A Christian Alternative

IV.) A Christian Alternative
Although the Ontology of Violence arose in a society that called itself Christian, and is promoted today by many people who claim that name, several main differences between it and authentic Christianity should be clear. This Ontology includes a vision of progress towards international harmony and well-being, which it derived from Christian and Abrahamic origins. However, humanity is guided towards it by reason, science and human effort, not by God. Moreover, since nations are driven by desires for power, possessions and security, they cannot reach this goal through increasing co-operation. They must be led, instead, by a western people with overwhelming violent power and innumerable possessions— a notion inherited from the Roman Empire.
But if this Ontology of Violence cannot really lead to the fullness of blessing promised to Abraham, can I suggest a more promising way? I will do so by referring briefly to the ultimate source of Christian social theology, the teachings of Jesus.

A.) “Love Your Enemies,” “Turn the Other Cheek.” These sayings, most people think, teach a totally passive approach to violence: that if someone abuses you, or abuses other people, just let them do it. But to grasp their true meaning, let us consider a parallel saying which teaches much the same thing: “if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile.” Jesus was speaking mainly to Jews, most of them peasants, who were heavily oppressed by the Romans. Who could force a Jew “to go one mile?” A Roman solider could command one of them to carry his heavy pack that far— but no further.
How might a soldier respond, then, if a Jew, probably tired already from the first mile, began to walk another mile? The soldier could hardly consider this a passive response, for the Jew was doing it voluntarily. Most likely the soldier, in some confused way, would perceive it as an act of kindness by someone to whom he had shown no kindness. The soldier might come to see the Jew as a real fellow human being, trying to do something for him which he did not deserve. Perhaps he would realize how harsh and impersonal his command, to carry the pack, had been— and to realize that Romans usually spoke to their subjects like this..
Jesus’ parallel teachings— if someone strikes you turn the other cheek; if someone takes your coat, give him you cloak (Matthew 5:39-40)— also encourage not passive, but creative, unexpected responses to violence.
These teachings picture two enemies: one is the oppressor, the other is oppressed. But when the oppressed persons do something unexpected for their oppressors, they are not accepting their oppressed status; they are rejecting it by doing what they choose to do. And by these same acts, they cease to define the other as an enemy. This opens the possibility that the two might begin to relate quite differently.
Such teachings must be seen in the light of Jesus’ most basic message: Repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand! Jesus meant, very roughly, that the blessings promised to Abraham were becoming available, although not yet in the full sense. Jesus, I propose, was saying: when people hurt you, and your natural response is to hurt them back... Stop! the Kingdom of God is at hand! there must be a better way to respond! His teaching was well summarized by the Apostle Paul: Jesus taught not only “do not repay anyone evil for evil,” but also, and primarily, “overcome evil with good.” (Romans 12:17, 21)
Neither Jesus nor his apostles denied the reality of violence. But they denied that it is ontological, or an essential feature of human nature. For it is possible for people, when they open themselves to God’s Kingdom, to respond to violence in unusual, creative ways. And these responses may move those who violate us to treat us quite differently.
Since Jesus and his followers were oppressed by an extremely violent, foreign empire, he meant these teachings to guide not only individual behavior, I propose, but also social and political relationships with other peoples.
This claim is often considered to be extremely idealistic— to be the opposite of “realistic!” Yet the social and political potential of non-violent, creative action was often demonstrated in the 20th century. When large masses of people in the U.S.S.R. and Eastern Europe protested against their very oppressive governments and refused to co-operate with them, most of these governments fell with hardly a shot being fired.

B.) Wealth and Social Class. Jesus’ teachings on creative, non-violent action show that while most people desire to have power over others, this is not a necessary, ontological feature of human nature. Similarly, his teachings on wealth indicate that while most people desire many possessions, or property, this desire need not control us. Precisely speaking, Jesus did not critique wealth itself, but the inordinate desire to possess wealth. Yet he criticized “riches” strongly enough to imply that simply having riches almost always arouses the desire for more. Yet this desire for wealth is not ontological; it too can be overcome when people respond to God’s Kingdom and God’s Spirit.
Like Jesus’ teachings on violence, his teachings on wealth were not intended only for individuals. Jesus repeatedly contrasted “the rich” and “the poor” as large social groups. When people from each group joined in God’s Kingdom, the attitudes of both towards wealth had to change greatly.
Jesus’ call to God’s Kingdom broke down social barriers not only between the rich and the poor, but also between men and women, between Jews and Gentiles, and between religious and non-religious persons. God’s Kingdom broke down thick, often hostile, barriers of social class, gender, nationality and religious practice. This showed that divisions among these groups were not ontological.
In Jesus’ message the Abrahamic theme that all peoples are made for relationships with each other, and that God can and will bring them together, resounded again. Jesus, it seems, would agree with the Qu’ran, that God “made you into nations and tribes, that you might get to know one another.” (Surah 49:13)

C.) Hatred and Murder. According to the Ontology of Violence, murder is rooted so deeply in human relationships that governments can limit it only by threatening and exercising violent punishment. Jesus, however, sought to eradicate the root of murder, which is hatred in the heart. To do so, he taught that whenever negative feelings and disagreements arise among people, they should seek to resolve these quickly and personally. If these disagreements turn into legal disputes, as they often do, people who are accused should do all they can to resolve the issues personally and out of court. In other words, people should not only love their enemies, but when conflicts arise, they should talk with their enemies (who may turn out not to be their enemies).

