Thread: Violence: what is it, and is it always bad? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029118
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
A major tangent has emerged on the Constantinianism thread (from about here), where Alan Cresswell said quote:
we can't simply state "Christianity does not permit violence" (...) We need to tackle the questions raised by Jesus who acted violently, and pre-emptively taking time to make the whip, driving out the merchants from the Temple
Since then, in essence, opinions have been divided between those who seem to think that Jesus was not violent because there is no evidence he actually struck anybody, and those like Alan (and me) who seem to think his actions could be described as violent even if no actual hurt was caused, without this being necessarily sinful.
(Several people have observed that the precise definition of violence also appears to vary from language to language).
To me, on the face of it, excising violence of all kinds from Scripture appears problematic; I also think there are more ways of being violent than physical ones, and these include some of the nastier ones.
Can we discuss what we think about violence here (and possibly consign to Kerygmania any further detailed discussion of individual, specific biblical texts)?
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
you can't really post the first part and also abscond with that final sentence, Eutychus. You're taking Jesus's actions as a role model for your argument and then declaring that your basis for all of this is completely out of bounds.
Stating categorically that Jesus whipped people (and didn't use this just to move all the animals) out of the temple, and "man-handled" the money lenders as well as turning their tables over - is a bit of a dodgy position to take. The eye witness statements are not consistent enough, for starters. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. Interesting symbology, though.
I think that sometimes - violence appears necessary... Would Ghandi have stopped Hitler? Probably not. Do we over-use it? Yes. Do we make a cult out of it? Yes - from "boys" mags of the 50's through to the CGI violence of modern films and computer games, I think there is a certain numbness that drives a higher baseline of violence.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Kerygmania is destined to take apart a specific text, or possibly in this case a group of texts (Jesus in the temple). I hope somebody might either find a non-limbo'd Keryg thread or start a new one. My aim is broader, and I think more purgatorial.
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
Stating categorically that Jesus whipped people (and didn't use this just to move all the animals) out of the temple, and "man-handled" the money lenders as well as turning their tables over - is a bit of a dodgy position to take.
How you can think that is my position from what I posted is beyond me.
My entire point in respect of this passage is that in my view, just because there is no physical contact between a proponent and a recipient does not mean a confrontation is not violent.
I would like to explore what we understand by violence and how we understand a range of Scriptures on the subject, as Alan suggested.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I think one of the problems is the word in English, as Eutychus has indicated. And of course that fact that it shares a root with the verb "violate".
So automatically there are many justifiably negative associations with the word itself.
I think it may be possible to divide thinking between the justifiable application of force, and the unbridled use of force as a kind of lashing out. The term "domestic violence" is for example normally used in the latter context.
I think there are circumstances under which the use of physical force is justified. If you are on the receiving end, however, you may well regard that as violent treatment. Where is the line between justified and unjustified?
So I think the word itself is tricky, and the use of it (and its synonyms) in the biblical material is even trickier! I'll be interested in responses here. My own understanding of this topic is definitely "work in progress".
[ 22. March 2015, 17:20: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on
:
You could look at "violence" from the perspective of someone on the receiving end of it. If you feel your physical welfare is being threatened, you'll probably reckon you are on the wrong end of "violent" behaviour.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
When I was in Honduras, I did some work about the prevention of domestic violence. Honduran law defines four categories of domestic violence:- physical
- sexual
- psychological
- patrimonial (breaking stuff)
It's possible to be violent without the other person suffering physical harm.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
Under Honduran law, Jesus was violent.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
Jesus did say he came not to bring peace but a sword. In Matthew 10:3436, Jesus said He had come at this time not to bring peace to the earth, but a sword, a weapon which divides and severs. As a result of His visit to the earth, some children would be set against parents and a mans enemies might be those within his own household. This is because many who choose to follow Christ are hated by their family members. This may be part of the cost of discipleship, for love of family should not be greater than love for the Lord. A true disciple must take up his cross and follow Jesus (Matthew 16:24). He must be willing to face not only family hatred, but also death, like a criminal carrying his cross to his own execution. True followers of Christ must be willing to give up, even to the point of hating all that is in our lives, even our own families, if we are to be worthy of Him (Matthew 10:3739). In so doing, we find our lives in return for having given them up to Jesus Christ.
The Matthew community was no doubt experiencing families turning in on each other as the result of Christian conversions. It seems that Jesus was saying to expect to be on the receiving end of violence if you become a Christian.
But then there comes a question, can there be justifiable violence. Jesus did not seem to have any problems relating to soldiers, simply telling them to expect no more than their pay (ie not to plunder). He healed the servant of one Centurion, remarking he had never seen such great faith as the Centurion had.
The church has long struggled with the question of what is a just war. Basically, it comes down to:
Just Cause--to correct an evil if there is no other way (ie ISIS comes to mind)
Comparative Justice--the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh the injustice of another party
Competent Authority--the decision to go to war must be initiated by proper civil authority (such as a declaration of war by Parliament/Congress)
Right intention--to correct a wrong, not material gain
Probability of Success--Jesus himself told a parable about what king in his right mind would want to go to war unless he was sure he could win.
Last Resort. Someone said war is the result of failed diplomacy.
Proportionality--The anticipated benefits of waging a war must be proportionate to its expected evils or harms.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
The problem with this question is that we can come at it from diametrically opposite places. The one that bothers me the most is that when I, as a person committed to avoiding violence, discuss this principle, I am usually asked a variation of "suppose a person breaks into your house and is about to attack and kill your family and you, would you not respond with violence to protect them?" To which I have started answering "you would do such a thing? break into my house and threaten my family and me with violence? you are a troubled sick person."
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The one that bothers me the most is that when I, as a person committed to avoiding violence, discuss this principle, I am usually asked a variation of "suppose a person breaks into your house and is about to attack and kill your family and you, would you not respond with violence to protect them?" To which I have started answering "you would do such a thing? break into my house and threaten my family and me with violence? you are a troubled sick person."
That seems awfully passive-aggressive. You're avoiding a difficult question by being provocative and twisting their words.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Beeswax Altar: Under Honduran law, Jesus was violent.
Indeed.
quote:
Gramps49: Last Resort. Someone said war is the result of failed diplomacy.
This is my position. Violence should be a last resort and if you have to use it, you've probably failed elsewhere.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
That seems awfully passive-aggressive. You're avoiding a difficult question by being provocative and twisting their words.
Yes it is. But we have the twisting of the topic by such questions to set the parameters such that the only reasonable answer can only be a violent one, which is what the questioner wants. Then they do an "ah ha!, caught you out!".
The better question is why someone would plan violence in the first place such that they would wish to break into a house and threaten.
I think that humans have violent motivations and non-violent motivations by our very nature. I have thought the Germans got it right when they acknowledged schadenfreude and the "inner asshole" (Innerer Schweinehund) all humans carry with them, cf "inner child". (link is German, I don't find it in English to this picture.)
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The better question is why someone would plan violence in the first place such that they would wish to break into a house and threaten.
It is indeed a good question and a sobering one. The the fact of the matter is that some do so wish, and some of those do so do. So I don't see that asking how we should respond to them to be a "twisting" question. It's "testing point" question. It's all well and good to be anti-violent when there's nothing at stake. But if your theology (or philosophy or whatever-it-should-be-called) of nonviolence can't handle the difficult cases, then it's not fully developed. It suggests you need to do more thinking about how to live out your philosophy in this world, the dangerous one, the one in which people sometimes break into homes and threaten one's family.
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Beeswax Altar: Under Honduran law, Jesus was violent.
Indeed.
quote:
Gramps49: Last Resort. Someone said war is the result of failed diplomacy.
This is my position. Violence should be a last resort and if you have to use it, you've probably failed elsewhere.
Peace in our time. Sometimes you can't not fail, if your adversary doesn't want a diplomatic solution, or if their demands are too egregious to accept.
[ 22. March 2015, 20:19: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
When I was in Honduras, I did some work about the prevention of domestic violence. Honduran law defines four categories of domestic violence:- physical
- sexual
- psychological
- patrimonial (breaking stuff)
It's possible to be violent without the other person suffering physical harm.
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Under Honduran law, Jesus was violent.
Is he? If Jesus didn't whip/touch any humans in the cleansing of the temple (something we've debated on the other thread) I don't see how Jesus' actions would hit any of the other Honduran categories either, with the possible exception of "patrimonial" if something got broken when he overturned the tables.
[ 22. March 2015, 20:22: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
That seems awfully passive-aggressive. You're avoiding a difficult question by being provocative and twisting their words.
Yes it is. But we have the twisting of the topic by such questions to set the parameters such that the only reasonable answer can only be a violent one, which is what the questioner wants. Then they do an "ah ha!, caught you out!".
The better question is why someone would plan violence in the first place such that they would wish to break into a house and threaten.
I think that humans have violent motivations and non-violent motivations by our very nature. I have thought the Germans got it right when they acknowledged schadenfreude and the "inner asshole" (Innerer Schweinehund) all humans carry with them, cf "inner child". (link is German, I don't find it in English to this picture.)
Here's what
The Boydster has to say on this one. He re-frames the question in the light of what Jesus meant by "non resistance." Nice short piece.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The better question is why someone would plan violence in the first place such that they would wish to break into a house and threaten.
It is indeed a good question and a sobering one. The the fact of the matter is that some do so wish, and some of those do so do. So I don't see that asking how we should respond to them to be a "twisting" question. It's "testing point" question. It's all well and good to be anti-violent when there's nothing at stake. But if your theology (or philosophy or whatever-it-should-be-called) of nonviolence can't handle the difficult cases, then it's not fully developed. It suggests you need to do more thinking about how to live out your philosophy in this world, the dangerous one, the one in which people sometimes break into homes and threaten one's family.
I agree-- Walter Wink does a good, albeit challenging!-- job of parsing out what it means to commit to living non-violently in a violent world.
I agree with other shippies that turning the question back on the questioner is at best evasive, and at worst passive-aggressive. Those of us who advocate for non-violence need to consider how we would live that out, what the boundaries are, and why.
Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on
:
Just while I'm on it, the Philokalia talks about directing our "violence" towards demonic powers. If you feel like getting mad, get mad with the devil.
Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on
:
In the story under discussion in that other thread, Jesus clearly used "force," which may or may not be understood as "violence" by the one(s) being subjected to the force
But I think that there is a clear and vital and necessary distinction to be made
They are not the same thing
If the cops, e.g., make a "show of force" in the presence of a public demonstration -- (say, some radical guy came into a church and overturned the cashier's table at the church bazaar) -- but the cops didn't actually strike the protester with a fist or a club or such, was the cops' intervention "violent"
??? I don't think so
"Violence" (against a person) is by definition a physical strike that does or could cause pain, leave a bruise or a laceration, etc. ...
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
In the story under discussion in that other thread, Jesus clearly used "force," which may or may not be understood as "violence" by the one(s) being subjected to the force
But I think that there is a clear and vital and necessary distinction to be made
They are not the same thing
If the cops, e.g., make a "show of force" in the presence of a public demonstration -- (say, some radical guy came into a church and overturned the cashier's table at the church bazaar) -- but the cops didn't actually strike the protester with a fist or a club or such, was the cops' intervention "violent"
??? I don't think so
Yes. The definition being put forward here and on the Constantinian thread re violence being ANY sort of force or compulsion, including non-physical force, is going to get ludicrous pretty fast. Any sort of law itself is, by definition, compulsion-- "forcing" you to comply with it's demands or face retribution in the form of fines or imprisonment. Similarly, Trocme, Gandhi and MLK, all considered leaders of the non-violent movement, all used force in some form or another-- e.g. MLK's brilliant use of economic force in the bus boycott to bring out their desired goal of desegregation.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
"Violence" (against a person) is by definition a physical strike that does or could cause pain, leave a bruise or a laceration, etc. ...
What about psychological violence?
I think you could argue what Jesus did in the Temple was psychologically violent. I'm not sure that makes it morally wrong, though, especially given that it was him.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
"Violence" (against a person) is by definition a physical strike that does or could cause pain, leave a bruise or a laceration, etc. ...
By whose definition? Not by WHO's definition:
quote:
Violence is defined by the World Health Organization as "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation", but acknowledges that the inclusion of "the use of power" in its definition expands on the conventional meaning of the word. This definition involves intentionality with the committing of the act itself, irrespective of the outcome it produces. However, generally, anything that is excited in an injurious or damaging way may be described as violent even if not meant to be violence (by a person and against a person).
(wikipedia, emphasis mine)
It is surely a legitimate question to ask where non-violent abuse shades over into violence. Although I'm not sure it helps the argument of the apologists here to say "Jesus was merely abusive, not violent per se." One could possibly assert that overturning tables is not violent (although I'd disagree), but it's hard to see how it's not abusive.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
. But if your theology (or philosophy or whatever-it-should-be-called) of nonviolence can't handle the difficult cases, then it's not fully developed. It suggests you need to do more thinking about how to live out your philosophy in this world, the dangerous one, the one in which people sometimes break into homes and threaten one's family.
I have considered this question most of my life.
I recall specifically formulating my first major response to violence to other boys at my boarding school, with the resolve to get up about 5:00 a.m. and leave my room to avoid having to punch those who came searching for newboys to hit after wake-up. The game was to hold you down and 3 or 5 of them to take turns punching your upper arm, in their hope to get tears and calls for mercy, which of course was fuel for their evil little fires. There are interesting and oddly intimate conversations between the tormenters and tormented, an unholy evil shared between perpetrator and victim in a shared, disordered scene.
When they weren't punching arms, they liked to rap our heads with knuckles to create goose eggs. All accompanied by general beatings. I learned that punching back did work, once. If this was chosen, you had to pick one nose and hit as hard as you could. Satisfying in the moment and in the brave retelling to your dorm mates, and, it also allowed better coping with the beatings received on subsequent occasions. By retaliating, we learned that there was a comforting image of a bloodied nose to draw on. But I reasoned it was better to get up and out of the dorm before the old boys showed up.
Your point is a good one about the developed thinking required. However, I think it asks for a perfection for nonviolent response in an absurd world which shows no perfection, and of people like myself who at best moderately capable of goodness, and are often without any control at all in given situations. I remember reading the book and subsequently seeing the play and movie Kiss Of The Spider Woman, which speaks poignantly of these issues.
[ 22. March 2015, 21:19: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
I was also wondering about how the clearing of the temple would be approached today.
Negotiations? Police intervention with minimum use of force? Any table-turning would surely have been incidental rather than a deliberate part of the action?
Most churches would probably simply set up a committee...
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I was also wondering about how the clearing of the temple would be approached today.
