All Comments for: Courageous Nonviolence | Christianity Today

Free Newsletters:

RSS Feeds |

Audio |

Twitter

Home > 2007 > December

Christianity Today, December, 2007 |

Courageous Nonviolence

At the first Christmas, the angels proclaimed, 'Peace on earth.' Just-war and pacifist Christians together can make it happen.

Ron Sider | posted 12/19/2007 08:59AM

The 20th century was the bloodiest in human history. In Humanity: A Moral History of the 20th Century, Jonathan Glover estimates that 86,000,000 people died in wars fought from 1900 to 1989. That means ...

[Reader Reviews]

Average User Rating:

Rate and Comment on this article

Displaying 1 - 25 of 28 comments.

Page: 1 2

Show All

Alex	Posted: December 28, 2007 10:09 AM

Thank you Mr. Sider. I have been impressed with the CPT for a while now and have thought if we (as a global or local church) could only get organized to do this kind of "standing in the gap" on a massive scale, imagine the impact. Let's get this going. Keep us updated on how we can help financially or otherwise. I hope Christianity Today will help to provide a mouthpiece for such a large scale ongoing operation.

Kozak

Posted: December 27, 2007 11:30 AM

I see way too much naivete and historical ignorance in the CPT's. In Iraq the violence is perpetrated by Muslims who think of Christians as contemptible inferiors. Teams that think that "all people are basically the same" will get nowhere, or will be cynically used, or will be martyred. In a place like Nicaragua, stopping the guerrilla war on these grounds just ratifies the status quo, unless you also get a commitment from the leaders to pressure the government. Also, Christians may be united in opposing bloodshed, but may differ 180 degrees in their desired outcome. In Palestine some Christians want Israel to rule the entire place, others want a Palestinian state. Even if you manage to stop the fighting, what then?

ScottR

Posted: December 27, 2007 10:40 AM

We must also stop to consider if we are waging a "just peace". Are we using the absence of war as a masquerade for gross injustice and oppression (i.e. Salt Treaties, Hitler, North Korea, UN "sanctions")? I think Ron Sider underestimates the nature of evil and has been too strongly swayed by the peace-at-all-costs movement He also seems to overlook parts of Scripture. Ecclesiastes says it most simply: there is "a time for war and a time for peace." Exodus states clearly, "The LORD is a warrior; the LORD is his name." Also, the image in Revelation 12 of the baby slipping past the mouth of the dragon --and the ensuing battle-- is hardly a peaceful one. The Kingdom of God does not always come so peacefully -- just war can reap a harvest of wholeness and healing. Having said that, Ron Sider made me stop and think -- Do we wage war too easily? Have we learned from our mistakes? Can we better reconcilers? How do we follow a God who calls Himself both Lion of Judah and Prince of Peace?

A.Yeshuratnam

Posted: December 27, 2007 8:54 AM

Gandhi's movement cannot be called non-violent. The British were tolerant, and there were democratic assemblies created by them as early as 1909. More importantly, there was a vibrant democratic government functioning in England, and the opposition was always championing the cause of Indians in the British parliament. There was also a free press in India and Gandhi got lot of publicity. Even without Gandhi India would have got her independence, for after World War II Britain was giving freedom to most of her colonies. Was there a Gandhi in Malaya? Was there a Gandhi in Indonesia or Burma? Moreover, Gandhi used non-violence because he knew that violent tactics would be put down by the British government. Once India became independent, Gandhi allowed Indian troops to march into Hyderabad State to bring it under India. He also asked Nehru to send troops into Kashmir. No wonder Churchill called him a hypocrite! A.Yeshuratnam Trivandrum India.

Rev. Keith Dendy

Posted: December 25, 2007 5:37 PM


I was disappointed as I read Ron Sider's "Courageous Nonviolence;" surely he is not so naive as to think that pacifism is an EFFECTIVE counter-measure to Islamic extremists who are sworn to the goal of destroying all "infidels"---i.e., everyone who is not Islamic!

Suzanne Bowles

Posted: December 23, 2007 3:32 PM

Ron Sider’s article “Courageous Nonviolence” contains some unwarranted assumptions about the effectiveness of pacifism as well as some faulty history. He lauds the efforts of Gandhi in British India attributing his success to his nonviolent philosophy. He overlooks, though, that the British Empire, while by no means perfect, adhered to a basic level of morality and concern for world opinion which limited its response to Gandhi’s civil disobedience. Can anyone doubt what would have been Gandhi’s fate had Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan taken over India? Indeed, Hitler himself told Lord Halifax in 1937 that his advice to the British was “Shoot Gandhi.” In addition, Sider extols the efforts of the Christian Peacemaker Team (CPT) that was kidnapped, and one of its members killed, in Baghdad two years ago. He conveniently forgets to point out that this group was rescued by members of the British military.

