Jesus, Syria and The Concept Of Non-Violence

I find myself today thinking about the concept of non-violence as a response to oppression. It has an honoured history. Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr.,  Nelson Mandela (after his release from prison at least when he advocated reconciliation rather than revenge.) I'm wondering about this because Syria remains in the news today, as it has for some time and as it probably will be for some time. The question is always the same, of course: should the United States attack Syria in response to the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime?

I have a knee jerk reaction when such questions come up: of course not! I'm a Christian! Non-violence is the way! Jesus would not support any violent actions. And now I find myself not really thinking about Syria (but it's in the back of my mind) but rather about Jesus and non-violence. Did Jesus really believe in non-violence? Is that really what he preached and taught and lived? It seems so clear. "Love your enemies." "Pray for those who persecute you." Now, that's Jesus. That's right from the Sermon on the Mount. It has to be the ethical heart of how Christians should respond to their enemies - and if to their enemies, then to everyone else. I like that Jesus! And maybe therein lies a problem. I like that Jesus enough that he overwhelms me, and I don't think of any other possible view of Jesus. Yes. I guess I have to confess that I invent the Jesus that I'm comfortable with, and I run with him. Kind of like proof-texting (which I'm always criticizing) except that you might call it "proof-imaging of Jesus." Is there another kind of Jesus? Is there a Jesus who maybe doesn't come across as so loving and so non-violent? The truth is - yes.

The image of Jesus killing a fig tree just because it had no figs (at a time when it wasn't supposed to have figs) comes to mind. But maybe more troublesome to this loving, non-violent picture of Jesus we carry around with us is this passage from John's Gospel:

When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple courts he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!” His disciples remembered that it is written: “Zeal for your house will consume me.” The Jews then responded to him, “What sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?” Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.” They replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?” But the temple he had spoken of was his body. After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.

Wow. I mean, I know the passage is there. I've actually preached on the passage, most recently in 2009. I've used it as a way of suggesting that there are two kinds of anger - an out of control anger based simply on emotional angst about not getting our way, and a righteous anger based on dismay at how others are being oppressed, abused or cheated. So I can justify Jesus' resort to violence. What else can you call using a whip to drive the money changers out of the temple? I understand why he did it. The money changers were cheating people. There were all sorts of different currencies in the Empire, and no one knew what the real rate of exchange was, so the money changers took advantage of that for their own profit. And those selling the cattle and the sheep probably were making a killing (no pun intended.) The folks showing up at the temple needed animals for sacrifice. I imagine the prices were exorbitant. And Jesus got back at them for it, on behalf of their victims everywhere. And he used violence to do it. There goes the nice, airy-fairy image of Jesus carrying little lambs around and taking children on his knees. This guy could get ugly when necessary.

Which brings me back to Syria. Some people don't like the mixing of faith and politics. I'm not sure how you can avoid it. Faith guides us if we're Christians. It guides us in all things. When we make political decisions, we always need to reflect on what decision our faith would have us make, and then if we choose to rationalize making a different choice, so be it. God will sort that out somehow. But we should try to determine what our faith tells us, or at least what questions it raises within us. Right now there's the issue of using violence against Syria in response to the violence of the Syrian regime against its own people. How does the temple clearing incident guide me?

First it tells me that it's not inherently wrong to use violence - if one is truly doing it out of concern for the well-being of the weak and oppressed and victimized. So to argue that ethically (at least biblical or Christian ethics) that violence is NEVER a legitimate option simply doesn't reflect the example of Jesus. It doesn't. Read the temple clearing passage again. Jesus saw an unacceptable situation and he used violence to respond to it. It's not comfortable for us and it doesn't make us happy - but he did! To deny that is silly. There's a biblical and Christian justification for the use of violence in certain circumstances. OK. So the United States should go in and bomb the stuffing out of those responsible. But there's the problem.

Jesus' context was so much different. He went into the temple area and confronted the money changers and merchants who were cheating the people with a whip. Not a gun, not a bomb, not a cruise missile. A whip. He could be pretty sure in that situation that there wouldn't be what we call today any "collateral damage." Those who suffered from Jesus' resort to violence were not the innocent victims; they were the victimizers.  Yes, the passage says "all" and it suggests that the animals (who were innocent) were driven out by this Jesus with a whip, but I think the clear implication of the passage is that Jesus directed the whip toward the money changers and the sellers - and certainly no one was killed. Today's world is so much different isn't it. "Collateral damage" is an inevitable part of any resort to violence - certainly the type of violence marked by the firing of missiles. Missiles likely aren't going to kill just the leading figures in the Syrian regime. The innocent will suffer too, just as they're already suffering.

There's no answer to this. I'm not proposing to offer an answer to the Syrian question. I just realize that as a Christian I can't fall into my comfortable and totally non-violent image of Jesus anymore as my sole guide. I have to look at the Jesus who stood up for the victims by making a whip and layin' a whuppin' on those who were victimizing them. Absolute and unquestioned non-violence regardless of the circumstances cannot be a  responsible Christian ethical position when confronted by that Jesus.  In the circumstances, I still think that an attack on Syria would be wrong - not because it's an attack and not because it's violent, but because it would cause unacceptable suffering to the innocent as well as the guilty. But I also understand that as a Christian I'm called to love my neighbours and take some meaningful action against those who victimize them.

Now I'll be honest - what that meaningful action should be in the case of Syria I have no idea.