Depends greatly on how dark you think Jesus' skin was.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
cliffdweller: If Jesus didn't whip/touch any humans in the cleansing of the temple (something we've debated on the other thread) I don't see how Jesus' actions would hit any of the other Honduran categories either, with the possible exception of "patrimonial" if something got broken when he overturned the tables.
Perhaps. But if I was a vendor and I'd set up my table (something that seems to have been allowed or at least condoned by the Temple authorities) and someone would suddenly come in and overturn my table (with my stuff on it), yes I would call that violent.
My stuff could have become dirty so that I couldn't sell it anymore (e.g. sacrifical meat), some of my coins could have gone lost in the dust ... And if it is true that I was driven out of the Temple, I would have lost my stuff. Under Honduran law, I think this would fall under 'patrimonial violence'.
Last month I was in a supermarket in Brazil. There was a dispute between two customers about who was the first at check-out. This ended up with one customer clashing his shopping cart against the other customer's. No-one was physically hurt, but all bystanders agreed that this was a violent action.
I'd even say that one custumer violently clashed his shopping cart against the other customer's. And I think that would be correct English.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
"Violence" (against a person) is by definition a physical strike that does or could cause pain, leave a bruise or a laceration, etc. ...
What about psychological violence?
I think you could argue what Jesus did in the Temple was psychologically violent. I'm not sure that makes it morally wrong, though, especially given that it was him.
Wiki (quoting, among others, The British Journal of Psychiatry) defines psychological abuse as "Psychological abuse, also referred to as emotional abuse or mental abuse, is a form of abuse characterized by a person subjecting or exposing another to behavior that may result in psychological trauma, including anxiety, chronic depression, or post-traumatic stress disorder." I see no indication that the cleansing of the Temple induces any of these sorts of psychological impact on the moneychangers or anyone else.
Wiki goes on to say (again, quoting BJP) "Such abuse is often associated with situations of power imbalance, such as abusive relationships, bullying, and abuse in the workplace." In this scenario, any imbalance of power would be to Jesus' detriment, not the moneychangers.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
See what LeRoc wrote.
I think you are desperate not to see any violence at all in the cleansing of the temple episode because you cannot countenance Jesus being violent.
You are trying to fit the text to your assumption. If I was a vendor, hell yes I'd be traumatised. But that might be what others might term a "wake-up call". It's still a violent confrontation.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Here's the scene, from the Campus Crusade Jesus film I think (utterly cheesy in many places). Notice Jesus doesn't actually hit any people (or animals, I think!).
I know it's not-brilliant acting, but can anybody imagine this event going down markedly differently to this? Or argue that it did not involve violence in some shape or form?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
See what LeRoc wrote.
I think you are desperate not to see any violence at all in the cleansing of the temple episode because you cannot countenance Jesus being violent.
You are trying to fit the text to your assumption. If I was a vendor, hell yes I'd be traumatised. But that might be what others might term a "wake-up call". It's still a violent confrontation.
I think you're playing fast & loose w/ the meaning of "trauma". Upset, yes. Angry, sure. But traumatized? I don't think this fits the diagnostic criteria.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
As far as what the moneychangers actually felt (still less shoehorning it into contemporary pigeonholes) we are both speculating. But I know how I'd feel, and I can't imagine onlookers thinking that it was anything but violent confrontation, even if no physical violence against people was involved.
Certainly, as hinted above, I can imagine other ways the exchange could have taken place that would have been a lot less violent than what the text records.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
I found a couple of interesting things in that (fictionalised version of the Gospel texts) film clip Eutychus linked to.
But, possibly most interesting was the Temple authorities appearing with armed guards. It's similar to the "would you call the cops, and what would they do?" comments earlier. We know from elsewhere in the Gospels that there were armed guards attached to the Temple - they appear in Gethsemane to arrest Jesus. We also know the Romans were not averse to sending soldiers into the Temple to restore order or break-up potential rebellion, indeed I've read in several places that the Romans maintained a garrison practically next to the Temple on the (not to unreasonable) basis that if trouble was to break out in Jerusalem it would start at the Temple. Why didn't all these armed, trained troops just march in and pull the whip out of Jesus' hand and drag Him off to at least cool off in the cells a few hours? If Jesus was striking out at people with His home-made whip that wouldn't have fazed soldiers in armour, if He was only waving it around to scare the animals clearly showing no intention to use it on people then the soldiers would have had even less reason to stand back.
I think this is relevant in relation to this comment:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
In this scenario, any imbalance of power would be to Jesus' detriment, not the moneychangers.
Jesus was clearly the person with power here. He was calling the shots, and even the priests with their armed guards to back them up could do nothing but ask Him a question. Why? What power did He have that would hold trained soldiers back from arresting a carpenter with a few bits of rope as His only weapon? The answer, surely, is the same that forced the priests to find a traitor and arrest Him quietly at night. Jesus had the support of the common people. He came into the Temple with two weapons that day, His whip of cords and the knowledge that He had the support of the crowds. Someone with the support of the common people holds considerable political power, often enough to overrule the power of wealth.
It's interesting here to think about the Roman Empire. In Rome there were two political groups. The Senate, composed of the rich and powerful landowners. And, the Emperor who held his position over the Senate almost entirely because of the support of the people (and, of course, in particular those sons of ordinary citizens who served in the Legions). Support that was secured by providing the people with a daily ration of grain and occasional bits of spectacle ("bread and circuses").
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
See what LeRoc wrote.
I think you are desperate not to see any violence at all in the cleansing of the temple episode because you cannot countenance Jesus being violent.
You are trying to fit the text to your assumption.
Yes (well, desperate may be a bit of hyperbole). But that assumption is based on the rest of what we know about Jesus from the gospels-- both from his words and from his actions, particularly his actions in very close proximity to this event. I maintain that is not eisegesis, but rather good exegesis-- to consider any one text in light of the whole.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
But, the context also includes Jesus who said He does what He sees His Father doing.
That would include cleansing His people by sending assorted boils, snakes and other nasties. It would include cleansing the Promised Land by ordering His people to commit genocide. It would include cleansing the world by drowning everyone except 8 people in a boat.
Cleansing the Temple waving around a few bits of rope and tossing some tables about is pretty tame in comparison.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Feeling clueless today (which is possibly a sign of impending virus, oh noes). Why is it so important to deny that Jesus was/is/will be ever violent?
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
If the cops, e.g., make a "show of force" in the presence of a public demonstration -- (say, some radical guy came into a church and overturned the cashier's table at the church bazaar) -- but the cops didn't actually strike the protester with a fist or a club or such, was the cops' intervention "violent"
??? I don't think so
"Violence" (against a person) is by definition a physical strike that does or could cause pain, leave a bruise or a laceration, etc. ...
Have you ever had a firearm pointed at you? I assure you, it's a violent act, even when committed by the police.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
What about psychological violence?
I think you could argue what Jesus did in the Temple was psychologically violent.
Exactly.
As far as the morality - violence is always regrettable. Sometimes, however, it is the proper response.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Cleansing the Temple waving around a few bits of rope and tossing some tables about is pretty tame in comparison.
wait... wasn't that MY point???
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Feeling clueless today (which is possibly a sign of impending virus, oh noes). Why is it so important to deny that Jesus was/is/will be ever violent?
As I said, it's important to me, because I see it as inconsistent with what he taught and the way he lived his life, and in particular, the way we see him acting in close proximity to the cleansing of the Temple. Since I want to strive to imitate Jesus, however ineptly, it's important to me to understand how he acted and why.
But as you can see on this thread, other people-- yourself included, presumably-- see it differently. I would assume either you/they don't see the pacifist pattern I see in Jesus' teaching and action (here I'm heavily indebted to Wink and Boyd) or they see something particular about the cleansing of the Temple that falls under some understanding of "just war" (which I find problematic, although obviously not as problematic as war w/o any ethical criteria).
ymmv. probably does.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Cleansing the Temple waving around a few bits of rope and tossing some tables about is pretty tame in comparison.
wait... wasn't that MY point???
I thought your point was that in cleansing the Temple Jesus was not committing violence. And, your support for that position was ultimately that such an act was inconsistent with the rest of Jesus ministry. That context of Jesus not committing violence means you favour an interpretation of the cleansing of the Temple in which Jesus drive out the animals (without, presumably, causing injury or distress to them, or in any other way acting violently towards them) and the marketeers simple follow their stock, and approached the tables of the money changers and asked politely "would you please step back while I turn your table over and spread your cash across the floor, because I wouldn't want it to land on your foot".
Did I get that wrong?
My point is that a violent act cleansing the Temple is consistent with a God who throughout the OT commits violent acts (or, instructs His people to do so) in an attempt to maintain the purity of His people and the world. It's just that on the scale of violence it is mild (to put it mildly) compared to genocide of entire city states.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
"Violence" (against a person) is by definition a physical strike that does or could cause pain, leave a bruise or a laceration, etc. ...
By whose definition? Not by WHO's definition:
quote:
Violence is defined by the World Health Organization as "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation", but acknowledges that the inclusion of "the use of power" in its definition expands on the conventional meaning of the word. This definition involves intentionality with the committing of the act itself, irrespective of the outcome it produces. However, generally, anything that is excited in an injurious or damaging way may be described as violent even if not meant to be violence (by a person and against a person).
(wikipedia, emphasis mine)
Am I the only one who can't parse this definition? Doesn't this definition seem to be saying that violence requires intent but does not have to be meant as violence by the person committing it?
Count me among those who see an overall pattern of non-violence in Jesus's actions but don't have a problem describing this act as violence.
In an imperfect world violence can sometimes be justified in self-defense or in defense of those who are weaker or more vulnerable.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
That context of Jesus not committing violence means you favour an interpretation of the cleansing of the Temple in which Jesus drive out the animals (without, presumably, causing injury or distress to them, or in any other way acting violently towards them) and the marketeers simple follow their stock, and approached the tables of the money changers and asked politely "would you please step back while I turn your table over and spread your cash across the floor, because I wouldn't want it to land on your foot".
Did I get that wrong?
Just a wee bit of snark. I've been known to indulge in that a time or two myself.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
@ Alan Cresswell.
Which demonstrates the problem very well, Alan.
I think the issue of making sense of violence in scripture is very much bound up with the deeper question of making sense of scripture as a whole.
I'm pretty attracted to the notion of a developing revelation about the nature of God in scripture and tradition; from henotheism to monotheism to trinitarianism. Although there isn't a neat progression, far from it, it's possible to argue that there is a kind of dawning realisation going on.
Something similar is also going on in the dawning understanding of the position of the "outsider". Gentiles will be enlightened by the chosen people, will be absorbed into the chosen people as part of an inclusive Israel. If the chosen people are to be a light to the Gentiles, then the Gentiles are no longer disposable as a part of herem; the devoting of the land and the people back to God away from the idol-worshipers, whose lives are clearly discountable because "they" are not "us". That is henotheism; tribal-God-think.
In the New Testament the "us" are the poor in spirit, the not-wise, the lost, the strayed. The "they" are the proud, the mighty, the rich, who will be brought low as the lowly are lifted up. And so Jesus' wrath is directed to the "they" who think they are "us". In line with the prophets, Jesus identifies the proud, the mighty, the rich and the exploiters as the ones deceived about their own righteousness, their chosenness. So the poor hear him gladly. And that is the context for the temple cleansing. Jesus takes the law into his own hands because those who should have protected the house of prayer from exploiters are part of the exploiters. And brings the wrath of the existing authority down on his head.
I think any theology of violence in scripture will probably need to contextualise the violent acts in scripture within this greater narrative; that God is not a akin to a tribal prince or only interested in one "ethne" (people group). He is there for all. And he is particularly a restorer of justice to those oppressed, whoever the oppressors are.
That's just a rough sketch of how we might revisit violence in scripture first, before considering issues such as justifiable force.
(big xpost!)
[ 23. March 2015, 00:40: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
In an imperfect world violence can sometimes be justified in self-defense or in defense of those who are weaker or more vulnerable.
Neither of which seems to be the case here, though.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
That context of Jesus not committing violence means you favour an interpretation of the cleansing of the Temple in which Jesus drive out the animals (without, presumably, causing injury or distress to them, or in any other way acting violently towards them) and the marketeers simple follow their stock, and approached the tables of the money changers and asked politely "would you please step back while I turn your table over and spread your cash across the floor, because I wouldn't want it to land on your foot".
Did I get that wrong?
Just a wee bit of snark. I've been known to indulge in that a time or two myself.
Nice dodge. Will you answer the question?
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
Have you ever had a firearm pointed at you? I assure you, it's a violent act, even when committed by the police.
I have. A Kalashnikov. It was certainly traumatizing for me.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
In the New Testament the "us" are the poor in spirit, the not-wise, the lost, the strayed. The "they" are the proud, the mighty, the rich, who will be brought low as the lowly are lifted up. And so Jesus' wrath is directed to the "they" who think they are "us".
Interesting. In the Orthodox Church we are taught to identify with the proud, mighty, and rich, inasmuch as we are sinners in need of cleansing, and not perfected saints. We are told, if you identify with the Publican in the parable and not the Pharisee, you've missed the point, and are thinking better of yourself than you ought to. By identifying with the Publican, you prove you're the Pharisee. If you identify with the Pharisee, you can then repent.
Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
In the story under discussion in that other thread, Jesus clearly used "force," which may or may not be understood as "violence" by the one(s) being subjected to the force
But I think that there is a clear and vital and necessary distinction to be made
They are not the same thing
If the cops, e.g., make a "show of force" in the presence of a public demonstration -- (say, some radical guy came into a church and overturned the cashier's table at the church bazaar) -- but the cops didn't actually strike the protester with a fist or a club or such, was the cops' intervention "violent"
??? I don't think so
Yes. The definition being put forward here and on the Constantinian thread re violence being ANY sort of force or compulsion, including non-physical force, is going to get ludicrous pretty fast. Any sort of law itself is, by definition, compulsion-- "forcing" you to comply with it's demands or face retribution in the form of fines or imprisonment. Similarly, Trocme, Gandhi and MLK, all considered leaders of the non-violent movement, all used force in some form or another-- e.g. MLK's brilliant use of economic force in the bus boycott to bring out their desired goal of desegregation.
Huh
So
A supposedly non-violent show of force (a sit*in at a segregated lunch counter) wasn't really NON "violent," after all
???
If mom and dad require a youngster to do her/his homework (or *ELSE* !!!), is that then "domestic violence" - "child abuse"
???
Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
"Violence" (against a person) is by definition a physical strike that does or could cause pain, leave a bruise or a laceration, etc. ...
What about psychological violence?
I think you could argue what Jesus did in the Temple was psychologically violent. I'm not sure that makes it morally wrong, though, especially given that it was him.
Jesus' prophetic act in the Temple courtyard certainly annoyed the authorities
but I doubt that the were somehow psychologically traumatized
Really
???
Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I was also wondering about how the clearing of the temple would be approached today.
Negotiations? Police intervention with minimum use of force? Any table-turning would surely have been incidental rather than a deliberate part of the action?
Most churches would probably simply set up a committee...
As with so much in life, it depends
As a parish pastor, I would handle the situation with a pastoral deescalation if the person is a congregant with whom I have a pastoral relationship
OTOH, if the person is a stranger off the street armed with, say, a machete and a can of wasp spray, I would call the police and evacuate the building ...
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
That context of Jesus not committing violence means you favour an interpretation of the cleansing of the Temple in which Jesus drive out the animals (without, presumably, causing injury or distress to them, or in any other way acting violently towards them) and the marketeers simple follow their stock, and approached the tables of the money changers and asked politely "would you please step back while I turn your table over and spread your cash across the floor, because I wouldn't want it to land on your foot".
Did I get that wrong?
Just a wee bit of snark. I've been known to indulge in that a time or two myself.
Nice dodge. Will you answer the question?
No dodge. I'm saying, yes, I believe Alan understands my position, with the exception that I don't think Jesus politely asked the moneychangers to step back. That was Alan being a wee bit snarky/ hyperbolic, but we both recognize that, I think, and as I'm prone to doing the same, I'm not going to get too offended-- just alerting him that I noticed. There are a world of possibilities along the continuum of "politely requesting them to leave" and "beating them within an inch of their death so they flee in genuine fear for their lives." Mine is a bit closer to the former than most other posters here, but I think we all see it somewhere in the middle of that continuum rather than at either extreme.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
In the story under discussion in that other thread, Jesus clearly used "force," which may or may not be understood as "violence" by the one(s) being subjected to the force
But I think that there is a clear and vital and necessary distinction to be made
They are not the same thing
If the cops, e.g., make a "show of force" in the presence of a public demonstration -- (say, some radical guy came into a church and overturned the cashier's table at the church bazaar) -- but the cops didn't actually strike the protester with a fist or a club or such, was the cops' intervention "violent"
??? I don't think so
Yes. The definition being put forward here and on the Constantinian thread re violence being ANY sort of force or compulsion, including non-physical force, is going to get ludicrous pretty fast. Any sort of law itself is, by definition, compulsion-- "forcing" you to comply with it's demands or face retribution in the form of fines or imprisonment. Similarly, Trocme, Gandhi and MLK, all considered leaders of the non-violent movement, all used force in some form or another-- e.g. MLK's brilliant use of economic force in the bus boycott to bring out their desired goal of desegregation.
Huh
So
A supposedly non-violent show of force (a sit*in at a segregated lunch counter) wasn't really NON "violent," after all
???
If mom and dad require a youngster to do her/his homework (or *ELSE* !!!), is that then "domestic violence" - "child abuse"
???
Well, obviously that's not my position-- it's the one I'm arguing against. I'm just trying to parse out the position of those who are suggesting that any show of force, any compulsion, including non-physical compulsion, is "violent."
Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
In the story under discussion in that other thread, Jesus clearly used "force," which may or may not be understood as "violence" by the one(s) being subjected to the force
But I think that there is a clear and vital and necessary distinction to be made
They are not the same thing
If the cops, e.g., make a "show of force" in the presence of a public demonstration -- (say, some radical guy came into a church and overturned the cashier's table at the church bazaar) -- but the cops didn't actually strike the protester with a fist or a club or such, was the cops' intervention "violent"
??? I don't think so
Yes. The definition being put forward here and on the Constantinian thread re violence being ANY sort of force or compulsion, including non-physical force, is going to get ludicrous pretty fast. Any sort of law itself is, by definition, compulsion-- "forcing" you to comply with it's demands or face retribution in the form of fines or imprisonment. Similarly, Trocme, Gandhi and MLK, all considered leaders of the non-violent movement, all used force in some form or another-- e.g. MLK's brilliant use of economic force in the bus boycott to bring out their desired goal of desegregation.
Huh
So
A supposedly non-violent show of force (a sit*in at a segregated lunch counter) wasn't really NON "violent," after all
???
If mom and dad require a youngster to do her/his homework (or *ELSE* !!!), is that then "domestic violence" - "child abuse"
???
Well, obviously that's not my position-- it's the one I'm arguing against. I'm just trying to parse out the position of those who are suggesting that any show of force, any compulsion, including non-physical compulsion, is "violent."
Yes
I was joining with you in pointing out the problem ...
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I believe Alan understands my position, with the exception that I don't think Jesus politely asked the moneychangers to step back. That was Alan being a wee bit snarky/ hyperbolic, but we both recognize that, I think, and as I'm prone to doing the same, I'm not going to get too offended-- just alerting him that I noticed.
I'm glad you noticed, though it was hardly disguised. I'd have hated to have wasted the good material on someone who missed it.
quote:
There are a world of possibilities along the continuum of "politely requesting them to leave" and "beating them within an inch of their death so they flee in genuine fear for their lives." Mine is a bit closer to the former than most other posters here, but I think we all see it somewhere in the middle of that continuum rather than at either extreme.
I can't think of anything that isn't either a carrot (there was somewhere better to be) or a stick (staying here would be unpleasant) that would compel the moneychangers to leave. One or two might have scurried off to round up the temple guard. But, for the majority what would cause them to leave their tables with all their money? I honestly can't see any 'carrot' that would do that. Which leaves a 'stick', something that made them believe that practically anywhere would be a better place to be, with sufficient urgency that leaving their tables and at least some of their money behind would be a good idea.
Clearly, a credible threat to their physical wellbeing would be something that would cause most sane people to be somewhere else. But, what would cause them to leave their tables and their money that wasn't a threat of physical force? Until someone gives a credible option I see no alternative to the explanation that Jesus was engaging in a violent outburst, that the money changers expected to suffer cuts and bruises from that whip if they didn't flee.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
jbohn: Have you ever had a firearm pointed at you? I assure you, it's a violent act, even when committed by the police.
Oh bloody fuck yes.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
I think that sometimes - violence appears necessary... Would Ghandi have stopped Hitler? Probably not.
This is the wrong way to view it. The conditions which allowed Hitler might have been avoided if Gandhi's principles were followed prior.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Similarly, Trocme, Gandhi and MLK, all considered leaders of the non-violent movement, all used force in some form or another-- e.g. MLK's brilliant use of economic force in the bus boycott to bring out their desired goal of desegregation.
Violence =/= force =/= pressure. Not without qualification. MLK used economic pressure which was in no way violent.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think the issue of making sense of violence in scripture is very much bound up with the deeper question of making sense of scripture as a whole.
People will choose the bits to justify behaviour.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Feeling clueless today (which is possibly a sign of impending virus, oh noes). Why is it so important to deny that Jesus was/is/will be ever violent?
As I said, it's important to me, because I see it as inconsistent with what he taught and the way he lived his life, and in particular, the way we see him acting in close proximity to the cleansing of the Temple. Since I want to strive to imitate Jesus, however ineptly, it's important to me to understand how he acted and why.
But as you can see on this thread, other people-- yourself included, presumably-- see it differently. I would assume either you/they don't see the pacifist pattern I see in Jesus' teaching and action (here I'm heavily indebted to Wink and Boyd) or they see something particular about the cleansing of the Temple that falls under some understanding of "just war" (which I find problematic, although obviously not as problematic as war w/o any ethical criteria).
ymmv. probably does.
If it's just you on this thread (pardon sleepy brain, if it's just one person on this thread, whoever it might be) who is having the difficulty, then I think it's probably down to a definitional problem. What you mean by violence is not what everybody else means by violence. Because I don't see anybody really disagreeing on the facts of what Jesus did (well, okay, a minor tussle over whether the whip was aimed at animals only or people as well). But in general, the facts of the situation are well established--am I right, or clueless again? and you are not debating those facts, only whether they ought to be termed "violent."
Have I got that right?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Teilhard:
Jesus' prophetic act in the Temple courtyard certainly annoyed the authorities
but I doubt that the were somehow psychologically traumatized
Really
???
Who said anything about the authorities? I think if I was a moneylender or an animal vendor, Dick Dastardly-like in character or not, and Jesus acted like that, then yes, I'd be traumatised.
Thinking more about Teilhard's question about psychological violence and definitions, I think part of it is context.
Whether "Do your homework OR ELSE" is violent depends a lot on what happens next and on the general family dynamics.
The violence of Jesus' actions in the temple is not, to my mind, simply a question of whether the whip hit people; it's also about its unexpectedness - 'violent' in the sense of 'sudden' - which gives it 'shock value' (back to musings on trauma again I guess).
To tie that idea into another piece of NT Scripture, I think that definition of 'violent' would cover Ananias and Sapphira, too, possibly Simon the Sorcer and why not Bar-Jesus in Acts?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Or the poor fig tree that Jesus cursed. Why limit ourselves to violence to people, violence to animals or plants is still violence. Is it just TV dramas, or is it generally true that people who do terrible violence to other people often start by doing violence to animals?
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
How about defining violence as taking away someone's choices? It might be by physically overwhelming them, or by means of a threat, or even by the use of law. If you compel someone, you diminish them as well as their options.
It seems characteristic of Jesus' dealings with people that he not only gave them the freedom to choose, but that he provoked decision in them. The interactions could be confrontational, but they not only left people as free agents, but forced them to acknowledge their freedom and declare their choices.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Is it just TV dramas, or is it generally true that people who do terrible violence to other people often start by doing violence to animals?
Psychopaths often start as children by hurting animals. They often have no empathy, zero. So it's simple fascination which causes them to hurt animals and then people - watching pain and suffering makes them less bored. Having no empathy is a very, very boring life and something has to fill the void.
I am the opposite, I have an overload of empathy - which causes many problems of its own.
I have ADHD which, when younger, gave me huge problems with frustration. I used to throw and break things in anger, usually the nearest thing to hand. Of course, I learned to control this and thump pillows but it took time to learn this.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
In the New Testament the "us" are the poor in spirit, the not-wise, the lost, the strayed. The "they" are the proud, the mighty, the rich, who will be brought low as the lowly are lifted up. And so Jesus' wrath is directed to the "they" who think they are "us".
Interesting. In the Orthodox Church we are taught to identify with the proud, mighty, and rich, inasmuch as we are sinners in need of cleansing, and not perfected saints. We are told, if you identify with the Publican in the parable and not the Pharisee, you've missed the point, and are thinking better of yourself than you ought to. By identifying with the Publican, you prove you're the Pharisee. If you identify with the Pharisee, you can then repent.
Very good. The "us" and "them" barriers finally come down at such points. Ties in very well with both "all have sinned and fallen short" and the Orthodox understanding of the Fall. We are all, to a greater or lesser extent, both "us" and "them".
Which is what makes any human violence a cause for concern, even when it is part of a use of force intended to constrain or defeat the violence and violent intentions of others.
I'm pretty much with the "last resorters" in this thread.
[ 23. March 2015, 09:21: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
How about defining violence as taking away someone's choices?
Interesting idea, but in that case how would you define the temple episode if not violent?
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
I think that sometimes - violence appears necessary... Would Ghandi have stopped Hitler? Probably not.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
This is the wrong way to view it. The conditions which allowed Hitler might have been avoided if Gandhi's principles were followed prior.
Possibly true but if you are a French citizen who has to decide whether to answer or to refuse the draft you don't have a choice except to view it from where you are.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
How about defining violence as taking away someone's choices?
Interesting idea, but in that case how would you define the temple episode if not violent?
Well, it's a demonstration, a provocative and symbolic act intended to make a point and make people cheer or rage. It compels attention and reaction, so it's violent in that sense, but it doesn't decide how people must respond.
I'm not that concerned, as it happens, about whether Jesus was violent or not according to the letter of any definition. What matters is a person's overall intention. I do think, though, that time and again Jesus is shown provoking decisions.
The whip is only in John who has moved the scene from the last week to chapter 2, and loves allegorising his big scenes. The whip is made from rushes, which might suggest lamp wicks, and therefore light.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Well, it's a demonstration, a provocative and symbolic act intended to make a point and make people cheer or rage. It compels attention and reaction, so it's violent in that sense, but it doesn't decide how people must respond.
Point taken, but you are still viewing it in terms of your "leaving-people-free-to-make-a-decision" lens.
This is certainly an interesting way of looking at what Jesus does so well, but it doesn't tell us much about how, say, the moneychangers or onlookers might have felt or perceived it at the time. With hindsight they might have seen it as a symbolic act, but in the heat of the moment I suspect they'd simply be keen to get out of the way.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I think what ties in hatless' comment to your own concerns, Eutychus, is interesting in itself.
Using some possibly novel language here, I think there is "hot" and "cold" violence. mousethief's use of the WHO definition is worth repeating here.
quote:
the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation
I'd characterise "cold" violence as over-controlling, precisely to force obedience, take away choice. Whether it is achieved by any combinations of "physical force, or power, threatened or actual". And I think that's what hatless is getting at.
By contrast "hot" violence is nearly always associated with a loss of personal control by the violater. A "lashing out", stimulated by emotion, not considered intention. The effect may be to control or subdue the target, but there's nothing long-term about that. It's done "in the heat of the moment".
Revenge is a dish best served cold? As is the use of force for long term control.
I do think the language of violence is very tricky and can easily get in the way of our understanding and our concerns.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
Yes, I like the hot and cold idea. And the gospels are never afraid to show us a hot Jesus, who feels anger at illness, weeps, makes an animal noise at Lazarus's tomb, and can use language insultingly and woundingly, to Mary, to Peter and others. Meek in a sense: mild, never.
Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Or the poor fig tree that Jesus cursed. Why limit ourselves to violence to people, violence to animals or plants is still violence. Is it just TV dramas, or is it generally true that people who do terrible violence to other people often start by doing violence to animals?
Well, in that understanding, then all of human existence is inherently "violent" -- stealing grain from the parent stalk, thus preventing it ever becoming another plant, killing animals for food and for sacrifice, etc. ...
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
None of the gospels say that Jesus drove the moneychangers out of the temple.
Here are the texts of Matthew and Mark. He drove out those who bought and sold, and he overturned the tables of the moneychangers.
Luke does not mention the moneychangers. Here is his account of the episode. Here is John's version.
Moo
[ 23. March 2015, 11:50: Message edited by: Moo ]
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
It was probably a small protest, quickly over, before Roman troops or Temple police could arrive and arrest Jesus, but sufficient for him to be identified and arrested at a more discreet time. There's no suggestion that he got the disciples to join in with him, or incited the crowd to riot or protest. The impression is of Jesus making a lone, futile gesture, not well understood by those around him.
The donkey procession and the arguments with the scribes fit with the Temple protest. This is Jesus confronting the powers.
