It might be worthwhile to make a differentiation between Christian anarchy and Marxism, which looks to anarchy as the path to a new world order. Marxism endorses violence. Christianity cannot.Jacques Ellul, in his book Anarchy and Christianity, notes that the achievements of both Gandhi and Martin Luther King were accomplished by virtuous means. By way of contrast, the Black Panther movement did not advance the cause of black liberation that it purportedly intended.
Political power corrupts. And against this corruption we must take a stand.
Ellul notes that once we rule out violence as an option, we must resort to persuasion, “the creation of small groups and networks, denouncing falsehood and oppression.”
Dr. Glenn Martin, in his book Prevailing Worldviews, points out how the institution of slavery was ended in England without violence through persuasion, and the tireless efforts of a few important voices. Even though it took more than forty years, spearheaded by the Society of Friends (Quakers) and politician/philanthropist William Wilberforce, the abolition of slavery was ultimately accomplished without bloodshed.
By way of contrast, the U.S. experienced a torrid Civil War as a result of the activist revolutionary approach to the problem of slavery. Yes, there were some who sought slavery’s termination by peaceful means, but the revolutionary approach ultimately superceded the tireless efforts of the persistent persuaders. According to Martin, actions like the Nat Turner rebellion, which left eighty persons dead, set back the cause of peaceful negotiation, and helped fortify the deeply entrenched status quo of slavery.It reminds me of the story of the wind and the sun. Each made a bet to see who could force a desert traveler to remove his cloak. The wind went first, blowing fiercely, but the more savagely the wind assaulted, the more firmly the man clutched his linen. Then the sun took his turn, and we all know how that story ends.
Lest I babble indefinitely, let me cite two additional observations from Ellul’s challenging book.
1. “Our experience today is the strange one of empty political institutions in which no one has any confidence any more, of a system of government which functions only in the interests of a political class, and at the same time of the almost infinite growth of power, authority, and social control which makes any one of our democracies a more authoritarian mechanism than any Napoleonic state.” ~ p. 22
2. “Most people, living heedlessly, tanning themselves, engaging in terrorism, or becoming TV slaves, ridicule political chatter and politics. They see that there is nothing to hope for from them. They are also exasperated by bureaucratic structures and administrative bickering.” ~ p. 23
To be sure, it would be nice if everything were black and white, which it will never be. But let’s not be lulled into the stupor of non-thinking, quasi-acceptance of all that is, as if it cannot be any different.
2 comments:
>>>>>>>>>>>>Dr. Glenn Martin, in his book Prevailing Worldviews, points out how the institution of slavery was ended in England without violence through persuasion, and the tireless efforts of a few important voices. Even though it took more than forty years, spearheaded by the Society of Friends (Quakers) and politician/philanthropist William Wilberforce, the abolition of slavery was ultimately accomplished without bloodshed.
By way of contrast, the U.S. experienced a torrid Civil War as a result of the activist revolutionary approach to the problem of slavery. Yes, there were some who sought slavery’s termination by peaceful means, but the revolutionary approach ultimately superceded the tireless efforts of the persistent persuaders. According to Martin, actions like the Nat Turner rebellion, which left eighty persons dead, set back the cause of peaceful negotiation, and helped fortify the deeply entrenched status quo of slavery.
Dr. Martin is comparing apples with oranges.
Slavery of Africans never became an institution inside England. The English shipped African slaves to the New World, not to England itself.
After the American Revolution, which separated England from her slave-holding colonies on the continent, she still remained in control of all her other slave-holding New World colonies.
And just like in the USA, there most certainly were violent rebellions by the slaves in those British colonies. The Maroon revolts in Jamaica, which led to the independence of the Maroons during the 18th century are an example. Other rebellions in other colonies took place right up to the final abolition of slavery in the English colonies.
No anti-slavery violence took place in England itself, but that certainly doesn't mean that the English politicians weren't influenced by the rebellions that took place where British slavery actually existed.
The above by Dr. Martin is as specious as (1) to say that when Nazism was finally defeated, credit should go to anti-Nazi activists having created small groups and networks within Germany, (2) to completely ignore the violent struggle that was fought against the Nazi violence (until the very last year of the war, the war was fought only outside of German territory), and/or (3) to claim that the worldwide struggle to stop Nazism actually set back the cause of anti-Nazism as practiced by peaceful activists within Germany. (They were all cruelly tortured and killed, of course, just for speaking out -- which should shame free-speech-protected US citizens who won't even speak out against the present-time aggressors.)
Even more so than England or Germany, the US has historically managed to keep the great majority of it's wars outside of US territory. So, inside the US itself since the end of the Civil War, being pro-war or anti-war has largely been a matter for more-or-less polite talk and discussion.
But inside countries such as Vietnam and Iraq, where the US was/is the clear aggressor, violence was, and is being met by violence, as violence against slaves was met by violence from slaves.
Violence invariably begets violence, unfortunately. Dr. Martin's revisionist history does not change that fact.
1. You are correct that slavery was something that occurred in the jurisdiction of the Empire but not in England... and that this is a comparison of apples and oranges.
2. And in point of fact, even as I move toward conscientious objector/pacifist views I am fully cognizant of the problem of Hitler and that despite the well wishing of optimists, ultimately someone has to step up to the plate and draw a line in the sand... which has absolutely no value without guns behind it.
3. So we live in a complicated world... and a batch of people trying to develop criteria for "just war" and appropriate use of force.
4. All too often, sadly, the facts are not in full view and the powers that be are less interested in keeping faith, and more interested in exerting their muscle. Preceded by "the drums of war."
Post a Comment