Active Nonviolence: The Only Viable Alternative

By Dr. Adrian A. Helleman,  University of Jos

“The choice is no longer between violence and nonviolence.  It’s nonviolence or non-existence.”

—Martin Luther King, Jr. (on the night before he was killed)

It was only six-thirty on a Monday morning, yet more than a hundred thousand people thronged the highway separating two military camps.  This was both a demonstration of “people power” and a revolution.  The location was Manila, the Philippines, and the year was 1986.  The highway was totally empty of cars, but seven Sikorsky gunships appeared and hovered overhead.  People might have been terrified at that moment, but they were not.  Soon the helicopters turned and landed in one of the camps.  No one died that day.  I know, because I was there.  I immediately rushed into the camp.  Because of my work with political prisoners, the guards knew me and let me in.  Then I discovered what had happened.  When the pilots sent to bomb the rebel camp saw that it was surrounded by people, they defected.  A military man later explained, “This is something new.  Soldiers are supposed to protect the civilians.  In this particular case you have civilians protecting the soldiers.”  This was the turning point in the revolution.  President Marcos had lost a major part of his air force that day.  The next evening he was on his way to an American airbase and eventually to exile in Hawaii.  I realized later that if those pilots had resorted to violence I might not be here today.  During the “people power” revolution in the Philippines I discovered that nonviolence works.  I was converted to active nonviolence.

In this paper I want to introduce active nonviolence as an alternative to the violence that pervades the world in which we live.  I will argue that this form of nonviolence is the only viable alternative that we have in today’s world.  I will begin by examining the nature and extent of violence.  Next, I will consider the biblical attitude to violence and to war, before I examine various responses to war in the history of the church.  And finally, by pointing to the revolution in the Philippines, I will introduce active nonviolence as the only viable alternative to violence, including the violence that was experienced in Jos last year and that has turned the Muslim and Christian communities against each other.

The pervasiveness of violence

Violence is endemic in every society.  Today it ranges from nuclear warfare to emotional and verbal abuse.  The media extol violence so much that children have become inured to it; it has become entertainment.  Violence is identified with power—generally ruthless power.  It very often involves physical force and intimidation and is, therefore, irrational and unjust.  Some may argue that violence can be rational and just when duly authorized by the state, but that, precisely, is the issue.  Although the state is intended by God to promote justice, it is controlled by the powerful who often use state-sanctioned violence for their own ends.  Even in democracies, violence can be perpetrated by the powerful on the poor and on minorities.  If you still doubt what I am saying, just look around at what is happening in our world, especially here in Nigeria.  Violence is nothing new, of course; it is as old as human history, a story that began with the Fall of our first parents.

It is not my intention now to construct a sociology of violence.  Instead, I will argue that violence, unlike other aspects of created reality, is not ethically neutral, but evil, and that war is totally wrong.  I realize that not everyone will agree with me, yet I have sufficient biblical warrant for my assertion.  In my opinion, the onus is on those who contend that war is good and justifiable to prove their case, and to do so from the Scriptures.

The biblical attitude to violence and to war as a form of violence

The first recorded instance of violence in the Bible is the murder of Abel (Genesis 4:8).  Violence soon became so pervasive that God wanted to destroy the world with a flood: “So God said to Noah, ‘I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them’” (Genesis 6:13).  Terms for violence in the Old Testament, such as hamas, gazal, and ’asaq, are all used negatively to refer to either physical or non-physical/ethical forms of it; these include verbal violence.  Violence runs the gamut of everything from murder, plundering, extortion, withholding of wages, and oppression of the poor, to the perception by Sarah that Hagar’s conception of Ishmael was a form of violence that had been done to her (Genesis 16:5).[1]  God hates those who love violence (Psalm 11:5).  And he promises that eventually the land will be purged of it (Isaiah 60:18).  Since all these forms of violence are still common today, God’s condemnation applies as well to those who continue to use violence, even when it is done in the name of the state.

The Old Testament does not associate violence with natural forces but only human ones, and then always negatively.  In the New Testament, however, this term is used of natural forces as well.  Although the main corresponding term, bia, is used sparingly, violence as a human device is described in negative terms.  The much disputed passage in Matthew 11:12, “And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and violent men take it by force,” is often interpreted as a positive assertion about violence, however, it is best read as a pejorative evaluation of those who oppose Christ.[2]  Even Luke’s form of this statement about “everyone forcing his way into it” (16:16) does not extol violence.  It simply expresses the eagerness with which people want to enter the kingdom of God.

