From a thoughtful friend:

The general assumption is that either we a. do nothing in the face of oppressive circumstances or b. we have to use violent force. I think (and Jesus, Gandhi, MLK Jr. and others thought) there was another - much better - way of nonviolent resistance. Nonviolence means getting in the way of oppression and stopping it from happening, but without needing to threaten or kill your enemy.

The choice is need not be between, as you put it, either meeting these situations with force or being guilty of not defending the innocent. Nonviolence is categorically NOT inaction. Yes, inaction is violence (and re abortion, it's one thing to be active defending the unborn but if we're not also actively defending the born, are we really being consistent?). See [1] below.

The irony is that - time and time again - nonviolence has been proven effective (see this latest study: http://www.progressive.org/mag/wxap103008.html). The US partly funded the grassroots nonviolent movement that toppled Slobodan Milosevic, and many other nonviolent revolutions have toppled dictators much more effectively than violent ones, and with far less loss of life on BOTH sides. Yet as Joan Baez has said, "People try nonviolence once and when it doesn't work they go back to using violence which hasn't worked for centuries." We assume violence works because that is what we are schooled to think - by our movies, by our governments, by the military-industrial complex. But violence only ever leaves bitterness and hatred in its wake, creating more violence. It's a cultural belief that violence works. But it doesn't have to be.

I know some Australian military forces are also involved in the reconstruction of schools, hospitals and essential services. This is wonderful and to be applauded. So imagine we did it without guns, and after being invited in, like Christian Peacemaker Teams! Would we not be received more warmly? Wouldn't the world know Australia for its love of enemy? Wouldn't we win them over to our side rather than creating more enemies and 'terrorists' by killing their (and our) brothers and sisters and loved ones?

I'm sure this all sounds terribly utopian, but I believe it's what Jesus calls us to. Faithful nonviolent action in the face of oppression. Jesus stood up with the oppressed, and he was killed for it. When threatened, rather than fighting back he told his followers to put down their sword. Surely if ever there was a just war, that moment was it! What's more, that's exactly what he calls his followers to do - put down their sword and pick up a cross.

I admire and applaud our soldiers for their bravery, their discipline, and for risking their own lives selflessly. I do not take that lightly. But I believe there's a better way, and it's the way I see exemplified by Jesus.

[1] In my experience, many of those who are most vehemently pro-life (in the sense of anti-abortion) are also pro the so-called 'war on terror' and pro the death sentence. I don't understand it, but there it is.

While I don't think all churches need to say everything about everything, the public silence from wider church groups on the continuing Iraq and Afghani wars is deafening (with a few small exceptions). And perhaps I missed it (certainly the letters section of the Age carried some anti-death penalty letters) but I reckon if some church group had stood up strongly against the killing of the Bali bombers the media would've been all over it. It just surprised me.

November 2008