Jay Garrett

Posted: December 20, 2007 4:52 PM

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. is a good example of a man willing to sacrifice his reputation and safety through nonviolent demonstration for the purpose of exposing social ills and opposing the politically and economically powerful who place their well-being above the poor and the powerless. He said, "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." Nonviolent intervention seem to suggest that ". . . it is not by might nor by power . . ." that we promote the Kingdom of God - it by the Spirit of God!

Ray	Posted: December 20, 2007 3:10 PM

In spite of Christian proclamations of peace, particularly at Christmas-time, Christians haven't always been at the forefront of peace-making. Other cultures and religions also proclaim peace-making as a way of life, as exemplified by Ghandi. So nonviolent intervention is not specifically Christian, but it would be really good if Christians were really known by their love and peacefulness, instead of being linked to power-politics and armed intervention as much of the world sees us. Ray

Dana	Posted: December 20, 2007 8:47 AM


Well said, Dave Taylor. The article's argument was beyond weak. I'm also wondering where the writer is getting the idea that supporting just war means exhausting all nonviolent options. Good example to support Dave Taylor's argument: the Tiananmen Square massacre.

Ephrem hagos

Posted: December 20, 2007 6:46 AM

As long as Jews, Christians and Moslems refuse to recognize the time (2 millenia ago) when God came to save the world by a method commonly present in all their corresponding Scriptures known and applied only in the 1st Century, no abiding "peace on earth" is possible today. What is needed for peace has been made abundantly provided in the typical and personal revelation of God for the whole world at the death of Jesus Christ of which all the monotheistic Scriptures testify. What is needed for peace is a new world-order of recreated or born again children of God, striclty according to the given crucifixion-of-Jesus based prescription (John 3: 1-15) and actually sharing the one nature of divinity, i.e., the Spirit. The cost of re-writing the prescription and consequent failure is incalculable!

bernie

Posted: December 20, 2007 6:37 AM

These comments are fascinating because they show the diversity of thinking in the Christian community. But what would this world be like if Christians were known to truly oppose war, violence , etc? If we were known for promoting peace, justice, fair economic policies, and doing all we can to minimize poverty would the "non-christian world" take notice and perhaps listen. The reason we don't know is as Sider points out, it has never been tried on a global church wide basis. Killing (war) is not God's first option nor should it be ours. Peace and goodwill to all is so much harder to implement as away of living and thinking. Alas the Christian church within itself does not live out the basic rule of living Jesus clearly spelled out in John 13:34,35. And until we do most likely the voice of those like Ron Sider's will remain marginalized and unheard. Thank you CT for printing this article, hopefully more will follow.

StefanC

Posted: December 19, 2007 9:02 PM

It is very refreshing to read about non-violent approaches to conflict resolution from Christianity Today, as we evangelicals are so often the proponents of the authority of Scripture except when it deals with national security. If we truly affirm Jesus Christ as Lord, and not only Saviour, we need to heed his call to non-violent peacemaking even if it's not convenient, this is one of the many "costs of discipleship" that Jesus lays out (though not a "good work" leading unto salvaiton). Jesus neither taught nor modeled a theology of self-preservation, though we hold firmly to it. As the old addage says: "When Jesus said, 'Love you enemies', I think He probably meant don't kill them". May we repent of our lack of trust in God's ability to be in control by placing our trust in weapons and force when He came to us in the form of a baby to save our sinful souls. In Him and b/c of Him...

John O

Posted: December 19, 2007 7:44 PM


The article is competent. The survey based on it is dreadful. It totally ignores the reality that there are many non violent peacemakers who are non Christians. It seems popular to ignore that one of the stars of the article, Gandhi was a Hindu.

A Hermit

Posted: December 19, 2007 7:15 PM

This is an excellent talk about nonviolence. I do not think that we should put our faith in technique. 'Nonviolence' will not save us- living the Christ life and bearing witness will. Ultimately, only the communities involved in conflict by turning from self-centered ways and hatred will end war and violence. But outsiders can certainly aid the 'coming of the Kingdom' by standing with those who are oppressed and bearing witness and loving as Jesus did (being 'nonviolent'). By leading lives less focused on materialism (and greed) we will also aid in creating peace. Live the message-live simply with less.

Ashlee

Posted: December 19, 2007 5:44 PM

It seems that many Christians who claim to support the just war tradition actually hold a more "realist/militarist" perspective. If a view towards war disregards the requirements of the just war tradition (which has been largely shaped by Christianity), on what grounds does it claim to be "just"? Sider is correct in pointing out that "last resort" is a requirement of the just war tradition, and then provides some very compelling examples of how Christians might take it more seriously. I applaud the way Sider encourages Christians to actively make peace, rather than be consumed by fear and the need to protect "us" from "them" (Are not we called to love and forgive our enemies, even "terrorists"? Two actions that are about giving away security rather increasing it!). Christians should not choose non-violence based on whether or not "everybody else" in the world chooes it, or because it is the most "effective" method, but because it is a faithful witness to the Gospel.