It strikes me that the significant violence here is on the other side. The Temple and its priests devour the living of widows. Herod's taxes to build the extraordinary Temple have been making peasants landless and the poor destitute for two generations, and the Romans, hand in hand with the Herods, enforce their order with the sword. A guy flicking some raffia at this religio-military monument isn't the one to call violent.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
]If it's just you on this thread (pardon sleepy brain, if it's just one person on this thread, whoever it might be) who is having the difficulty, then I think it's probably down to a definitional problem. What you mean by violence is not what everybody else means by violence. Because I don't see anybody really disagreeing on the facts of what Jesus did (well, okay, a minor tussle over whether the whip was aimed at animals only or people as well). But in general, the facts of the situation are well established--am I right, or clueless again? and you are not debating those facts, only whether they ought to be termed "violent."
Have I got that right?
I would agree it's primarily a question of definitions. Indeed, the OP frames the question that way: "what is violence?" That's the point of the thread.
Usually I don't care much for arguments about definitions-- I'm apt to just shrug and say "words change over time" and accept whatever the common understanding might be. But in this case the words are shaping our reality. If we perceive Jesus as being violent in the cleansing of the Temple, we are going to come to the conclusion that violence is an acceptable/appropriate way to respond to certain situations. If we believe Jesus is acting non-violently, even-- or especially-- if we have to parse carefully why actions that are angry and forceful are, at the same time, violent, it similarly gives us a model for how we are to respond to situations that call for a forceful resistance to evil.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Similarly, Trocme, Gandhi and MLK, all considered leaders of the non-violent movement, all used force in some form or another-- e.g. MLK's brilliant use of economic force in the bus boycott to bring out their desired goal of desegregation.
Violence =/= force =/= pressure. Not without qualification. MLK used economic pressure which was in no way violent.
This is my point-- and why definitions matter.
[ 23. March 2015, 13:07: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Yes, I like the hot and cold idea. And the gospels are never afraid to show us a hot Jesus, who feels anger at illness, weeps, makes an animal noise at Lazarus's tomb, and can use language insultingly and woundingly, to Mary, to Peter and others. Meek in a sense: mild, never.
I would agree that the gospels show Jesus in a full range of human emotion, including anger. It is an effective rebuke to the Greek notion of "divine impassivity".
At the same time, Jesus is never out of control. Jesus never lashes out thoughtlessly. This is the problem I have with many of the arguments on this thread and the other-- their depictions of Jesus sound to me like a frustrated toddler in full tantrum mode, throwing his toys around. That's not the sense I get of the narrative. Again, it sounds to me like a deliberate, intentional, prophetic act, much like the enacted prophetic acts of Jeremiah and Ezekiel. If he uses a whip, he's using it for a reason. If he's driving people out, that means something. He's telling us something about the Kingdom.
It's not like the moneychangers suddenly showed up that day and caught Jesus by unhappy surprise-- they've been there all along. He's had time to think about what he will do, what it will mean, how he will respond.
So the cleansing is "hot" in that it not a coldly calculating, emotionless action. But it is "cold" in the sense that it is not out of control, but a thought-out, deliberate, intentional act.
[ 23. March 2015, 13:17: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I used to throw and break things in anger, usually the nearest thing to hand. Of course, I learned to control this and thump pillows but it took time to learn this.
Heh. Speaking of bizarre tendencies (sorry for tangent), the form my over-empathy took as a child was just the opposite--I had and still have a sense of inanimate objects as somehow "alive," and therefore have the hardest time "hurting" or destroying them, even when that is their intended use. (Imagine a child of six who refuses to take part in a balloon-popping game because she can't bear to hurt the balloons.) This can also lead to issues with hoarding, as I used to have great difficulty throwing anything out (and so hurting its feelings).
It's probably some form of neurological weirdness to go along with the synesthesia & etc. I've always thought of it as an innocent form of basic animism--one compatible with Christianity because it involves care for created things rather than worship of them.
But you can see how this tends to make violence nearly unthinkable. Bit of a handicap!
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
This is my point-- and why definitions matter.
Right. I'm just trying to get at the particular element of violence (in your personal definition) that renders it unacceptable. I mean, violence as a concept has a lot of components. There's an element of willfulness involved, certainly a bit of confrontation, there's disruptiveness, there's generally anger and unhappiness on both sides. I don't think you're objecting to any of those. Can you put into words what exactly you find unendurable about violence as you define it? Then I could get on figuring out if that applies to Jesus or not.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
This is my point-- and why definitions matter.
Right. I'm just trying to get at the particular element of violence (in your personal definition) that renders it unacceptable. I mean, violence as a concept has a lot of components. There's an element of willfulness involved, certainly a bit of confrontation, there's disruptiveness, there's generally anger and unhappiness on both sides. I don't think you're objecting to any of those. Can you put into words what exactly you find unendurable about violence as you define it? Then I could get on figuring out if that applies to Jesus or not.
I would say intentionally causing real harm to another person-- physically or psychologically (I'm not buying that the moneychangers/ sellers were "traumatized" by this).
I would agree there is confrontation, disruption, anger (on both sides) and coercion in the temple cleansing narrative. But I don't believe anyone was harmed in any real way. They were unsettled-- but that is the point of confrontation, just as the parables were often unsettling.
Gotta go to work now, but when I return I'll take a look at Wink and see how he defines "violence" in Powers that Be (feel free to beat me to it if anyone gets there before me). He is obviously arguing in the whole book for a consistent non-violent ethic, yet he is also arguing for strong, prophetic, confrontational and "disruptive" resistance to evil.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Viewed through 21st century eyes, what is ethically challenging about Jesus' cleansing of the temple is the taking of direct action. On the face of it, he had options.
e.g.
1. He could have protested at the time, or in advance, to the temple authorities about this misuse of the temple. There was an established authority with responsibility for what went on.
2. He could have confronted one or more of the merchants verbally, after the manner of an Amos, say. Possibly quoted from the Torah, challenged them with an appropriate parable.
It may be that other options occur to you. But what he actually did do was take the law into his own hands, behave as though he had formal authority for what was going on there, imposed the standard of righteousness which he was convinced should apply. He didn't just challenge the existing authority, he arrogated it, ignored it was formally in existence.
It doesn't look like a "last resort" action, it looks like an "immediate response" action. Now maybe I'm wrong about that? Maybe words had been exchanged prior to his demonstration?
But on the face of it, and certainly from the point of view of the temple authorities, his actions were unauthorised and peremptory. Whether you judge them as violent or not, there's justification for a temple authority reaction along the lines of "that was completely out of order!"
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I would say intentionally causing real harm to another person-- physically or psychologically (I'm not buying that the moneychangers/ sellers were "traumatized" by this).
I would agree there is confrontation, disruption, anger (on both sides) and coercion in the temple cleansing narrative. But I don't believe anyone was harmed in any real way. They were unsettled-- but that is the point of confrontation, just as the parables were often unsettling.
Gotta go to work now, but when I return I'll take a look at Wink and see how he defines "violence" in Powers that Be (feel free to beat me to it if anyone gets there before me). He is obviously arguing in the whole book for a consistent non-violent ethic, yet he is also arguing for strong, prophetic, confrontational and "disruptive" resistance to evil.
Okay, we've got a starting point. Now to take apart "real harm"--does that have to reach a certain level of intensity, or a certain level of permanence? I think we could argue that my swatting a toddler once on a diapered butt after he runs into traffic is neither sufficiently intense nor permanent to qualify as real violence (though there might be purists who disagree).
There's also the consideration of intent. Does "real violence" include permanent, intensely painful acts that are aimed at healing? (I'm thinking of last year's chest tube insertion now, shudder shudder SHUDDER) Which has left me with a large permanent scar and a fixed intention of never having surgery again. I would call that "violent," but suspect you would not, as the intent was to heal. One could easily argue that Jesus' actions were aimed at healing, not harming.
[ 23. March 2015, 18:25: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
It strikes me that the significant violence here is on the other side. The Temple and its priests devour the living of widows. Herod's taxes to build the extraordinary Temple have been making peasants landless and the poor destitute for two generations, and the Romans, hand in hand with the Herods, enforce their order with the sword.
This is followed chronologically by a response to an earlier post. Although there's no actual direct connection between the two posts, I find my mind connecting them anyway.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Similarly, Trocme, Gandhi and MLK, all considered leaders of the non-violent movement, all used force in some form or another-- e.g. MLK's brilliant use of economic force in the bus boycott to bring out their desired goal of desegregation.
Violence =/= force =/= pressure. Not without qualification. MLK used economic pressure which was in no way violent.
When the glove's on the other hand we quite rightly use the word 'violence' in relation to economic pressure. When economic pressure from western supermarkets suppress prices to the point where farmers can no longer sell their produce at a price that covers their costs, let alone allows them to make a small profit, is that not doing violence to the farmers? When those farmers sell-up, or their children quit the farm, and head to the cities in the hope of finding a job is that not a form of violence? When those farmers reach the city and find that all they can do is work themselves to death in a sweat shop making cheap clothes for western markets, or their wives and daughters have no choice but take up prostitution, is that not violence?
When faced with the consequences of economic pressure, do people need to wait until they're physically shoved around before declaring "Now we see the violence inherent in the system! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help, I'm being repressed!"?
Posted by Teilhard (# 16342) on
:
quote:
When faced with the consequences of economic pressure, do people need to wait until they're physically shoved around before declaring "Now we see the violence inherent in the system! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help, I'm being repressed!"?
"Bloody peasant
"
[this edit brought to you by the Ministry of Funny Coding]
[ 23. March 2015, 20:04: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I'm just trying to get at the particular element of violence (in your personal definition) that renders it unacceptable. <snip>
I would say intentionally causing real harm to another person-- physically or psychologically
You mean like by throwing them in Hell for all eternity?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
When faced with the consequences of economic pressure, do people need to wait until they're physically shoved around before declaring "Now we see the violence inherent in the system! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help, I'm being repressed!"?
I said this bit
quote:
Not without qualification.
in my quote.
Both are economic pressure, but one is addressing oppression and one creating oppression.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I'm just trying to get at the particular element of violence (in your personal definition) that renders it unacceptable. <snip>
I would say intentionally causing real harm to another person-- physically or psychologically
You mean like by throwing them in Hell for all eternity?
Yeah, probably, if that were the case-- but I'm mostly a universalist, so that colors my reading as well.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
The eschaton is couched in pretty violent imagery, even if you are a universalist, isn't it?
Riding forth on a white horse with a robe dipped in blood and a sword to do battle, and all that?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
He drove their livelihood away. Not them. They followed the money. Can you honestly see Jesus whipping anyone or even threatening to? Nothing He did wasn't deeply empathically thought and felt. Here was the genius who confronted a mob about to murder a woman correctly according to the law of God, with nothing but words. So He'd have split a man's face for a pile of stones?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Show me where I've said he hit anybody, or indeed anything.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Misreading Martin's post reminded me that he is actually recorded as spitting in a man's face..
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
The unambiguous facts we know from the Bible texts is that he drove the animals out of the temple, and he overturned the tables of the moneychangers, so that all the money ended up on the floor.
The exact meaning of 'drove out' is not clear, so I will leave it aside.
The effect of Jesus' actions was to make it impossible for business to continue as usual, at least temporarily. I think that was his intention.
I assume Jesus knew what he was talking about when he spoke of a 'den of thieves'. The men carrying out these businesses were cheating people, some of them poor people. They were violating the commandment against stealing, all day, every day, within the temple precincts. The Old Testament also has strong words for those who mistreat the poor. The temple authorities should never have tolerated the situation.
Jesus acted out of anger, but it was controlled anger.
Moo
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
John doesn't have the den of thieves remark, just that the Temple had become an emporium, a place of commerce. The money changers might have been scrupulously honest, but they were part of the extortionate Temple and Empire establishment. I prefer to think Jesus' demonstration was against this greater target, rather than some dodgy market traders. The theology is in the former, and his other remarks suggest he was concerned with the bigger picture.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The eschaton is couched in pretty violent imagery, even if you are a universalist, isn't it?
Riding forth on a white horse with a robe dipped in blood and a sword to do battle, and all that?
"Imagery" is the key term here. Paul talks about the spiritual battle we will be engaged in, but also talks about the "weapons of the Spirit", which are different from the weapons of this world
[ 24. March 2015, 11:49: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
To add to Moo's picture, they were carrying on all this business (cheating and otherwise) in the very place where the Gentiles were supposed to pray, making that activity impossible for them. Thus Jesus' remark "My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations, but you have made it a den of thieves." I can't imagine trying to worship in such an atmosphere.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Cliffdweller: Sure. But it's still violent, isn't it? A psychologist might deem it repressed or sublimated, but still...
[ 24. March 2015, 11:58: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Cliffdweller: Sure. But it's still violent, isn't it? A psychologist might deem it repressed or sublimated, but still...
I don't think a psychologist would find anything repressed or sublimated about the "weapons of the Spirit." Violent? Well, as we've seen on this thread, we first of all have to define violence. Then we gotta figure out what exactly are "the weapons of the Spirit". I don't think we know for sure, our answers will probably just mirror what we've already seen on this thread. Those of us who think Jesus is acting non-violently in the Temple will most likely suspect that the "weapons of the Spirit" are non-violent ones (like Trocme, MLK, and Gandhi). The others may be more open to weapons that envision a direct and violent (albeit morally justified) confrontation with evil.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
I don't really have the time and inclination to post swathes of Bible verses, but as disinclined to violence as I am, there seems to be little escaping the violent nature of the imagery. Just take this one from Revelation 19:11-16:
quote:
Then I saw heaven opened, and there was a white horse! Its rider is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war (...) And the armies of heaven, wearing fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron; he will tread the wine press of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has a name inscribed, King of kings and Lord of lords.
I mean, it makes me queasy too, but we can't pretend that's not part of the warp and woof of God's plans in history, however spiritualised or image-laden it is, can we? It's hardly all trees and waterfalls.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I don't really have the time and inclination to post swathes of Bible verses, but as disinclined to violence as I am, there seems to be little escaping the violent nature of the imagery. Just take this one from Revelation 19:11-16:
quote:
Then I saw heaven opened, and there was a white horse! Its rider is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war (...) And the armies of heaven, wearing fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron; he will tread the wine press of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has a name inscribed, King of kings and Lord of lords.
I mean, it makes me queasy too, but we can't pretend that's not part of the warp and woof of God's plans in history, however spiritualised or image-laden it is, can we? It's hardly all trees and waterfalls.
But, again, it's imagery. The question is, what is it an image for? Which again, is going to take us back to the meaning of "weapons of the Spirit"*-- what sort of weapons will the Lamb (rather a gentle image) use to wage war (a violent image) against the Beast? What you see in this image, again, is just going to circle us back to the discussion we already have here.