War is a specific form of violence.  The Old Testament does not glorify warfare nor does it recommend it as solution to problems.  On the contrary, it thoroughly condemns it.  The Old Testament contains statements, such as Deuteronomy 7 and 20 and the war narratives of Joshua, Judges, and Samuel, that seem to support armed conflict.  These are cited by some Christians to justify war.[3]  However, such passages should not be turned into general rules to be applied in every use of armed conflict; they are best interpreted in the context of other passages that condemn warfare.  Deuteronomy 20, for example, lays down rules for warfare.  Among these it demands that before a city is attacked it should be offered terms of peace; if these are accepted, it must not be destroyed.  In the same chapter, there are even laws of conservation governing the destruction of trees during a siege.  Even so, such passages should not be used to justify war.[4]

Much clearer are the indictments of Simon and Levi for their use of the sword (Genesis 34).  Similarly, David  was not permitted to build the temple, because of all the blood he had shed (1 Chronicles 22).  Although Jehu was authorized to destroy Ahab’s dynasty, his use of excessive violence is condemned.  Sometimes wars are made unnecessary by miraculous intervention; for example, the elite chariot corps of Pharaoh was destroyed by the waters of the sea, without any use of human weapons (Exodus 14); the troops besieging Elisha’s house were smitten with blindness (2 Kings 6).

The term “holy war,” as a description of a type of warfare that God not only endorses and directs but in which he is also an active participant, was not used in Christian literature until 1901.[5]  Exodus 17 provides an example.  In the battle against the Amalekites, Israel prevailed through God’s help, because Aaron and Hur supported Moses’ hands as he held the rod of God.  Yet it is not always apparent which war was actually a holy war; thus this term must be used with great caution.  Those who fight in such a war must be holy by being consecrated to the Lord (Joshua 3), those who were faint hearted and did not place their full trust in God were sent home (Deuteronomy 20).  At the conclusion of the battle, all the loot must be dedicated to the Lord (Joshua 6).[6]

The New Testament has very few specific statements about war, but the message is clear.  In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus encouraged his followers to live in a nonviolent way: “If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also” (Matthew 5:39); “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 5:44).  Although some soldiers were recognized as heroes of faith (Hebrews 11:32), Jesus explained clearly that God’s cause should not be advanced through the use of physical force (John 18:36).  He criticized Peter for defending him with a sword at his arrest (Matthew 26:52-54).  The Epistles use military metaphors to describe the Christian life (Ephesians 6:10-20) and they encourage believers to be good soldiers (2 Timothy 2:3); the battle, however, is a spiritual one.  The Corinthians were informed that the weapons we fight with are not those of this world; on the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds, and with these assets take captive every thought and make them obedient to Christ (2 Corinthians 10:1-5).[7]

Victory will come for the Christian cause at the return of Christ, who will fight on behalf of his people (Isaiah 63:1-6; Revelation 19:11-21), but in this final conflict, the battle is conspicuous by its absence.  We simply find the statement that the leaders of the enemy will be thrown into the fiery lake, and the rank and file killed by the sword that comes from the mouth of the lone horseman (Rev. 19:20-21).[8]

Therefore Jesus’ instruction to his disciples in Matthew 10, ^“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword,” should not be misconstrued.  The immediately following verses make Jesus’ intention very clear: 

“For I have come to turn ‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’  Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.  Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it” (vv. 34-39).

The result of Christ’s coming is conflict, but this is a spiritual conflict that can occur even within a family.  Thus it is erroneous and highly tendentious to use the “Prince of Peace” (Isaiah 9:6) as an advocate of warfare in any form other than spiritual.

