Oh Yeah, Non-Violence
I somehow keep forgetting how central non-violence is to my philosophy.
Don't get me wrong, it comes up -- I used to date a (female) submariner who did not appreciate some MLK Jr Day observances of mine, notably, reading through his lengthy writings against war. There's something so poetic about it, read:
Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars.
I heard that was written in notes for a sermon he was not able to give, as he was shot and killed shortly after penning those words. But more notably, I do appreciate this:
I cannot forget that the Nobel Peace Prize was also a commission, a commission to work harder than I had ever worked before for "the brotherhood of man." This is a calling that takes me beyond national allegiances, but even if it were not present I would yet have to live with the meaning of my commitment to the ministry of Jesus Christ. To me the relationship of this ministry to the making of peace is so obvious that I sometimes marvel at those who ask me why I'm speaking against the war. Could it be that they do not know that the good news was meant for all men -- for Communist and capitalist, for their children and ours, for black and for white, for revolutionary and conservative? Have they forgotten that my ministry is in obedience to the One who loved his enemies so fully that he died for them? What then can I say to the Vietcong or to Castro or to Mao as a faithful minister of this One? Can I threaten them with death or must I not share with them my life?
And recently, I was thinking about how Jesus doesn't talk about repentance in the Sermon on the Mount -- a curious fact, I think you'll agree! The term would be μετανοέω (metanoeó), and you can see it isn't in chapters 5-7 of Matthew. But He was probably speaking Aramaic, at the time, and that would have been the word שוב (shuv).
But that word is general, in Aramaic. It means to turn away from, and has two Greek words it can translate into. The word for repentance, when speaking metaphorically, and στρέφω (strephó), which you'll see is used in two places -- once, to describe turning the other cheek, and the other, to describe the swine, after they trample the pearls, turning and tearing you to pieces.
"Repent" is such a general word, and the point of the sermon was to point at what you should turn towards. But when he talks about turning around, he sees violence as very much close to the center of the bullseye. Of course you should not be violent yourself, the message is more profound. It's that violence gives us a chance to turn around and show others what it means to be good. That we should take particular care to not push too hard with those not ready (a mistake I might have made with the submariner), for some will be radicalized to violence if they aren't ready to hear about how vulnerability and hurt and the way of the Lord.
Anyhow, I do take this very seriously. I recall receiving a lot of distaste in response to my not pushing for the dogs that attacked me be put down, but in fairness I'd received an assurance from their owner that she'd keep them on the leash going forward. Seldomly are we really tested in our faithfulness to non-violence, so that is perhaps my only real bona fide. Our modern world is one where non-violence is so easy, it's quite bizarre to me others don't pick it up as an ethical principle by accident.