*fyi: "weapons of the Spirit" was a biblical image often used by Trome and the LeChambon community (pacifists effectively using nonviolent engagement to oppose-- or "wage war" on Nazi evil in WW2).
Posted by beatmenace (# 16955) on
:
Greg Boyd and quite a few others discussed this Revelation passage a while ago after some ill considered, (and borderline blasphemous in my view) 'macho' comments by Mark Driscoll on the subject.
http://reknew.org/2010/09/revelation-and-the-violent-prize-fighting-jesus/
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller, emphasis mine:
what sort of weapons will the Lamb (rather a gentle image) use to wage war (a violent image) against the Beast? What you see in this image, again, is just going to circle us back to the discussion we already have here.
Well I think it gets to the heart of my OP ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I could conceive of a narrative of God's plan for history that didn't include any violence at all, whether literal or figurative.
What we have is one that is replete with violence, whether literal (OT) or (possibly) figurative (apocalyptic). It seems to me that confrontation, violent confrontation on some level, is part of what we have mixed ourselves up in.
I may be wrong, but you seem to be proceeding from an assumption that violence simply can't be part of the picture. Paradoxically, I think that such an approach is likely to lead to worse, or more pernicious, violence.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by beatmenace:
Greg Boyd and quite a few others discussed this Revelation passage a while ago after some ill considered, (and borderline blasphemous in my view) 'macho' comments by Mark Driscoll on the subject.
http://reknew.org/2010/09/revelation-and-the-violent-prize-fighting-jesus/
I see the bibliography includes John Yoder... I'm tempted to add QED.
[ 24. March 2015, 12:50: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
To add to Moo's picture, they were carrying on all this business (cheating and otherwise) in the very place where the Gentiles were supposed to pray, making that activity impossible for them. Thus Jesus' remark "My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations, but you have made it a den of thieves." I can't imagine trying to worship in such an atmosphere.
The court of the Gentiles was, I believe, several acres in size. Plenty of room for the pigeon sellers, money changers, tourists and any Gentiles inclined to worship to each find a corner.
And I sincerely hope Jesus had something more important in mind than piously standing up for people whose devotions were being distracted.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller, emphasis mine:
what sort of weapons will the Lamb (rather a gentle image) use to wage war (a violent image) against the Beast? What you see in this image, again, is just going to circle us back to the discussion we already have here.
Well I think it gets to the heart of my OP .
Yes-- that's what I meant by my comment. It really is just another way of looking at the OP. So, while it's another pov, it's really going to just circle back to what we've already gone over-- just from a different perspective, with the same people taking the same positions on the imagery.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I may be wrong, but you seem to be proceeding from an assumption that violence simply can't be part of the picture.
I think I've been pretty up front about that. All of us bring assumptions to the text, some more strongly than others. Mine is based on my reading of the whole of Scripture, particularly the gospels (but then I'm sure the same is true of those arguing the opposite pov) as well as what I've read from Wink and Boyd as they exegete the same passages. I of course try to read the passages objectively, as we all do, but can't deny (in fact I've said so explicitly a couple of times) that some confirmation bias may be at play here. It's a fine line, isn't it? To what extent am I engaging in eisegesis-- looking for things that confirm what I already believe to be true-- and to what extent and I reading contextually, reading this one passage in light of my reading of the whole of Scripture? Always a hard call to make. Hence the debate.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
But even if you contextualize, the narrative contains violence, doesn't it? It talks about a war. Is there any way that even makes sense without there being some idea of violence?
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
In a time of war, everyone has to be violent at times. If an ethnicity, class, language or religion is being scapegoated, you either take them into your home, putting your family at risk and committing yourself to deceive, lie and dissemble in order to protect them, or you, like others, leave them on the streets to be hunted down. There may well be no in between.
Being for peace does not mean never using force and never misdirecting the authorities. Not all those who stir up violence are themselves physically violent people.
I think that asking anyone, including Jesus, to follow a rule absolutely, is rather immature. If Jesus made a whip as part of his protest against the great violence of his day, I don't see that as a fault.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
But even if you contextualize, the narrative contains violence, doesn't it? It talks about a war. Is there any way that even makes sense without there being some idea of violence?
I said contextualize with the whole of Scripture. So, when we look at the whole of Scripture, and specifically the gospels*, do we see Jesus advocating violence, or advocating non-violence? I'm saying I see a strong teaching and example towards non-violence. Which is shaping the way I interpret the relatively few stories or teachings that include violent imagery, especially those that are already couched in figurative terms. A "war" can mean both a literal, violent, deadly conflict with guns and bombs-- or it can refer to a "war on poverty" (which, at least as originally coined, did not mean shooting poor people. GOP, ymmv). Eph. 6, for example, seems to be using the imagery of war to describe a spiritual conflict in which the weapons are all non-violent things like salvation, truth, and prayer.
*some will argue, with good reason, elevating the gospels over the OT, particularly the conquest narratives.
[ 24. March 2015, 14:22: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I could conceive of a narrative of God's plan for history that didn't include any violence at all, whether literal or figurative.
What we have is one that is replete with violence, whether literal (OT) or (possibly) figurative (apocalyptic). It seems to me that confrontation, violent confrontation on some level, is part of what we have mixed ourselves up in.
I may be wrong, but you seem to be proceeding from an assumption that violence simply can't be part of the picture. Paradoxically, I think that such an approach is likely to lead to worse, or more pernicious, violence.
This is the part of the story of religion and Christianity that is most troubling. God tells Joshua to kill all the people and even their animals. God either kills or sets up the new testament Joshua to be flogged and crucified, and even predicts the destruction of the first Joshua's people and their temple. Or does s/he?
Too much of what we have received is projection of our biology and culture, our eyeglasses and soul-spectacles have lenses as thick and big as our pride, our anger, our greed, our lust, and all of the other deadly sins. We try to see God and to see Jesus, and we filtre the already filtred stories so that Jesus is ready to take a sword and God is ready to damn us to the fire. I say chuck that noise and pay attention to what's in front of us. What do you think? should we share with the hungry or shoot them?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Being for peace does not mean never using force and never misdirecting the authorities. Not all those who stir up violence are themselves physically violent people.
This is closest to my thinking.
quote:
I think that asking anyone, including Jesus, to follow a rule absolutely, is rather immature. If Jesus made a whip as part of his protest against the great violence of his day, I don't see that as a fault.
I agree entirely.
But I also get nervous when I see cliffdweller, in particular, try and pretend the violent bits of the narrative aren't there. We could argue about slavery or DH topics and their degree of contextualisation, but try as I might I can't stretch my contextualisation to ignoring these violent aspects.
I'm not an advocate of violence by any stretch of imagination for anyone who knows me. I'm just trying to get to grips with what I read.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
We all tend to buy into the idea that Jesus was perfect, and therefore never violent, never needlessly short with anyone, never tired and ratty. When you only exist in massively edited texts, you can have a fair shot at being perfect, I suppose, but I feel I need to allow not only for the fact that in a violent world even the good guys might sometimes have to play rough, but also for the fact that Jesus may not have always been very good at being Jesus.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Infancy gospels, written perhaps 200 and more years after Jesus are interesting in thier display of ideas about Jesus' character and lack of perfection. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas has Jesus, among other things be a rather bad little boy: "[a] child dies when Jesus curses him when he apparently accidentally bumps into Jesus, throws a stone at Jesus, or punches Jesus (depending on the translation)."
I had always wondered how Jesus early years went. Whether he did normal kid things, like refuse to eat his vegetables, become whiny when tired, laugh at rude jokes told by other children etc. Did his toilet training go perfectly or did he have accidents?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
I'm still having trouble, whether from my contextualized reading of the breadth of Scripture, or from confirmation bias inherent to my eisegetical approach, seeing God as enacting violence. (And since Jesus is our best representation of God, I don't see Jesus as enacting violence either. ymmv).
But I was pondering this quote today from Kathleen Norris' Amazing Grace:
quote:
Gods anger is different from our own. It is truly and more whole-heartedly righteous than human anger ever could be
The anger of God speaks the truth. No matter how nice we think we are, or morally in the right, our hands, too, are full of blood; we do not exist as little kingdoms apart from our human societies full of murder, thievery, cheating, whole systems of oppression. I have come to have a certain level of trust in Gods anger; it is a response to what is genuinely wrong. But there is also hope, a remedy
I wonder if holiness is not the ability to apply ones anger in quietly working against systemic evil, taking care not to draw undue attention to oneself. But human anger can never be as simply and essentially righteous as Gods anger; in us, even well-placed anger all too easily becomes mean and self-serving. It can cause us to lose both our focus and our balance
Now that I appreciate Gods anger more, I find that I trust my own less
Gods anger, as evidence in the prophets and in some of the more prophetic sayings of Jesus, is an impetus to love, a command to set things right. But the monks saw human anger as our biggest obstacle to love. To become mindful of ones anger was seen as an essential but difficult task.
So perhaps that's the separation we need to see. That God can afford to be violent, because his anger is always closely connected to setting things right. His anger, and thus his violence, is always closely aligned with his purpose of restoration.
For us fallible humans, otoh, violence is dangerous (to the other person, obviously, but also to us) precisely because we don't have a clear view on our own anger. We can't trust our anger, there's too much of our own self-serving stuff mixed in, even (or especially) when we think it's "righteous anger".
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
If we're going to talk about God being violent, I know a couple more instances from the OT.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Finally, cliffdweller, a post I can lean towards more agreement with ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I don't really have the time and inclination to post swathes of Bible verses, but as disinclined to violence as I am, there seems to be little escaping the violent nature of the imagery. Just take this one from Revelation 19:11-16:
I agree that Revelation is violent. The apocalyptic genre always is. However, John's gospel is not apocalyptic, and I have stated why I don't think it's violent.
Moo
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
OK. Rewind. John has it that Jesus "made a scourge of small cords" and drove them ALL out of the temple, men and beasts. So yep, Jesus used mildly traumatizing violence. A 'grown up' version of smacking children. His 110% humanity is apparent. Therefore I have been WRONG to argue otherwise.
He was a MAN of His time, a transcendent one, THE transcendent one bar none for all time, but still trapped in His time by language and culture according to His words and behaviour by OUR criteria much further along the arc He kicked us along, that we WOULDN'T be along but for Him.
So how pragmatic is God? I was the ONLY one arguing that here for years. But it seems many of us are up for a truly violent God! Because right makes might? Because violence CAN be redemptive?!
NOT risen with and in Christ it can't. And not in Him as man, judging Him by OUR more advanced - greater things than these - standards.
[ 24. March 2015, 21:41: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
OK. Rewind. John has it that Jesus "made a scourge of small cords" and drove them ALL out of the temple, men and beasts.
No. John's gospel says Jesus made a whip of cords and drove them all out of the temple, both the sheep and the oxen. It does not say he drove out the men. They presumably followed their livestock voluntarily.
Moo
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
How do you make a whip of small cords? I believe schoinioi can refer to a rush. Where would you find them in a vast courtyard of stalls and milling people? If you plaited a few thin strands would you have a whip? Good enough to frighten animals and people?
Only John has the whip. I wonder if he has lamp wicks in mind?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
But it seems many of us are up for a truly violent God! Because right makes might? Because violence CAN be redemptive?!
Taking those backwards:
I have no idea what "redemptive violence" means, but it appears to be a trendy idea (at least, one to be dissed).
No, I don't think might makes right.
I don't think I'm "up for" a "truly violent God", but he's not a tame lion, eh? I mean he is what he is, not what I would like him to be like, and part of Christian experience is coming to terms with that, isn't it?
And leaving aside the OT and Revelation, I still find myself grappling with some actions that I see, Moo notwithstanding, as violent, on the part of Jesus (and later a couple of apostles).
I personally can't contextualise them away with intellectual integrity right now.
Also, I'm not convinced (Moo notwithstanding again) by tortuous arguments to the effect that it "wasn't really violent because nobody got hit". I'm concerned that this way of thinking may lead people to enact or tolerate plenty of non-physical violence (and am reminded irresistibly of discussions of whether waterboarding constituted torture...). I think it's a tempting short-cut with potentially nasty long-term consequences.
And finally (for now) an observation I've had in my mind for a while. For one particular ethnic group I regularly have contact with in prison, fist-fights are the SOP for conflict resolution. Physically violent yes, but once it's over, it's over; life returns to normal.
I can't help wondering sometimes whether this is any worse than long, drawn-out, lawyer-enriching, resentment-feeding, passive-aggressive non-conflicts wreathed in evangelical smiles (although I would surely lose such a fight).
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
YOU posted a link to this Moo:
John 2:15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;
Who's 'them all' AND the sheep, AND the oxen? That He drove out?
14 And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:
Obviously you interpret it yet differently somehow.
[ 24. March 2015, 22:01: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
And Eutychus. Bravo. Well played Sir. I couldn't agree more on fist fights being cleaner than corporate violence. It looks like Jesus agreed!
The myth of redemptive violence.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
But it seems many of us are up for a truly violent God! Because right makes might? Because violence CAN be redemptive?!
Taking those backwards:
I have no idea what "redemptive violence" means, but it appears to be a trendy idea (at least, one to be dissed).
The phrase comes from Walter Wink. In his Powers that Be trilogy, he is arguing (quite effectively IMHO) that all human beings, all cultures, are innately drawn to "the myth of redemptive violence." In fact, he sees that myth as essentially synonymous with original sin. All human organizations, including but not limited to all forms of government, utilize the myth as one of the ways they maintain power and social control.
The myth of redemptive violence is the notion that sometimes violence is necessary (and thereby justified) in order to bring justice or stop evil (iow, "just war" theory). Wink makes a compelling argument vs it IMHO, as well as documenting that pacifism ≠ passivity, and that the problem with pacifist resistance to evil is not that it has been "tried and found wanting" but rather that it has been untried.
[ 24. March 2015, 22:09: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Amen Sister! And NOBODY lays a finger on a hair of my mother's head.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
How do you make a whip of small cords? I believe schoinioi can refer to a rush. Where would you find them in a vast courtyard of stalls and milling people?
I got the impression that, in John at least, Jesus saw the market and went away to make His whip. So, he didn't need to source His materials there and then. If He was back in Capernaum He could have taken some cord from Peter, the sort used to make fishing nets, to make His whip. Maybe one of the disciples still carried a stock of cord to make some nets "just in case they could do some fishing". But, there would be lots of uses for lengths of cord - bundling up goods, tied to animals to lead them (what was used to tie the donkeys up that Jesus rode into Jerusalem), so probably not that hard to find and quite possibly something they had anyway as something useful that could be easily carried. All you need to do is cut it into lengths of a foot or so, then bind one end together to make a handle. The whole thing could be made of cord. If it was rushes, there might have been places near Jerusalem these grew, and places in Jerusalem where they could be bought for various purposes, again just bind one end together to make a handle.