Responses to war and the use of violence in the history of the church

The example of the early church is extremely revealing for understanding the biblical teaching about war.  The early church was pacifist.  This is indicated by the fact that there is no evidence of a single Christian soldier in the Roman army until about A.D. 170.  The closing years of the second century changed that situation.  In spite of the protests of church leaders, Christians were found in the imperial service either because they had been converted or they felt that believers should serve the empire.  Those who were opposed to such service pointed to the idolatrous oath of allegiance to the emperor required of all who joined the army, and the incompatibility of the command to love as taught by Jesus, with the need to kill.  The Canons of Hippolytus, a guide for church discipline written in the third century, indicate that military life is acceptable as long as one does not kill.  This tension is mitigated somewhat by the realization that during the Roman period the army performed services similar to what is provided today by the police and fire departments.  Because of the refusal to serve in the army and the government, Christians were charged with disloyalty.  Origen wrote Against Celcus in order to refute these accusations.  Origen advocated alternative service for the state and prayer for the government.  Such prayers would combat the spiritual forces of evil responsible for violence and conflict.[9]

I was raised in the “just war” tradition.  This tradition is still popular today and goes back to the fourth century when Roman society was Christianized through the Emperor Constantine (280?-337).  It became common for Christian soldiers to serve as soldiers.  And during the reign of Theodosius II (401-450) only Christians could serve in the army.  Augustine gave expression to that new attitude by formulating the just war theory.  He did this by adapting rules of warfare developed by Plato and Cicero to the Christian position.  The criteria he established were not intended to advocate war, but to limit the conditions under which Christians could participate.  War should be fought to secure justice and reestablish peace.  It must conducted under the direction of the ruler; and it should be characterized by an attitude of love for the enemy.  Promises to the opponent should be honored and noncombatants respected; there must be no massacre, looting, and burning.  And, finally, those engaged in God’s service, such as monks and priests, must not take part in warfare.  Even so Augustine continued to be influenced by the nonviolent approach of the early church.  A note of gloom and resignation permeates his teaching regarding the state and its coercive powers.[10]

By the eleventh century the pacifism of the early church had died out and a glorification of the fighting man, the knight, took its place.  One reason for this was the influx of the Germanic people with their martial spirit.  A fusion of the barbaric religion of war and the Christian belief in peace led to the Crusades; these represent the most obvious example of the new attitude of the medieval church.  The Crusade, or aggressive war in a just cause, is the third major theory.  New religious orders, such as Templars, were established to fight God’s enemies.  Groups that professed another faith were regarded as enemies of God’s kingdom, and thus to be destroyed or converted.  One need not show mercy to them; the just war code could therefore be suspended.  A favorite text of the crusaders illustrates this new attitude: “A curse on him who keeps his sword from bloodshed” (Jeremiah 48:10).  The acceptance of violence by medieval Christians is demonstrated by the theologians of the time.  The just war teaching of scholars such as Gratian and Thomas Aquinas became useful as a justification for aggressive action.  They wrote very little about violence, and thus a discussion of war was left to those who saw it as an aspect of chivalry.  The “heroic” knight of that time eventually contributed to the later glorification of war.[11]  Except for a few minor sects, no one advocated nonviolence.

Many Christians changed their attitude to war as a result of technological and political changes in fifteenth and sixteenth century Europe.  The development of cannons that were able to destroy medieval fortresses made the knight obsolete.  The rise of large dynastic monarchies with their territorial ambitions led to large-scale warfare.  Christian humanists such as Thomas More and Erasmus condemned the new violence; the latter suggested that when wars are accepted as just they tend to regarded as glorious.  They accused the church of misconstruing the true meaning of Scripture, and of becoming the tool of ambitious princes.  The magisterial Reformers, like Luther and Calvin, did not contribute to the protest.  Both supported the just war theory.  Calvin’s successor, Beza, wrote not only of the right but the duty of Christians to revolt against tyranny.  The religious wars that followed were some of the most violent in the history of Europe.  The radical wing of the Reformation, the Anabaptists, were the only ones who practiced nonviolence.  Although not all early Anabaptists were pacifists, an apolitical pacifism became the defining characteristic of this tradition.  The Peace of Westphalia (1648) ended the last major European religious war, and ushered in an age of dynastic states with large standing armies.  The new military establishment that arose continued the medieval notions of chivalry, honor and martial values.[12]