V.) Some Implications for Foreign Policy
Although I have barely begun to sketch Jesus’ approach, what kind of orientation to international relations might it suggest? For Jesus, as for the Ontology of Violence, the evil and violence in the world are extremely real. Jesus had a “realistic” understanding of the way that individuals and societies usually behave. But he also taught that quite different kinds of behavior are possible.
The Ontology of Violence assumes that nations are always driven by desires for power, possessions and security, and are unrestrained by moral values. It inclines countries to approach each other with deep suspicions about their motives; to suppose, from the start, that those countries want to gain as much power over one’s own country as possible. It inclines a nations to assume that whatever other nations say are probably lies or partial lies, and to continually dig beneath their actual words for hidden, threatening meanings.
Often, nations guided this Ontology prefer to deal with other nations not through negotiations, but by force or threats of force. For power, they believe, is the only language that other countries really understand. Such nations usually view negotiations and compromises as losses of power.
However, a significant inconsistency appears in the western Ontologies of Violence which I have discussed. They insist that all nations are driven by violent struggle for power, and yet they exempt themselves at one point. They argue that they can inflict violence on other peoples, since this is unavoidable, and yet that their own violence brings something positive to the world: some degree of freedom, democracy, progress and prosperity. But violence by their enemies, in their eyes, is only destructive.
An approach which takes its cues from Jesus would treat other peoples, first, as beings created by God; and second, as people whom God desires to guide towards the blessings promised to Abraham— the same blessings that God desires to bring to one’s own people. Since God created both peoples, and wants to bring them both together, they actually do share certain common values and interests. This approach would seek to discover these values and interests, though the may well be obscured by misunderstandings and hatreds. For God truly is calling both peoples on a journey towards blessing for all humankind.
Further, while differences among peoples often lead to conflict, they also provide opportunities to “get to know one another.” (Surah 49:13) This implies, I propose, that even serious differences over international issues offer possibilities for nations to understand other nations better, including issues on which they disagree. Jesus not only taught: love your enemies; but also: listen to your enemies— and listen to those whom you think are your enemies... and maybe you will discover that they are not your enemies.
According to western versions of the Ontology of Violence, only one nation or group of nations—western nations, of course-- understands how other nations can attain prosperity, freedom and peace. But Jesus’ teachings imply that no nation or group of nations can understand this without the help of other nations. Because God made us different, we really need each other-- though differences often lead us to the opposite conclusion: because we are different, we do not need each other.
In international relations, then, it is important to listen carefully to other peoples as they describe their views, their experiences, their hopes, and their objections against one’s own people. To be sure, they may not always speak truthfully. But if we begin by assuming that they are lying, as the Ontology of Violence suggests, we probably will never discover what is really true and really false. Jesus’ apostle James gave some very good advice: “let everyone be quick to listen, slow to speak, [and] slow to anger.” (James 1:19)
It might be true, or partly true, that another nation is driven by desires for power, possessions and security, as the Ontology of Violence claims. Jesus and his followers took violence very seriously. Christians believe that Jesus experienced the violence of the world’s mightiest empire, Rome, directly, in his body, in the most painful way. But if the Ontology of Violence includes much that is true, it does not include all that is true. It does not know that God created human beings for something quite different, and that because God’s Kingdom and God’s Spirit are present, humans can respond to threats and outbreaks of violence in creative, positive ways.
Consequently, even if an opposing nation is mainly seeking to gain power, another nation will not discover what other motives it may have, or discover other ways of relating to that nation, if it assumes from the start that power is the only issue. People who want to understand other peoples, I propose, must begin by assuming that what the other says is true and is inspired by positive motives. But if and when these others starts contradicting themselves, or denying true facts, then it is proper to question them. Jesus advised his followers: “be wise as serpents and harmless as doves.” That is: listen carefully, and if need be critically, to everything that others say; but always treat them respectfully and seek for ways that lead to understanding and peace.
Finally, much of what I have said about the Ontology of Violence, and about its neoconservative form that now guides American foreign policy, has been negative. I need to add that I do not mean to be negative about America itself. Many Americans disagree with Neoconservatism, and future governments can adopt different approaches. I have been critical of America’s Ontology of Violence because I believe that it not only hurts other nations, but that it also hurts America. I believe that this approach, regrettably, has not made my children, my grandchildren and all other American adults and children safer, but less safe. I care deeply about my country-- but I also care about all other countries, including those which my government calls our enemies. I speak ultimately as a follower of Jesus and Abraham, who looks forward to the day, and works for the day, when all the families of the earth will be blessed.