You'd have something suited for driving animals, indeed something not dissimilar to the whip portrayed on the picture about a 1/4 of the way down this page, which would clearly have been known at the time.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
And Eutychus, what other violence did Jesus and the apostles do? What about the Holy Spirit?
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60
John 2:15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;
In this post on the Constantine thread I said that I was not an expert in Greek syntax, and I hoped that someone who knew more than I would weigh in. The word-for-word translation is 'he drove them all out of the temple, both the sheep and the oxen'. I know that many translations say 'and the sheep and the oxen' or 'as well as the sheep and the oxen'. The Greek definitely says 'both'. My question is whether Greek syntax demands another translation in this context. If not, 'both' is correct.
Moo
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
To add to Moo's picture, they were carrying on all this business (cheating and otherwise) in the very place where the Gentiles were supposed to pray, making that activity impossible for them. Thus Jesus' remark "My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations, but you have made it a den of thieves." I can't imagine trying to worship in such an atmosphere.
The court of the Gentiles was, I believe, several acres in size. Plenty of room for the pigeon sellers, money changers, tourists and any Gentiles inclined to worship to each find a corner.
And I sincerely hope Jesus had something more important in mind than piously standing up for people whose devotions were being distracted.
Whoa, way to load your language! Since when is "pious" a bad word? And since when is worship less "important" (your choice of word) than other activities, and that at a temple, forgoshsakes?
As for the people he is standing up for, these are precisely the disenfranchised within the Jewish religious system. They are in the outermost court precisely because they are uncircumcised, not part of Israel, not "voters" as we would put it in modern terms. Who's going to speak up for them? They can't speak up for themselves. One would HOPE the God of the temple would speak up for them--and surprise, here he is, doing just that. Raises my opinion of gods, then.
Descending to a much more mundane level, I don't think anybody's specified the size of the market. I do know that in general such things tend to grow to fill their allotted space and then some. Check out any farmers' market. Normal human tendency. And at a festival, the problem would be still worse. And you don't have to actually fill every single inch to make a confounded nuisance of yourself to worshippers--all you need to is to make sufficient stink and racket (it WAS a stone building, very echo-ey!) to thoroughly distract any worthless Egyptian, Roman, Syrophoenician, who might have had the chutzpah to use their historic rights to approach the God of Israel. Or (God forbid!) actually hoped to watch and listen to what was going on in the inner, forbidden courts where sacrifice and music of praise took place. Cuz he's OUR God, right? And we don't have to listen to what any damn outsiders think. [/imaginative projection]
Seriously, if Jesus was NOT standing up for the rights of Gentiles to worship the one true God, I find it hard to imagine what more important he could be doing.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
OK. Rewind. John has it that Jesus "made a scourge of small cords" and drove them ALL out of the temple, men and beasts.
No. John's gospel says Jesus made a whip of cords and drove them all out of the temple, both the sheep and the oxen. It does not say he drove out the men. They presumably followed their livestock voluntarily.
On what do you base this presumption? Seems pretty presumptuous.
You still haven't answered my earlier question. Do the Matthew and John passages refer to the same incident, or different ones? You seem to want to draw a very thick line between them, because in Matthew Jesus drove out the people as well as the animals, but only John has the scourge (whip). So are they the same incident? Because then we'd have Jesus having a whip in hand and driving out people. Same or not?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
As we have shown several times, there are all sorts of ways to "drive someone out" (as well as all sorts of motives). So you can drive out the animals with a whip, and drive out their owners by the same action-- by sending their animals running you are sending their owners running after them-- i.e. driving them out.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
In John He also directly addresses those selling doves, telling them to get out and take their birds with them. That is, He drove out the people selling doves (not, as in the film clip linked to early, letting the birds out and forcing the sellers to chase after them in an attempt to recapture them). That is definitely forcing people out, rather than forcing out animals and the people follow.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
In John He also directly addresses those selling doves, telling them to get out and take their birds with them. That is, He drove out the people selling doves (not, as in the film clip linked to early, letting the birds out and forcing the sellers to chase after them in an attempt to recapture them). That is definitely forcing people out, rather than forcing out animals and the people follow.
I think "drive out" already carries the connotation of force or coercion. The question is, is it violent force. I think he compelled them to leave-- whether by the loss of their potential income, the force of his anger, or just the unsettling nature of a disturbance. But I don't think it was violent. Similarly, the Montgomery bus boycott used economic force to compel the citizens-- the Powers that Be-- to desegregate. It was a form of force, of compulsion. But it was not violent.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
In John He also directly addresses those selling doves, telling them to get out and take their birds with them. That is, He drove out the people selling doves (not, as in the film clip linked to early, letting the birds out and forcing the sellers to chase after them in an attempt to recapture them). That is definitely forcing people out, rather than forcing out animals and the people follow.
I'm glad you brought that up. I remember reading that some years ago and being glad that he only used violence where it would NOT do permanent harm, e.g. on people, tables, and to drive large animals. Overturning doves in cages would probably have caused injuries or death, and he avoided that, turning to verbal orders instead.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Cliffdweller, thanks for the summary, I'll have to ponder that a bit.
In the meantime... Montgomery bus boycott? It's hardly comparable. Jesus isn't asking everyone to boycott the vendors. It's more like letting off tear gas in the bus station. quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
And Eutychus, what other violence did Jesus and the apostles do? What about the Holy Spirit?
Already mentioned (and so far not addressed) have been the cursing of the fig tree (Jesus), Ananias and Sapphira (apostles/Holy Spirit?), and Bar-Jesus (Paul).
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
And, since we all know the falsehood of the saying "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me" I would say we can be justified to add offensive words to the list of 'violent' actions (quotes because I know some people want to limit that word to just physical violence against people). So, calling people "white washed tombs", "brood of vipers", "Satan" etc, or suggesting people should go and cut their balls off would be examples of hurtful language.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Have you ever been tear-gassed? Jesus' violence in the temple, on a logarithmic, Richter scale is 1 at most. To a fig tree is 0.1 Paul's cursing Elymas results in the same attack by the Holy Spirit as he received. Painless and temporary and incredibly disturbing. God isn't above assaulting our persons with blindness, sleep, charismatic falling.
But how do we get to Him murdering Ananias and Sapphira? 10 on the scale? Was that on Peter's heart?
Should it be on ours?
Or should we be further along the arc started by Jesus transcending His feet of clay?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Have you ever been tear-gassed? Jesus' violence in the temple, on a logarithmic, Richter scale is 1 at most.
My point was that a bus boycott is passive. What Jesus did was active.
I think some things in life are going to be violent. It seems better to me to grit our teeth and try and have a handle on violence - that means including it rather than pretending it doesn't exist and going down, for instance, the "waterboarding-isn't-really-torture" route of self-deception.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Do the Matthew and John passages refer to the same incident, or different ones? You seem to want to draw a very thick line between them, because in Matthew Jesus drove out the people as well as the animals, but only John has the scourge (whip). So are they the same incident? Because then we'd have Jesus having a whip in hand and driving out people. Same or not?
The implication in John's gospel is that he made the whip to drive out the animals. If this was the case, he had no reason to keep it in his hands after the animals were driven out.
Conflating the accounts of two different gospels is tricky.
Moo
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Conflating the accounts of two different gospels is tricky.
Not conflating. Reconciling.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Taking the "destroy this temple, and I will rebuild it in three days" comment, this seems to make much more sense at the end of His ministry. It seems a bit out of place outwith Holy Week (which, of course, doesn't mean it couldn't have been said at a different time). Therefore, I tend to consider the Gospels record the same event, and John for his own reasons puts the story at the start of his Gospel. Luke's account is very short. Matthew and Mark slightly longer, and both accompany it with the fig tree - sort of Jesus on a bad day.
The whip makes John's account slightly different. Though, the other accounts could have a whip and not mention it easily enough. More difficult is the "going to make the whip" part of the story - the Synoptics have it as a fairly spontaneous event: Jesus enters the Temple, sees the market and starts driving people out. John has much more deliberation in the story: Jesus enters the Temple, sees the market, goes off and makes a whip, comes back and starts driving everyone out.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Moo: The implication in John's gospel is that he made the whip to drive out the animals. If this was the case, he had no reason to keep it in his hands after the animals were driven out.
He drove the animals out with his whip, then put his whip on the floor and gently asked the vendors to leave the premises? I guess it's possible.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
Built* guy who just chased a bunch of animals out with a whip leans his whip against the wall and yells, "Now get out! and talks about how we've made his father's house a den of thieves. Yeah, I think people would get the hell out.
*He's a carpenter who worked with his hands remember
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Gwai: Built* guy who just chased a bunch of animals out with a whip leans his whip against the wall and yells, "Now get out! and talks about how we've made his father's house a den of thieves. Yeah, I think people would get the hell out.
It takes a bit of time to drive the animals out. It isn't a flock of birds that will flee away at the first crack of the whip. There will probably a lot of sheep running around confused for a while.
I don't think that the vendors will stand there, quietly waiting until Jesus has driven out the last animal, to see what will happen next. At the very least, they will yell "What the fuck do you think you are doing?", but if that doesn't help it is very likely that they will physically try to stop Him.
The only way one man can prevent a bunch of other men from stopping him (not exactly weaklings either if they carry around sheep a lot) is by at least threatening them with the whip too.
[ 25. March 2015, 13:37: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
I imagine if they were going to try to stop him it would be before the animals left, and at that point he's still wielding a whip. Can't easily attack a guy who's using a whip to herd animals. Once the animals are out or many are, I suspect people figure they'd better chase their stock before someone else makes off with it. It becomes a question of whether to start a fight with a guy who has a whip nearby or go protect one's own livelihood and let the soldiers/whoever go handle the crazy man.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I imagine if they were going to try to stop him it would be before the animals left, and at that point he's still wielding a whip. Can't easily attack a guy who's using a whip to herd animals.
But they'll try if Jesus lets them.
Suppose you are there, in the midst of the confusion. Animals running everywhere, and you're lashing left and right to chase them away. Angry vendors start to run in your direction.
If you lash your whip in only one direction, they'll try to approach you from the back. So what you do is, you turn around a lot and lash your whip in all directions, including at them.
quote:
Gwai: Once the animals are out or many are, I suspect people figure they'd better chase their stock before someone else makes off with it.
There are a lot of vendors there. Some will chase after the animals, but not all. Anger is a pretty strong emotion. The moment Jesus let go of the whip, they would be all over Him.
[ 25. March 2015, 13:54: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
In the meantime... Montgomery bus boycott? It's hardly comparable. Jesus isn't asking everyone to boycott the vendors. It's more like letting off tear gas in the bus station.
No, the bus boycott was pacifist-- it was very much not passive. That's a very important distinction-- one MLK labored to make. There was nothing at all passive about the civil rights movement or the bus boycott in particular. It involved proactive, courageous actions. The bus boycott wasn't just a passive "doing nothing"-- it involved intensive organizational efforts, a network of ride sharing and private citizens acting essentially as unpaid taxi drivers in order to make it work on a massive scale. All proactive actions. Similarly, desegregation of lunch counters and schools required proactive, non-violent action-- entering restaurants and occupying tables in defiance of state law for example.
Wink's book is full of real-life examples of people who used proactive, creative, non-violent force to compel or coerce change. All non-violent, even though someone(s) is being "forced". Again, I think there's no doubt there's some measure of "force" behind the word "drive out" in relation of Jesus and the moneychangers. But I believe it was not a violent force.
After work I'll look and see how Wink addresses the Temple cleansing narrative.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
The bus boycott was passive in the sense that nothing was happening to the buses or their staff; there was an absence of happening. Similarly, the restaurant occupations, while unlawful, were clearly non-violent in a way the temple incident wasn't.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The bus boycott was passive in the sense that nothing was happening to the buses or their staff; there was an absence of happening. Similarly, the restaurant occupations, while unlawful, were clearly non-violent in a way the temple incident wasn't.
Yes, the fact that the bus boycott and restaurant sit-ins were nonviolent was precisely my point. But the temple incident is nonviolent in precisely the same way-- the moneychangers and sellers of goods were not harmed in any way, just as the bus drivers and restaurant workers were not physically harmed. Note that the bus drivers and restaurant staff were undoubtedly harmed economically by the economic pressure of the boycotts and sit-ins (fewer white customers due to desegregation/ confrontation), some may even/ probably lost their jobs or had their work shifts reduced. A difference would be the people economically disadvantaged by the boycotts/sit-ins were not the people "in charge"-- the bosses who made the decisions about desegregation-- the most disadvantaged, as is often the case, were were mostly poor minimum wage workers who had no control/say over segregation (same is true with the economic boycotts of South Africa re apartheid). In the temple incident, no physical harm was caused to the temple workers, so it is similarly non-violent. And unlike these other forms of protest, the economic harm/coercion was entirely directed to the people at fault/ with control over the situation.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
I think you overestimate how much people want to be that first lone wolf attacker. I think Jesus would have a very threatening angry crowd around him sure, but people delay being the first to attack, and the longer they wait, the more they think. Just picture someone walks into your place of work with a whip and starts screaming. It would be so surprising that I imagine everyone would be paralyzed at first. Certainly attacking wouldn't be anyone's response, and none of these merchants would have been armed with anything useful against a whip. Knives maybe, but that's not much use in that context. Also, I'd imagine soldiers would come fast for a commotion in so public a place. By the time everyone had processed what was going on, half the people are worrying about someone else taking their livestock, and most of the rest are remembering that the soldiers are coming. If Jesus had a force of personality, and I think he must have considering the gospels, I think he might well be able to cow the crowd without anyone jumping on him. Also, if I may point you to the Ezra Pound poem linked from my signature, I think it's rather relevant here. (Note that everything in it is biblical too.)
[ 25. March 2015, 14:38: Message edited by: Gwai ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
cliffdweller: ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
Much as I agree that there is violence that is non-physical, I cannot agree that the temple incident involved no more physical violence on the part of its proponent (Jesus) than the bus/restaurant boycotts. They weren't overturning the tables in the restaurants, were they?
[ 25. March 2015, 14:40: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Gwai: I think you overestimate how much people want to be that first lone wolf attacker.
A situation I'm very familiar with: in a crowded place, suddenly someone pulls out a knife threatens another person with it. No-one attacks the mugger, because everyone is afraid of being the first lone wolf attacker who will be hurt most.
However, in this case the mugger is threatening someone else. If you are with more than one person and the mugger is threatening your stuff, you will probably get over the first shock really fast and try to stop him. Especially when you are a vendor on a Middle East market, together with your brothers and cousins (this is how things work there).