At the end of the eighteenth century, with the coming of the French revolution, a new wave of violence swept over Europe.  Napoleon’s campaign to build an empire by organizing the nation for the purpose of warfare was ominous for the future.  Even though he was defeated, he exercised great influence.  A Prussian military instructor, Karl von Clausewitz, articulated the theory of “total war.”  By this he meant that in order to win a war it was necessary to push a conflict “to its utmost bounds.”  Because of the industrial revolution and the increasing power of armaments, the enemy could now be totally defeated in a way never before possible.  In the nineteenth century Christians responded to this new danger by encouraging international cooperation.  Two conferences in the Hague in 1899 and 1907 resulted in a series of measures which sought to limit the cruelty of war by protecting the rights of prisoners and of neutrals, and by providing for the care of the wounded.[13]

World War I was fought on land, sea, and in the air using the new weapons.  It also brought the views of Clausewitz closer to reality.  Many churches supported the war.  The Peace of Versailles ended the conflict.  Totalitarian regimes come to power in many countries.  In spite of a weariness with war, the newly established League of Nations was unable to prevent another war.

The attitude of Christians to World War II was closer to the just war theory, because this conflict was perceived as a clash between antagonistic systems.  Even Christian pacifists, such as Reinhold Niebuhr, urged believers to support this war.  New technology produced weapons that made war more destructive than ever before.  When the war ended, a new conflict arose, the “cold war,” which ended a little more than a decade ago.  In spite of the work of the United Nations, peace today seems as remote as ever.[14]  In the post-September 11, 2001 situation, war and conflict are the norm in the world; the “war on terrorism” makes this only too clear.

As we see from history, there have been many Christian positions on war.  The early church, certain Christian humanists, and many Anabaptist churches adopted a pacifist stance.  The majority of the mainline churches of the modern period, including Anglicans, Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, and Roman Catholics, still adhere to the just war theory, even though nuclear weapons have made a mockery of this position, since they automatically result in the slaughter of noncombatants.[15]  Even so, many Christians today support the American-led “war on terrorism,” as well as the possibility of war with Iraq.  Clearly there is no unified attitude to war today, just as there has not been in the past.  Such unity is unlikely until Christ returns, to end all wars.

Active nonviolence as the only viable alternative

Because of a sermon I delivered in an Anglican church in Moscow, shortly before the war in Afghanistan started, my position has been labeled “pacifism,” but this is not an accurate description.  I prefer to call it active nonviolence.  The term “pacifist” can designate nearly anyone who desires peace, including those who wage war as well as those who refuse to participate in it.  Extreme pacifism describes a renunciation of any kind of force.  Use in this way  (which is very common today), the term assumes that one must remain totally passive when attacked.  I reject this.  Instead, I advocate a mediating position that rejects participation in war, yet allows the use of nonviolent kinds of force, such as sanctions.  Hence I prefer to use the adjective, “active,” to define a form of nonviolence that is truly compatible with biblical teaching.

The “people power” revolution in the Philippines in 1986 did not happen by chance, as some journalists at the time led their readers to believe.  It was the product of massive organization and prayer.  For a year and a half before the revolution the leaders of the Roman Catholic Church (the dominant church in the Philippines) had received training in nonviolence, and they encouraged such training for the masses of the Filipino people.  The Fellowship of Reconciliation provided people to train Filipino trainers in nonviolence.  These in turn trained half a million people in nonviolent defense of ballot boxes in anticipation of voting fraud in the election scheduled for early February in 1986.  When the election took place and it became clear that Marcos and his cronies were stealing it, the people protested.[16]  I was an observer at a polling station, and was also present as ballots from all over the country were tallied in the Batasan (parliament).  The catalyst for the revolution was the defection of Marcos’ minister of defense and his chief of staff, who were fed up with the fraud that was being perpetrated.  When news of their defection was broadcast by Radio Veritas, the Catholic radio station in Manila, hundreds of thousands of people poured out into the streets in order to defend these men as they holed up in one of the military camps.  You may remember the pictures of nuns, standing in front of tanks and presenting soldiers with flowers; they were not acting “spontaneously.”  People had been trained in just such response.  Radio Veritas kept everyone informed of what was happening and encouraged nonviolence and prayer.  For months already millions had been praying.  During the revolution, people all over the country, Catholics, Protestants, and Muslims, continued praying.  The media reported neither the training nor the prayer.