Kevin

Posted: December 19, 2007 3:27 PM

Mr. Sider writes that three members of the kidnapped Christian Peacemakers Team in Baghdad were "released." But they weren't simply released -- they were rescued by an international military team. The kidnapping of the CPTers by jihadists was an unnecessary months-long distraction for our troops that was resolved only after our troops put their lives on the line to save the CPTers. (The bullet-riddled body of the fourth member of the Baghdad CPT team was dumped by the jihadists on a trash heap.) Upon the second anniversary of this misbegotten CPT mission, Mr. Sider seems to be recommending more of the same. Mr. Sider cites the examples of Gandhi and MLK Jr., but in those instances the protesters were the subjugated people themselves. The dynamic is entirely different (and usually bitterly resented) when outsiders intervene. I do not believe such interventions are a productive strategy.

Mike C

Posted: December 19, 2007 2:41 PM


Dan...may I submit Jesus Christ who came from the Father. No better example.

JohnP

Posted: December 19, 2007 2:03 PM

In my lifetime, I have been on both sides of the argument. I can see strengths and weaknesses in both. My own main difficulty with Sider's ideas deals with his urging Christians to join with those from other faiths in praying and demonstrating for peace. This is syncretism, and is the sort of activity which, I believe, will ultimately lead to a one-world church, as seen in Revelation. Also, when he talks about the West Bank, he is dealing with the nation of Israel, which has been given by God to the Jews and should be occupied by no other. We are told to "pray for the peace of Jerusalem" (Ps. 122:6), and when Jerusalem lives in peace, the whole world will be at peace -- but not before. I understand Christian peacemaking to be smaller in scope -- settling strikes, converting prisoners, effecting harmony in a neighborhood, etc. Also, too many pacifists are post-millennial, a position I disagree with vehemently. (I'm not necessarily saying that Sider is postmil.)

Dan	Posted: December 19, 2007 1:43 PM


One apparent distinction sticks out to me in all the cases where pacifistic efforts have created peace and justice. The agents of the change all seem to be intiated by those directly involved in the unjust situation. Are there cases where outside agents of peace have initiated the change?

joshua

Posted: December 19, 2007 1:17 PM


i actually wanted to have an elaborate discussion of the two ends of the spectrum: just-war and pacifists advocates.... I did not see it here...this is because i am not decided yet...

Basilides

Posted: December 19, 2007 1:16 PM


A very thought provoking article. I've linked to it at my blog for military Christians, http://militarychristiansworldwide.blogspot.com/ .

Mike C

Posted: December 19, 2007 1:16 PM

Pro-war folks, you can continue to bomb and kill in search of "personal security." Not a teaching of Jesus. I challenge you to show me anywhere that my Lord Jesus said such behavior is consistent with His teachings. I'll show you the opposite. Matthew 5-7 for just one example. I've challenged lots of hawks over the years and none has been able to respond effectively. Are you willing to give up your freedom and personal happiness and become the servant of your enemy? Will you really surrender all for and to Him? That is basic to the Gospel of Jesus. And it is the life He led. Take a lesson from your persecuted brothers and sisters and be willing to give up your freedom for the sake of serving others and Jesus. That's what a Vietnamese pastor did when he refused an early release from prison so he could serve the congregation that had been established inside. If you believe in the promises of Jesus, you believe you have eternal life. So why fear earthly death? Live your faith!

Willaim Snider

Posted: December 19, 2007 12:55 PM


the bible saids there will be war till Jesus returns. ether you are deceived,deceiveing or plain dishonest?

JohnW

Posted: December 19, 2007 12:37 PM

There have only been a few comments, but the responses will most likely be mostly negative-Sider will no doubt be called naive or worse yet he may even be called "liberal". It is sad when so many well meaning people have been deluded by the propaganda put forth by the war party and spread by some prominent members of our evangelical elite. Thank-you Christianity Today for presenting Ron Sider's article despite knowing you will get a negative response.

Dr. P. Andrew Sandlin

Posted: December 19, 2007 12:22 PM

I applaud Ron Sider’s motivation (”Courageous Nonviolence,” Dec. 2007), but his naive view of human nature is downright dangerous — and un-Biblical. In countering suicidal terrorism, Christians are called to support a state that will protect them and their children — and the church — from violence (Rom. 13:1-5), not practice “non-violent approaches to peacemaking” in the face of such godless inhumanity. Sider all but admits that “non-violent approaches to peacemaking” are of symbolic value; but the fact is that, under the guise of peacemaking, this symbolism potentially emboldens terrorists to wreak additional havoc. We cannot assume that because we Christians have fundamentally non-violent intentions, everybody else in the world does, too.

Page: 1 2

E-mail this page

Write CT

Print this article

Post a comment