A whip isn't a rapid-firing machine gun. You need to give the cord time to coil back and store kinetic energy before you can start lashing out again. It is also ineffective at short range: if someone manages to get close to you, they don't need to be afraid of your whip anymore. And like I said: you're vulnerable from behind. You can't very well lash the whip behind you (you might even hit yourself).
Those are some pretty big vulnerabilities. And another thing. The Bible is full of stories saying that people who work with sheep need to deal with robbers and the like on a frequent basis. They may not have expected it to happen in the Temple, but these people are well prepared to defend their animals.
And a last thing. A market like this is a chaos. The animals aren't conveniently placed at one side and the vendors at another, so that Jesus can lash out at the former but not at the latter.
There is no way that Jesus could have driven out the animals with a whip without lashing out at the vendors too. It isn't a realistic scenario.
If Jesus had such a force of personality, such a Godly fire, that people would automatically be in awe of Him, then there wouldn't be a need to drive the animals out in the first place. He could just tell the vendors what He had to say, and they would at least have listened to Him.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
I'd say he probably did do a bunch with force of personality. This is the same guy who seems to have just walked through a crowd of people who wanted to throw him off a cliff.
Point of the vulnerability of a whip as a weapon. I imagine if I were to wield such a thing--and I never have, so maybe I'm full of shite--I'd start near a wall and start driving animals (and people) before me. Don't give people a chance to circle around behind you, and most definitely don't give them a chance to get near you. Heck, even the throwing tables would help there as they'd get in the way of people coming at you.
I see your points too though. I suspect we've gone as far down this road as we can, so I'll only say that what you say has much sense too. It certainly wouldn't be easy to drive people from the temple with a whip without attacking them. I think it might be doable by the right person, but I certainly don't know for sure. But I also agree there would be at the very least a strong implied threat of violence from a person with a whip cracking it and driving animals (people's property) out while throwing tables etc., perhaps in people's general direction to keep them from getting too close.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The whip makes John's account slightly different. Though, the other accounts could have a whip and not mention it easily enough. More difficult is the "going to make the whip" part of the story - the Synoptics have it as a fairly spontaneous event: Jesus enters the Temple, sees the market and starts driving people out. John has much more deliberation in the story: Jesus enters the Temple, sees the market, goes off and makes a whip, comes back and starts driving everyone out.
Alan, I don't see why you say he went off to make the whip. I have always taken it to mean he picked up some bits of rope or cord that were lying around and braided them. I think it would be natural for rope or cord to by lying around.
One strong argument that Jesus did not drive people with the whip is that John does not mention it. Normally I subscribe to the idea that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. However, I see this case as an exception. Since John thought it worthwhile to mention that Jesus braided cords into a whip, which is a trivial detail, I can't imagine him failing to mention that he drove men, as well as animals, with the whip.
I am not arguing this from the viewpoint that Jesus wouldn't have done something like this, but from the viewpoint that we should base our conclusions on the Greek text.
Moo
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
It wasn't a cracking great whip. It was made of short cords. They most probably wouldn't have been leather, but hemp or flax: plant fibres.
Jesus' violence was active, not passive, in this unique event in His exemplary life. It went beyond what would be allowed in the West today, even in a police action. It went beyond passive resistance. It was affray, an assault, common even, on the cusp of ABH.
They was 'ard times.
Jesus used violent, confrontational, provocative and racist language.
They was 'ard times.
In which Jesus' feet were firmly rooted.
So what are we to emulate, justify in the name of Christ, the only God we have ever known in the flesh?
If God pre- and post-incarnate were more violent, what has that to do with us?
And water boarding is torture.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Alan, I don't see why you say he went off to make the whip. I have always taken it to mean he picked up some bits of rope or cord that were lying around and braided them. I think it would be natural for rope or cord to by lying around.
You're right. I always read "made" as being something that required a certain amount of time. But, you don't really need to tie the bits of rope together to make an effective whip. Just holding them together would work fine, as would using a single longer piece of rope.
So, what we have is actually more like Him grabbing the first convenient thing to hand to use as an improvised weapon.
I now have this scene playing through my head. Jesus storming into the courtyard, grabbing the corner of a table and flipping it over "My Fathers house!", flips another table "A house of prayer for the nations", grabs the fence penning some animals and pulls the cord tying the poles together, "you've turned it into a MARKET!", turns with the cord in His fist and animals milling around "YAH! Get out!", cracks His cord across the backsides of a few sheep to get them moving, turns to the sellers of doves "Get out! Now!". Turns to find Himself facing a priest who tries a placatory conversation "By what authority do you do this?". I have this sort of vision of a Temple worker who has been given the job of ensuring the market functions without disturbing the worship of the Temple - none of that haggling and loud declarations of the quality of the goods you get in the markets in the city that could be overheard in the inner courts, and now you have people shouting, animals screeching in terror, tables crashing to the floor, and this maniac gone berserk in the middle of it all. And everything over very quickly. 30s of physical violence, without even the 20 minutes verbal assault beforehand.
The whip is incidental in that scenario. As a weapon it's going to be less effective than His fists anyway. And, by the time it's in His hands the violence has already started.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell
I now have this scene playing through my head. Jesus storming into the courtyard, grabbing the corner of a table and flipping it over "My Fathers house!", flips another table "A house of prayer for the nations", grabs the fence penning some animals and pulls the cord tying the poles together, "you've turned it into a MARKET!", turns with the cord in His fist and animals milling around...
He didn't say they had turned it into a market; he said they had turned it into a den of thieves.
Here is an excerpt from an earlier post of mine quote:
I assume Jesus knew what he was talking about when he spoke of a 'den of thieves'. The men carrying out these businesses were cheating people, some of them poor people. They were violating the commandment against stealing, all day, every day, within the temple precincts. The Old Testament also has strong words for those who mistreat the poor. The temple authorities should never have tolerated the situation.
Someone pointed out that John is the only gospel with the 'den of thieves' quote. That's true; it's also the only gospel that mentions a whip.
Moo
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
He didn't say they had turned it into a market; he said they had turned it into a den of thieves.
I don't know Greek, so I have to rely on translators. John has "market", the Synoptics have "den of thieves". I had to pick one for my recreation. He could, of course, have called it a market and a den of thieves. Street markets have always been a convenient place for thieves to exchange stolen goods for cash.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
I think Alan's picturing of the event is about right. I don't think Indiana Jones and his bullwhip is what we should imagine.
John doesn't mention thieves, he has market - emporion. I suspect it's hyperbole, that only the sale of animals for sacrifice was permitted, money changers providing the only coin that could be used in the temple.
In the vast outer court of the Temple there would have been plenty of space and little disruption from the selling. The stink would have been nothing compared to the smell of the blood thrown against the altar and pouring down the specially cut channels to make the Kidron brook flow red, and the cries and shit of the terrified and dying animals mixed in with it all.
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on
:
This discussion seems to involve a lot of uncertainty, not least about: the whip (how and where was it made), the Temple (how big was it? how busy? how noisy??), the animals (how would they have behaved?), cultural attitudes to violence, Jesus' followers (how many were there - 10 or 1000? how threatening were they?), Jesus' behaviour (how aggressive was He? What did He actually do?), the moneychangers (how much power and influence did they have relative to the worshippers or Jesus? how did they react?), the nature of the Gospel accounts (do they record a single incident or several? are they 100% reliable?) etc etc etc.
It's good to try and understand the history and background, but much of it may be unknowable. What there is is a few dozen words written about an incident (or several incidents) in an alien culture involving an unknown number of people we don't know or understand at a location we're unclear about. Sorry to be pessimistic but isn't our perception of the finer details of the event largely based on how we feel about it already?
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
It's interesting to see the qualifications and special pleading defense of someone making a scourge and driving animals from the temple and expelling the vendors as a kind of non-violence.
It also is odd to hear whipping someone with a scourge of cords as child like admonition or any of the other minimizations in this thread.
There is another scourging described in Matthew 27:26 Would you describe this in the same fashion and not a brutal punishment? What's the difference?
Also, is the second one a consequence of the first incident?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
It also is odd to hear whipping someone with a scourge of cords as child like admonition or any of the other minimizations in this thread.
There is another scourging described in Matthew 27:26 Would you describe this in the same fashion and not a brutal punishment? What's the difference?
Who exactly has said this?
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Who exactly has said this?
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
OK. Rewind. John has it that Jesus "made a scourge of small cords" and drove them ALL out of the temple, men and beasts. So yep, Jesus used mildly traumatizing violence. A 'grown up' version of smacking children. His 110% humanity is apparent. Therefore I have been WRONG to argue otherwise.
[ 26. March 2015, 03:22: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Who exactly has said this?
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
OK. Rewind. John has it that Jesus "made a scourge of small cords" and drove them ALL out of the temple, men and beasts. So yep, Jesus used mildly traumatizing violence. A 'grown up' version of smacking children. His 110% humanity is apparent. Therefore I have been WRONG to argue otherwise.
Ah. You need to learn to recognize Martin's snark.
No one here is arguing that whipping is anything other than violent. A few of us (myself included) are arguing that Jesus didn't whip any humans, but only used the whip to drive out animals. An arguable thesis, yes, and one that several here view as eisegetical. Hence the debate. But it's a far cry from defending whipping as a minor or non-violent act.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
If I can be ... weird... about this, it bothers me more that innocent animals should be whipped than that their involved-with-bad-stuff owners should be. I'd really rather Jesus took the whip to the folks who were profiting from being there.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
I agree the argument "its ok, he only whipped their animals" seems feeble.
It is interesting that by whipping them, he drove them away from the place where they were about to be sold to be sacrificed. If they weren't recaptured for sacrifice it probably was better for them.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
I don't think it's at all weird. I see no reason to declare hitting a person to be violent, and hitting an animal as non-violent. Or, even hitting an inanimate object.
Of course, the whole reason there were animals there in the first place was to support God-ordained violence towards animals on the sacrificial altar.
[x-post. That was, of course, a reply to Lamb Chopped]
[ 26. March 2015, 04:19: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
You have a point (Boyd makes a similar point). otoh, if the notion of whipping some livestock bothers you (not saying it shouldn't) you really don't want to take a look at where your food comes from. (I have *shudders*)
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Again there is NO comparison between a condign flogging with a glass embedded braided leather cat that few survived - anecdotally no one, no one survived a Roman scourging - and a scourge made of short cords of string, briefly applied to leathern cattle, woolly sheep and clothed Mafiosi.
It's very odd. Here we are further along the arc that Jesus propelled us and blaming Him for not living up to those evolved standards whilst seeming to use that 'failure' as justification for worse violence on our part.
Like the Pope over IS?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
It's very odd. Here we are further along the arc that Jesus propelled us and blaming Him for not living up to those evolved standards whilst seeming to use that 'failure' as justification for worse violence on our part.
I disagree. Like I keep hinting, I think there is just as bad violence perpetrated by the mantra that "as long as it doesn't leave a mark, it's not torture" (cf waterboarding).
I think there might be better ways of dealing theologically with our own propensity to violence (physical or otherwise) than thinking Jesus' outburst was simply because "he wasn't as far along the arc as we are".
Thinking that way is in great danger of leading us to perpetrating more refined violence unawares - and thinking we are morally superior because we do.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Who exactly has said this?
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
OK. Rewind. John has it that Jesus "made a scourge of small cords" and drove them ALL out of the temple, men and beasts. So yep, Jesus used mildly traumatizing violence. A 'grown up' version of smacking children. His 110% humanity is apparent. Therefore I have been WRONG to argue otherwise.
In this post I have pointed out that the Greek text does not say that he drove men out of the temple with a whip.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell
quote:
Originally posted by Moo
He didn't say they had turned it into a market; he said they had turned it into a den of thieves.
I don't know Greek, so I have to rely on translators. John has "market", the Synoptics have "den of thieves". I had to pick one for my recreation. He could, of course, have called it a market and a den of thieves. Street markets have always been a convenient place for thieves to exchange stolen goods for cash.
You pays your money and you takes your choice. The problem with the market in the temple was that there was no place else you could go to get your sacrificial animals or get your money changed. Corruption is much more likely to occur when the customer has no choice.
Moo
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
The problem with the market in the temple was that there was no place else you could go to get your sacrificial animals or get your money changed. Corruption is much more likely to occur when the customer has no choice.
The Temple requirement was for coins that did not bear the likeness of Caesar, or any inscription ascribing divinity to Caesar. There were plenty of coins in circulation that were acceptable. Any of the coins issued by Herod the Great, or Archaleus or Antipas would be acceptable. Coins still in circulation from the Maccabean period as well. They would be common throughout Judea, it was Jews from elsewhere (and the God fearing Gentiles) who wouldn't have appropriate coinage. Practically anyone of substance in Judea could have exchanged currency, it was just convenient to be able to do that at the Temple.
The animals for sacrifice had to meet certain requirements, no blemishes etc. You could have come to Jerusalem with your own animal. Though, why bring an animal a long way, when it was so convenient to buy one in the Temple?
The Temple market was a convenience, not a necessity. And, even that convenience didn't need to be in the Temple itself. Why not set up the market selling animals just outside the city gates?
It's been suggested (though, merely speculation) that animals bought in the Temple had already been checked by the priests. So, if you bought your sacrifice there you went straight to the priest and offer the sacrifice, if you walked into the Temple bringing an animal it would be rigorously checked. Of course, the market traders in the Temple could charge a wee bit more for the "guaranteed to be acceptable to the priest" status of their wares. If the priests got a small cut, they could make sure that a small blemish was found on any animal not bought in the Temple.
A stall in the Temple would have been very lucrative. The merchants selling animals were practically guaranteed to sell all their stock on festival days. Those changing money could do so without touring all the inns and hostels asking visitors if they needed to change coins. There may not have been corruption, but I bet profits were good.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Since we're on the subject of corruption, there was apparently a huge temptation for people to basically cart things through the temple precincts because of its proximity to one of the gates of Jerusalem. If you didn't want to go the long way around, transporting your goods right through the holy area was a major shortcut--and no doubt hugely distracting to worshippers as well. I wish I could recall where I was reading about this, but it's easy to see how that would further contribute to the marketplace atmosphere.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Again there is NO comparison between a condign flogging with a glass embedded braided leather cat that few survived - anecdotally no one, no one survived a Roman scourging - and a scourge made of short cords of string, briefly applied to leathern cattle, woolly sheep and clothed Mafiosi.
It's very odd. Here we are further along the arc that Jesus propelled us and blaming Him for not living up to those evolved standards whilst seeming to use that 'failure' as justification for worse violence on our part.
Like the Pope over IS?
Cliffdweller claims you're just being snarky, but I'm going to assume you mean what you're saying.
So the scourge was made of little cords of string, and not cords of ... cord. It was robust enough toe persuade a sheep or oxen to move out but delicate enough that it wouldn't bother a human. And apparently the people moving the livestock were wearing three piece suits and not just a breach clout or tropical weight robe.
