Conference of Unitarians in 1917, when William Howard Taft, the last Unitarian president of the United States, took a strong and determined stand in support of the resolution for the war. Eight of the fifteen Unitarian ministers who were pacifists during that war were driven from their pulpits. After the war, Holmes discovered the work of Gandhi and became one of his strongest supporters in the United States. In World War II, the American Unitarian Association supported the war effort but also supported conscientious objectors in their refusal to participate in combat, including Donald Robinson, minister of this congregation from 1957 to 1977.

Turning now to the teachings of Jesus which underlie the commitment of the peace churches to non-violence, consider this from a statement by the Mennonite General Conference in 1937:

2. As followers of Christ the Prince of Peace, we believe His Gospel to be a Gospel of Peace, requiring us as His disciples to be at peace with all men, to live a life of love and good will, even toward our enemies, and to renounce the use of force and violence in all forms as contrary to the spirit of our Master. These principles we derive from such Scripture teachings as: "Love your enemies"; "Do good to them that hate you"; "Resist not evil"; "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight"; "Put up thy sword into its place; for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword"; "Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves"; "If thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head"… and other similar passages, as well as from the whole tenor of the Gospel.

3. Peace within the heart as well as toward others is a fruit of the Gospel. Therefore he who professes peace must at all times and in all relations with his fellow men live a life that is in harmony with the Gospel.

4. We believe that war is altogether contrary to the teaching and spirit of Christ and the Gospel, that therefore war is sin, as is all manner of carnal strife, that it is wrong in spirit and method as well as in purpose, and destructive in its results….[5]

I think it’s important not to misconstrue the teachings of Jesus on non-violence. One image we have is of “gentle Jesus, meek and mild,” and I think that image can mislead us about the real nature of his teachings on non-violence. When the translators of the King James Bible chose the words “Resist not evil” to render Jesus’ teaching in the Sermon on the Mount into English, they represent Jesus as coming down on the side of passivity in the face of evil. In fact, his teaching supports neither passivity nor violent opposition to evil, but rather militant non-violence. Jesus illustrates his teaching with three examples of how to respond to evil. “If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also.” [Matt 5:39] Walter Wink explains that, in the society in which Jesus lived, striking the right cheek would have to be done with the back of the right hand (since the left hand was used only for unclean tasks). He says, “What we are dealing with here is unmistakably an insult, not a fistfight. The intention is not to injure but to humiliate.”[6] Turning the other cheek, then, is not a meek response but a defiant one, a claim of equality to the one who is seeking to humiliate, to put the inferior into place. Jesus goes on to say, “if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well.” Again, we have a set of unequal relations. Someone is in dire straits, literally down to owning nothing but the clothes on his back. Jesus’ counsel is not just to capitulate modestly but literally to strip naked before the court to illustrate the real nature of what the one who is suing you is doing – stripping you of everything – as though to say “What do you want, my body as well?” This is not meekness, it is a form of turning the tables on the persecutor. It unmasks the unjustness of the law which is tilted in favor of the moneylender. Wink says, “The creditor is revealed to be not a ‘respectable’ moneylender but a party in the reduction of an entire social class to landlessness and destitution.”[7] Imagine if every homeowner foreclosed by a predatory lender did the same today!

The last example Jesus gives is “if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile.” Once again, this action turns the tables on the occupying power. Soldiers were allowed to demand that civilians carry their packs for a mile, but not more; anything beyond a mile resulted in severe penalties to the soldier, because it would have unduly increased the resentment of those being occupied. In effect, Jesus is again counseling turning the tables, putting the soldier in the position of violating his own code of conduct by insisting on carrying the load farther. The implicit message is, “You think you’re in charge and can force me to do what you want; actually, I do what I want, not by defying you but by forcing you into the wrong.” This political theater proposed by Jesus is quite different from meek submission to evil; on the contrary, it’s the sort of resistance that ultimately led to his crucifixion.

Now, I want to be very careful to mark a clear distinction here between religion and politics. This is a religious institution, after all, not a political one, but at the same time we also call ourselves followers of Jesus here, so I think it’s important to consider how his teachings touch us in all areas of our lives, and that means considering, for example, how we make political as well as personal decisions as individuals. Of course, we live in a very different world than Jesus did. He lived in a colony controlled by the most powerful nation on earth at that time, while our nation is today the most powerful. Nevertheless, I believe his teachings contain profound spiritual truths which continue to resonate in our circumstances as well. Jesus teaches that serving violence breeds violence, and I believe that we see some of the truth of this teaching in the high incidence of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder among veterans returning from combat. At a minimum, we need to learn better how to help our veterans detoxify themselves from the violence they have encountered and been forced to inflict if we are to avoid having that violence play itself out on our own streets and in our own homes. It’s also important to say that none of these considerations in any way reduce the honor due to those who serve and have served bravely and honorably in our armed forces. We live in an imperfect world, and while we work toward peace, we still live in a world at war on many fronts. Our job is to find alternatives, not to dishonor those who serve.

More broadly, though, I would raise this question: How much are we devoting to war, and how much are we devoting to peace? An accurate characterization of how much the United States spends for war is difficult to determine because of the many components that are involved. If we just take the direct military budget and our nuclear arsenal, though, most observers agree that we spend about $510 billion as a baseline; an amount which is about 47% of all such military expenditures worldwide. If we add in costs for past wars such as veterans’ benefits and some share of the costs of the national debt, the number would go much higher. Even at the lower number, however, we in the United States, with about 22% of the world’s total economic production, expend almost half of all military funds. As for peace, if we considered all of the costs for our State Department, for support of the United Nations and for Foreign Aid, we would get to a total of less than $20 billion, or less than 4% of the direct defense department budget.

One observer suggests that one of the problems with finding alternatives to war is that we haven’t studied peacemaking nearly as carefully as we have studied how to conduct wars. We have a department of defense, but we don’t have a department of peace. Might it be that by making peace a deliberate intention of our policy we would find our way clearer to reducing the enormous impact of violence on our national budget, our young people, and our earth?

As I said at the beginning, I think we as an association of congregations may have a difficult time coming to a consensus on the issue of peacemaking, particularly if we propose to take a position of thoroughgoing opposition to all wars in the manner of the Mennonites or Quakers. There is, though, a tradition of non-violence deep in our own religious history, and the teachings of Jesus provide a clear alternative to both passivity and violence in the face of evil. More than that, as the stories I told at the beginning suggest, choosing non-violent responses occurs in many contexts in our lives, within our families, in response to violence directed against us, in our neighborhoods, as well as in our response to great issues of war and peace.

As a congregation, I would hope that we here could at least start a conversation about peacemaking and consider in the process whether our religious path as followers of Jesus might make demands on us to speak more firmly as individuals on matters of war and peace.

The words of Jesus speak to us across the centuries and call us to follow in a sometimes challenging path toward peace and toward what he called the Kingdom of Heaven. Determining how to answer requires study and prayer. May we be worthy of that call.

Amen.