Where's the Line Between Violence and Nonviolence?

In Defense of Christian Nonviolence - Part Three

One question I should have anticipated when I started this series, “In Defense of Christian Nonviolence,” is the question I received from a reader, “How much force is permitted before one crosses the line from nonviolent to violent?” Another reader asked, “In your view, is the issue of ‘non-violence’ more concerned with all violence or specifically with lethal violence?” These are important questions and I apologize for not addressing them until now.

The Problem with “Nonviolence”

Even though I am using it for this series, I am actually not a huge fan of the term, “nonviolence.” I would rather define myself by what I am for, rather than against. Furthermore, it is difficult to defend a negative position and it always leaves us asking the question, “How far is too far?”

As an example, if someone said, “I am against the use of profanity,” it would be natural to ask what constitutes profanity. What about words that some people consider profanity, but other people don’t? What about words that have changed meaning over time? At what point does an innocuous word become profane because of how that word is being used? How bad can my language be without actually “cussing”? I’m not trying to open a whole new can of worms. I am simply trying to illustrate how hard it is to defend a negative position.

Violence is defined as, “The use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy.”¹ In other words, the goal or intention of “violence” is to harm someone. A great illustration is thinking about the difference between a surgeon using a scalpel to cut someone and an attacker using a knife to cut someone. In both scenarios, someone is being cut. However, the attacker’s goal is to harm and the surgeon’s goal is to heal. Therefore, one of them is “violent” and the other is not.

Generally speaking, when I say I am committed to “nonviolence,” I am saying I am trying not to engage in activities in which the intention is to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy another person. However, even that definition naturally brings up so many questions that I cannot answer with precision.

The Problem with “Pacifism”

Another term we could use is “pacifism” or “pacifist.” However, many people misunderstand what this term means. “Pacifism” sounds similar to “passive.” So, some might assume they have a related meaning, but they don’t.

The word, “pacifism” comes from the word, “pacific” (think, Pacific Ocean), which means, “peaceful.”² A pacifist is a person who believes in finding peaceful resolutions to conflict, without resorting to violence or war. I like this word because it focuses on a positive goal, peacemaking through peaceful means.

However, “pacifism” has always been a politically charged term. It was apparently coined by a French lawyer, Émile Arnaud. He used the term to describe a political peace movement. I really don’t wish to associate my commitment to nonviolence with any sort of earthly politics. For me, it is really not about left or right, red or blue, donkeys or elephants; my position is about Jesus and his new kingdom.

Sometimes I will tell people I am “pacifist,” because I am definitely in favor of making peace through peaceful means. However, I don’t like defining myself by human philosophies. I am very skeptical about anything that ends with an “ism.” I am committed to nonviolence not because I have adopted a human philosophy or political agenda, but because I firmly believe it is the direction Jesus is leading his people.

Cruciform Peacemaking

I don’t think I have ever heard someone use the term, “cruciform peacemaking,” but I just googled it and apparently I am not the first to suggest a term like this. I don’t know what others may mean by this, but this is the best way I can think to describe what I am for. I am for cruciform (cross-shaped) peacemaking.

In other words, I am in favor of actively seeking peace and reconciliation, resolving conflicts, and overcoming evil the way Jesus did, through self-giving love. I am for taking up my cross and following Jesus. I am for loving my enemies the way Jesus loved his enemies, “When he was insulted, he did not insult in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten but entrusted himself to the one who judges justly.”³

So, for me, it’s not about finding a clear demarcation between violence and nonviolence. It’s about “love,” doing what is in the other person’s best interest. Admittedly, that’s a bit ambiguous and it’s hard to know exactly what actions are loving and what actions are not. For instance, is it loving to wrestle someone to the ground, who is trying to hurt people, even if that means he is unintentionally injured in the process? I believe it could be.

Drawing lines is difficult. Paul said love is “kind” and not “rude.”⁴ Where is the line between kind and rude? When has a person crossed the line into being rude? This is similar to our question about crossing the line into violence. It’s hard to answer, but I think it has a lot to do with our intention or goal.

That’s why the deeper questions we need to be asking actually revolve around how we can bless our enemies and how we can serve their needs. That sounds crazy, right? That sounds like something only an insane person would ask. However, this is what Jesus did for us; and according to Romans 12, it is exactly what every single Christian is supposed to do.

The Goal of Cruciform Peacemaking

The goal of cruciform peacemaking is the reconciliation of all things. We want people to be reconciled to God; heaven and earth to be reconciled; people of every tribe, language, and nation to be reconciled. We want to experience the peace and harmony that existed in the Garden. We want God’s will to be done on earth as it is in heaven. Injuring, abusing, damaging, or destroying is—generally speaking—the very opposite of our goal.

Cruciform peacemakers are those who are willing to suffer and die to be a small part of helping accomplish God’s mission of reconciliation.

In order for God’s will to be done on earth as it is in heaven, every enemy of God must be defeated, brought under the feet of our King. Every Christian was God’s enemy at one time. We have been defeated by Christ’s love, pardoned, and given citizenship in his kingdom. We now participate in God’s conquering of the world, not with weapons “of the flesh,”⁵ but by doing good in the name of Christ.

We don’t hurt our enemy, we help him with food, drink, and other blessings. When we do this, we are heaping “burning coals on his head.”⁶ One way to understand this is that we are participating in the judgement of our enemy when we respond to his cruelty with kindness. Sometimes the “burning coals” we heap on his head convict him of his sin, he repents, and submits himself to God. However, sometimes it infuriates him and he makes it even more obvious what sort of person he is, bringing about his own eventual destruction.

Either way, regardless of how God’s enemies react, the Holy Spirit empowers us to demonstrate the love, kindness, generosity, and gentleness of Christ. This divine power that is in us is capable of destroying the true enemy’s strongholds. The Spirit is breaking Satan’s grip on the world. He is empowering us to “overcome evil with good,”⁷ rather than us contributing more violence into the world, in our own well-meaning, but misguided, attempt to overcome evil.

Conclusion

At this point you might be asking, “Wait, did you answer the question? What is the line between violence and nonviolence?” I tried to answer that question to the best of my ability. However, as important as the question is, “At what point have I done ‘violence’ to my enemy,” I think a much more important question is, “What would it really look like to love and bless my enemies?”

I am against violence. I am against injuring, abusing, damaging, and destroying. That is why I am defending the position of Christian “nonviolence.” However, I use that term only because it is fairly well known and understood. It is probably much more accurate to say, I am for cruciform peacemaking.

That said, whether or not you agree with my stance, I appreciate you hearing me out. May the Lord bless you and keep you.

I love you and God loves you,

Wes McAdams

P.S. This post is part of my current series, “In Defense of Christian Nonviolence.” Feel free to read previous posts in this series and stay tuned as I continue to respond to questions and objections.

1. Mirriam-Webster Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/violence

2. Etymonline, https://www.etymonline.com/word/pacifism

3. 1 Peter 2:23 (CSB)

4. 1 Corinthians 13:4-5

5. 2 Corinthians 10:4

6. Romans 12:20; Proverbs 25:21-22

7. Romans 12:21