For the past years Filipinos were suffering as a result of massive corruption.  Sad to say, the majority of church leaders had links to the regime; only a small part of the church opted to stand on the side of the people and work for social justice.  Some young people had joined the New People’s Army, a Maoist guerilla group; they saw no other way to struggle for justice.  People cannot remain passive in such circumstances.  Unless there is a nonviolent alternative, they will resort to counter-violence.  If Christian churches had not taken the lead in nonviolent resistance, there would have been counter-violence, and, sooner or later, civil war.  The assassination of Ninoy Aquino in 1983 had galvanized Filipinos.  His death clearly marked the beginning of a popular effort to overthrow the dictatorship through nonviolence.  Demonstrations lasted for months, but people were not yet ready for ongoing nonviolent action.  But the organization of seminars in the period leading up to the presidential elections in 1986 changed that.

The nonviolent movement of the Philippines, called AKKAPKA, developed out of these seminars.  AKKAPKA is Tagalog for “I embrace you” and an acronym for Movement for Peace and Justice.  It encouraged people to vote for the person who they thought should lead their country and to refuse to accept money offered by the government to vote for Marcos.  It also prepared people to defend the ballot boxes from armed agents who would come to steal them.  And it set up “prayer tents,” including one in the heart of the financial district of Manila, where people could fast and pray, day and night, for peaceful change.  These people were motivated by love, not hatred.  Now prayer and revolution had become one.  Even though the dictatorship was still powerful, and people were afraid, they knew that victory was possible, because truth is always stronger than the lie, and love more powerful than hatred.

Cardinal Sin characterized the battle as a struggle between “the children of light and the children of darkness.”  The people were united by their suffering and their faith, and they were also united around Cory Aquino, the widow of Ninoy, whom Marcos had dismissed simply as “that housewife.”  When the revolution came, and the reform movement of the army separated from Marcos, he gave orders to his armed forces to crush the dissidents. Radio Veritas then urged the people to fill the streets, to stand in front of the tanks and speak to the soldiers.  Let me remind you that not one death was directly attributable to the revolution itself; the only deaths that did occur were incidental and not connected to the revolution.  Although some people expected bloodshed, it never happened.  The only explanation is the seminars on nonviolence, and the prayers that were organized in the period leading up to the revolution.  I cite the Philippine Revolution of 1986 to show that active nonviolence does work.  The nonviolent revolution in the Philippines was a great gift that inspired other revolutions only a few years later, and it is still an inspiration.

As the legacy of the Philippine Revolution, let me mention Chile, Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil, which are all in Latin America; Haiti in Central America; and China, Burma, Cambodia, Taiwan, East Timor, South Korea, and Indonesia in Asia.  Nor may we omit the collapse of the Soviet Union, which led to the liberation of Central and Eastern Europe.  And we must not forget what happened in South Africa.[17]  Democracy has been restored or established in large parts of the world in the intervening period.  And while true democracy does not yet exist in every one of these countries, the nonviolent movements there are well established and will eventually bear much fruit.

In the face of violence and civil war, the nonviolent movement has moved, and is still moving, the people of the world from individual expressions of nonviolence to collective forms of nonviolent action; from passivity to proactive direct action; from nonresistance to nonviolent forms of resistance; from cowardice to nonviolent strategies; and from the just war theory and pacifism to a third way that gathers the contributions of both into a new synthesis.  Active nonviolence is, therefore, an idea whose time has come.  It has had spectacular successes in the last decades of the twentieth century.  Unfortunately, as I will readily concede, it has not been effective in Bosnia, Rwanda, Burundi, Kosovo, and Afghanistan.  But this does not imply that it is therefore useless and a failure; it only means that we is still have much to learn about how to implement it in many situations.  Yet the unparalleled success of active nonviolence elsewhere is a reason to believe that its effectiveness can be extended and enhanced.[18]

I hope you understand why I consider active nonviolence the only viable alternative that we have today.  War and violence are no longer tenable, if they ever were.  In the nuclear age, war may mean the end of civilization. Thus the memorable words of Martin Luther King, Jr., are appropriate: “The choice is no longer between violence and nonviolence.  It’s nonviolence or non-existence.”  Let us heed his admonition, also here in Nigeria, so that the violence that has torn this country apart so often in the past will never be repeated.  This is my prayer.  Whether or not I have convinced you of the efficacy of active nonviolence, I sincerely hope that you will join me in this prayer.  May God bless us and this country!