A few weeks ago, I was in a leftist bookshop in Seattle and discovered a book (How Nonviolence Protects the State by Peter Gelderloos) claiming that nonviolence protects the State (making it a useful tool of Empire). In other words, they believed that pacifism and nonviolence simply allow aggressors to keep on oppressing. After all, most nonviolent protesters and activists largely adhere to laws governing protests, thus making their actions largely predictable and controllable.

Conventional wisdom might not agree with Peter Gelderloos, but it often agrees with the larger sentiment that nonviolence doesn’t challenge the State at all, since nonviolence is essentially a wordy way of doing nothing. It is often asserted that pacifism is passive and “turning the other cheek” is Christian jargon for being a doormat.

Whereas folks like Gandhi, MLK, and Mark Kurlansky (who recently wrote a book called Nonviolence: The History of a Dangerous Idea that is a MUST READ for those that feel nonviolence is impotent) claim that nonviolence is a very powerful and dangerous force.

Who’s right? Does embracing nonviolence turn one into a doormat or is it a powerful way of challenging one’s enemy while (potentially) showing love for them at the same time?

That all depends upon how you embrace nonviolence. For example, the early Anabaptists were nonviolent nonconformists who challenged the systems so much that they were persecuted and killed (just like the early church). These Christians were not killed simply for being “heretics,” despite what you learned in your history course. Folks are killed by governments when their ideas become so powerful that they legitimately threaten the status quo.

Today’s Anabaptists don’t usually embrace the same sort of nonviolence…over time they have become the “quiet in the land.” Most Mennonites and Hutterites, etc. often avoid the word “nonviolent” and use the gentler term “pacifist” (if they use it at all) and equate pacifism with a sort of separatist non-involvement. They find killing distasteful, but are ok with it as long as they’re not the ones doing it. :)

Pacifism of this sort (which is certainly held by many others besides by mainstream Anabaptists) is absolutely no threat to the Powers. In fact, it can be a huge help. Oppressors (everyone from dictators to slave owners to school-yard bullies) have told the oppressed to “turn the other cheek” in order to keep them in their place. This sort of passive pacifism does not properly reflect Jesus’ teaching. Jesus told the oppressed to turn the other cheek as an act of positive assertion of self-worth, but also as an act of love. This sort of nonviolence–the active sort of Jesus and the early Anabaptists and King and Gandhi and the Christian Peacemaker Teams–is active and subversive. It isn’t docile submission to abuse. It is submissive insofar as it doesn’t seek revenge or desire to set one’s self up as the oppressor. Rather, it seeks liberation for both oppressed and oppressor.

At this point, it might be helpful to introduce some of the different ways of being nonviolent. Though folks (like me) sometimes use nonviolence and pacifism interchangeably, they mean different things (depending upon how they’re being used). Here, however, I’ll separate them for the sake of clarity. It is helpful to think of pacifism as addressing the question of when is it ok to use violence? whereas nonviolence addresses the question of how can I affect change apart from violence? Please keep in mind that there isn’t consensus on how these terms are used:

Absolute Pacifism: Killing and violence are always wrong.

“Christian” Nonviolence: Christians can cannot use violence, but “pagans” may justly resort to violence.

Private Pacifism: Personal violence is always wrong, but nations can engage in violence if their cause is just.

Anti-war pacifism: Personal violence is ok in cases of self defense, but war is never justified.

Philosophical Nonviolence: Taking action to oppose injustice and winning over one’s enemies through love and redemptive suffering (Gandhi’s Satyagraha would be included here).

Tactical Nonviolence: Use of nonviolent resistance as a strategic tool for building political power or affecting societal change.

Passive Resistance/Nonconformity: Refusal to comply (Te Whiti o Rongomai is, perhaps, the best example of this).

Passive Obedience: Dissent of any sort (including nonviolence) is immoral, since authority is established by God.

And this isn’t even getting into the dozens of strategies for active nonviolence.

Being a peacemaker doesn’t mean you have to be passive. Nor does it mean that you have to simply let  acts of violence or oppression happen. We are clearly shown throughout the Gospels and the Epistles an active nonviolence…a persistent and public witness against the Powers that seeks to bring liberation. Nothing Jesus or Paul or Peter said should be construed as “just take it.” In fact, it is easy to see the ways in which the apostles practiced nonconformity. Jesus was clearly an advocate of what could be understood as philosophical nonviolence. And it is my belief that the early church (starting with Jesus) had a relatively consistent ethic on absolute pacifism. Nevertheless, Jesus or Paul or Peter never advocate seeking power over others. In fact, they seem genuinely disinterested in seizing Jewish or Roman power whatsoever.

We have all been trained to assume that change only comes through the exercise of power–and BIG change comes only through the exercise of violence. At the same time, we have been told that pacifism is impotent. And when folks begin, by conviction, to embrace nonviolence, they are encouraged to do so in ways that are state-approved. Thus we are left with an impotent nonviolence.

How can we challenge the Powers nonviolently in ways that aren’t co-opted by the State yet, at the same time aren’t simply attempts at seizing power for ourselves? Is such a thing possible?

About Mark Van Steenwyk

Mark Van Steenwyk is a member of Missio Dei. He is a speaker, writer, educator, and grassroots organizer. With the support of the Central Plains Mennonite Conference, he travels to radical and intentional communities around the country to help network and offer support.