It's fine to say, he was violent and that's what people did then, although that kind of weakens the argument that he's a model for today. What is unimpressive is reams of special pleading to say it didn't really happen because you can translate it as tickling with some embroidery floss to masochists who enjoyed the experience.
And it's not violence because he only hit the animals just as a mugging isn't violent if the mugger threatens you but actually hit you.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Far from it Eutychus. For me. But not for you. This is psychologically fascinating. What we each bring to the party. Utterly irreconcilable. Each of us an island. What follows for you Palimpsest doesn't follow for me at all. That's OK. Better than that. It's good, proper, right.
He is an eternal model for any day, all days. In that He showed us the way to go, more than any other and here we are. Going. Still on our way. Still working it out - our salvation - for ourselves, individually, as St. Brian wished.
Jesus' culturally constrained and transcended humanity couldn't be more inspiring for me. He worked it out in ignorance too.
Posted by Fool (# 18359) on
:
The OP asked: Violence: what is it, and is it always bad?
For the first part I'm reminded of George MacDonald Fraser's anti-hero Flashman's response to whether 'red Indian' (native Americans in new money) know the difference between right and wrong. Try wronging one. Most of us have no difficulty recognising violence if it is directed against us. Nuances tend to start when other people are on the receiving end, especially if we don't approve of those people.
As for the second part violence is always bad but as I'm a soldier and I've been a policeman I'd have to say that it may sometimes be necessary/justified.
For it to be necessary/justified it has to have a legitimate aim and it has to be proportional.
In the present in functioning democracies I would say that legitimate could be accepted as a lawful aim. In other times and other places the law may not be legitimate. Legitimate also means that the amount of violence used must only be that required to complete the aim.
Proportional means the amount of violence used must be justified by the need to complete the aim. We're all entitled to defend ourselves but we wouldn't be entitled to deliberately kill someone who tried to snatch our mobile phone or in military term destroy a compound full of civilians because a sniper is taking pot shots from the walls.
I'm not sure I understand why the argument about Jesus and the Temple is interesting or relevant but in the circumstances described I see nothing to justify the violence he used. It was one man attempting to impose his narrow view of morality on other people. We object when the taliban and ISIS behave like this.
With regard to Ghandi and Hitler, taking Ghandi's approach did not have worked. Rather a lot of appeasement was tried with Hitler and it was totally counter productive.
Apartheid in South Africa was evil and I think it reasonable to say that without a certain amount of violence it would not have been overthrown but I think a lot of the ANC terrorism failed the proportionality and legitimacy test. Its aim was not the overthrow of apartheid but the personal positions of the perpetrators.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fool:
The OP asked: Violence: what is it, and is it always bad?
For the first part I'm reminded of George MacDonald Fraser's anti-hero Flashman's response to whether 'red Indian' (native Americans in new money) know the difference between right and wrong. Try wronging one. Most of us have no difficulty recognising violence if it is directed against us. Nuances tend to start when other people are on the receiving end, especially if we don't approve of those people.
Most wise.
quote:
As for the second part violence is always bad but as I'm a soldier and I've been a policeman I'd have to say that it may sometimes be necessary/justified.
Aye, you would.
quote:
For it to be necessary/justified it has to have a legitimate aim and it has to be proportional.
In the present in functioning democracies I would say that legitimate could be accepted as a lawful aim. In other times and other places the law may not be legitimate. Legitimate also means that the amount of violence used must only be that required to complete the aim.
Uh huh. By functional we mean pluralistic, not majority rule, I take it.
quote:
Proportional means the amount of violence used must be justified by the need to complete the aim. We're all entitled to defend ourselves but we wouldn't be entitled to deliberately kill someone who tried to snatch our mobile phone or in military term destroy a compound full of civilians because a sniper is taking pot shots from the walls.
Hmmm. I can think of military situations where that is exactly what is required. And can come up with extreme 'novel' scenarios where it would be reasonable to kill for a mobile phone.
quote:
I'm not sure I understand why the argument about Jesus and the Temple is interesting or relevant but in the circumstances described I see nothing to justify the violence he used. It was one man attempting to impose his narrow view of morality on other people. We object when the taliban and ISIS behave like this.
You're at the wrong of of the telescope.
quote:
With regard to Ghandi and Hitler, taking Ghandi's approach did not have worked. Rather a lot of appeasement was tried with Hitler and it was totally counter productive.
Ghandi's - Christ's - approach wasn't tried by anyone. It would have worked the more it was implemented. Total war was tried and that got us what?
quote:
Apartheid in South Africa was evil and I think it reasonable to say that without a certain amount of violence it would not have been overthrown but I think a lot of the ANC terrorism failed the proportionality and legitimacy test. Its aim was not the overthrow of apartheid but the personal positions of the perpetrators.
Don't start what you can't finish. For the weak to destroy the strong they MUST engage in terrorism. Or love them.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fool:
With regard to Ghandi and Hitler, taking Ghandi's approach did not have worked. Rather a lot of appeasement was tried with Hitler and it was totally counter productive.
Appeasement is not "Ghandi's approach". Appeasement is passive concession to evil. Ghandi's approach was pacifism, not passivity. Pacifism is active, non-violent resistance to evil.
We can't prove a "what if" one way or the other, but there is no reason to think that the strategies that worked for Ghandi and MLK would not have worked in WW2, especially if applied earlier in the conflict. In The Powers that Be Wink addresses this question specifically:
quote:
The brutalities of the Nazis stand for many people as the ultimate refutation of nonviolence. Surely, they reason, only violence could have stopped Hitler. The facts indicate just the opposite. Nonviolence did work whenever it was tried against the Nazis. Bulgaria's Orthodox Bishop Kiril told Nazi authorities that if they attempted to deport Bulgarian Jews to concentration camps, he himself would lead a campaign of civil disobedience, lying down on the railroad tracks in front of the trains... [further examples from Bulgaria]... Ron Sider and Richard K. Taylor comment, "Because of these and other nonmilitary measures, all of Bulgaria's Jewish citizens were saved from the Nazi death camps."
Finland saved all but six of its Jewish citizens from death camps through nonmilitary means. Of 7,000 Danish Jews, 6,500 escaped to Sweden, aided by virtually the whole population and tips from within the German occupation force itself. Almost all the rest were hidden safely for the balance of the war. Denmark's resistance was so effective that Adolf Eichmann had to admit that the action against the Jews of Denmark had been a failure.
The Norwegian underground helped spirit 900 Jews to safety in Sweden, but another 756 were killed, all but 20 in Nazi death camps. German wives of Jews demonstrated in Berlin on behalf of their husbands in the midst of the war, and secured their release for the duration. In Italy, a large percentage of Jews survived because officials and citizens sabotaged efforts to hand them over to the Germans.
During the Nazi occupation of Holland, a general strike by all rail workers paralyzed traffic from Nov. 1944 until liberation in May 1945-- this despite extreme privation to the people, who held out all winter without heat and with dwindling food supplies...
The tragedy is that even though nonviolence did work when used against the Nazis, it was used too seldom. The Jews themselves did not use it, but continued to rely in the main on the passive nonresistance that had carried them through so many pogroms in the past. And the church as a whole were too docile or anti-Semitic, and too ignorant of the nonviolent message of the gospel, to act effectively to resist the Nazis...
... the problem with war or violence as a last resort is that we may be less likely to look to God for a way though if we have already settled in advance that violence is an option. Faith requires at times marching into the waters before they part (Josh. 3:15-16).
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
It would be possible to question whether any of those were non-violent means of ending Nazi evils.
Protecting Jews, no matter how successful in the short term, did nothing the close the death camps, and if the Nazi's hadn't been brought down by other means how long could the Jews be hidden? How long could the trains be kept from running?
The rail strike in the Netherlands was non-violent, but it's effectiveness was in the context of Allied forces fighting through France. The strikers certainly hindered the movement of German troops and supplies which would have been a boon to the Allies and hence shortened the war (with an associated reduction in loss of life).
The question is, is an act that itself does not involve physical violence still non-violent if it benefits someone else who is exhibiting physical violence?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It would be possible to question whether any of those were non-violent means of ending Nazi evils.
Yes. As I said, we can't prove a "what if". Bonhoeffer seemed to believe nonviolence would have worked if it had been engaged early on in the process, it was the failure of the Church to act early that led to the need for violence later.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Great quote cliffdweller. And well said.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
I, along with those who believe in Just War theory, don't believe that violence is always bad. Certainly I don't think it was wrong for St. Michael and the other archangels to battle Lucifer when he was cast down from Heaven. And while I struggle with some aspects of what the Old Testament describes God as doing, I don't reject the idea that God specifically commanded the ancient Israelites to use violence at various times.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It would be possible to question whether any of those were non-violent means of ending Nazi evils.
Yes. As I said, we can't prove a "what if". Bonhoeffer seemed to believe nonviolence would have worked if it had been engaged early on in the process, it was the failure of the Church to act early that led to the need for violence later.
I would certainly agree that small actions early are as effective as larger actions later (it's like a temporal lever). The difficulty is the foresight of knowing that something is needed. All sorts of things could have been done in the early 1930s that hindsight will tell us would have prevented the rise of national socialism, but for that to have happened the German people would have needed to see into the future - would anyone in 1930 have thought that little Austrian corporal would lead the country into a new war and arrange the systematic murder of millions?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
Bonhoeffer seemed to think the German Church was negligent in not seeing the warning signs earlier and speaking out vs. Hitler's use of the "German Christian" rhetoric and the rising anti-Semitism. I'm not sure if he explicitly addressed the wider Church and their culpability (for example, in closing borders to Jewish refugees) but certainly they have their share of blame as well.
But "what if?" they had-- we don't know. Wink makes a strong argument it would have made a difference. We don't know.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Non-violent resistance to evil is never wrong.
Discuss.
Posted by Fool (# 18359) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Non-violent resistance to evil is never wrong.
Discuss.
I would say that it is wrong not to defend people from evil provided that you have the capacity to do so and the defence is proportionate.
Sometimes that defence may require violent means. To stand by and watch rape and murder when you have the capacity to stop it is in its self evil.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
Wink would agree that it is evil and cowardly to do nothing in the face of evil, but would say there is always a creative non-violent option-- it is our blindness caused by our devotion to the myth of redemptive violence that keeps us from seeing that. Bonhoeffer, otoh, seems to be saying there is always a non-violent option at some point in time, but if we delay long enough we may be forced to violence because we didn't stop the evil when we could have. But it is always an ethically compromised choice.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
I would certainly agree that small actions early are as effective as larger actions later (it's like a temporal lever). The difficulty is the foresight of knowing that something is needed. All sorts of things could have been done in the early 1930s that hindsight will tell us would have prevented the rise of national socialism, but for that to have happened the German people would have needed to see into the future - would anyone in 1930 have thought that little Austrian corporal would lead the country into a new war and arrange the systematic murder of millions?
Stepping to the larger picture, poor treatment begets resentment and hardship gives fertile ground to extremist response is a lesson taught long before this and one ignored still. Not being able to predict a particular person is not an excuse for missing a well-worn pattern.
We create the situations in which "violence must be met with violence". And we need to stop.
[ 03. April 2015, 16:49: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
We create the situations in which "violence must be met with violence". And we need to stop.
A very appropriate comment for Good Friday.
The man on the cross would approve.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Completely agreed Fool. To stand by in those or any such circumstances is to be complicit. I walked through the Holocaust exhibition at the Imperial War Museum yesterday. Christianity's darkest hour among many. The Jewish women raped on the streets of Lvov, WERE RAPED BY CHRISTIANS. My head reels with the images still. Nothing new and guttingly, castratingly new. We could have stopped it. I'm convinced, with perfect hindsight, that if everyone who called themselves Christian had been, the total war of WW2 could have been prevented. Now we know. Now we are without excuse.
But the Western churches in the very main will not declare peace against IS. Because we've been complicit, passive in the conditions that make it what it is.
Violence is ALWAYS a sign that we've failed to act. That we've stood by.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Now we know? Iraq and Afghanistan are very peaceful because now we know.
Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I have considered this question most of my life.
I recall specifically formulating my first major response to violence to other boys at my boarding school, with the resolve to get up about 5:00 a.m. and leave my room to avoid having to punch those who came searching for newboys to hit after wake-up. The game was to hold you down and 3 or 5 of them to take turns punching your upper arm, in their hope to get tears and calls for mercy, which of course was fuel for their evil little fires. There are interesting and oddly intimate conversations between the tormenters and tormented, an unholy evil shared between perpetrator and victim in a shared, disordered scene.
This, like your earlier post about the innere Schweinhund and violence, is somehow much closer to the reality of violence as actually experienced than the neat and somewhat stereotyped cases we usually like to consider in ethics class. That oddly intimate relationship between tormentors and tormented is possibly the real payoff for violent actions, at least some kinds of violence.
What I'm understanding from this is that imperfect people like me could do a better job of avoiding violence / violent action if they set themselves in order and dealt with their own innere Schweinhund. The log in my own eye, so to speak.
[ 03. April 2015, 20:06: Message edited by: Grammatica ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Grammatica, NPFISS... we must shine the light on such evil. At the time. Publically. TOGETHER before the 'authorities'.
lilBuddha. Couldn't agree more. But we hide behind the 'just' Second World War when it was no such thing. We - in the persons of the Pope and the ABC - say 'something must be done' about IS - and we don't mean love them.
There'll be somebody along in a minute to say 'yeah but'.
And accuse me of being self-righteous.
[ 03. April 2015, 21:21: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
We - in the persons of the Pope and the ABC - say 'something must be done' about IS - and we don't mean love them.
How about not fueling their fire? Again I cry bullshit. We created the situation in which IS arose and we bloody well did it after we "learned" our lesson about WWII.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
I weep with the weeping too lilBuddha.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Alan Cresswell: I would certainly agree that small actions early are as effective as larger actions later (it's like a temporal lever). The difficulty is the foresight of knowing that something is needed. All sorts of things could have been done in the early 1930s that hindsight will tell us would have prevented the rise of national socialism, but for that to have happened the German people would have needed to see into the future - would anyone in 1930 have thought that little Austrian corporal would lead the country into a new war and arrange the systematic murder of millions?
This question became especially urgent after Rwanda. When Rwanda happened, the international development community (including large organisations like Oxfam) said to itself: "Perhaps we should have seen this coming. Is there no way we could have predicted this?"
After this, a lot of work has gone into trying to formulate models that try to predict this kind of violence and suggest practical ways of prevention, both within NGOs as in the academic world. For example, I know that some universities in Belgium are working on this.
These models will never be a 100% fail-safe crystal ball of course — people are realistic enough to admit that — but I do believe that they have the potential to help us.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0