The Dangers of Shallow Theologies of Nonviolence
After the political violence that occurred a few weeks ago, many individuals, including Christian leaders, forcefully spoke out against the use of violence. Some of those speaking out have a long tradition of nonviolence and advocacy for the marginalized. Their calls for nonviolence are backed by a life of advocacy. Their calls for nonviolence were based on a robust and strong theology. A theology that was not only theoretical but lived daily.
Other calls rang shallow. Christian leaders who remained silent over other horrific acts of violence, particularly those committed by the state, who refused to get involved in political discourse because they didn’t want to add to the polarization, suddenly found their voice and spoke out. And to be sure, political violence should be condemned.
But the religious leaders who only spoke out against the political violence a few weeks ago but have remained silent over other acts of violence, or who have made false equivalencies, are demonstrating demonstrate a weak understanding of nonviolence. This shallow theology is dangerous because it indirectly reinforces the lie that only some lives matter.
Condemning political violence while remaining silent about state violence demonstrates a hypocritical concern regarding which forms of violence is considered “bad.” Violence directed at the marginalized by the state is ignored or deemed appropriate. Condemning political violence while praising state violence in the form of law enforcement violence and military action is dangerous and directly contributes to the deaths of the vulnerable in the US and throughout the world. Those in positions of leadership need to recognize that their words and actions matter. And ignoring state violence, or even praising it (usually by praising the institutions most responsible for it) they are effectively telling people from marginalized groups that their lives do not matter.
So how can we as Christians do better?
First, we need to acknowledge how shallow theologies of nonviolence and cheap slogans of unity, cause harm. And we need to be honest about how shallow theology and cheap slogans of unity have become cornerstones in many Mainline Congregations. It is very easy to preach unity and claim to be a “purple” congregation when doing so involves siding with the powerful or at the very least remaining silent. In fact, often when Christian leaders proudly proclaim to be leading a “purple” congregation, it often comes across, to those in vulnerable groups as a statement declaring that racism, homophobia, and other forms of discrimination are allowed as long as it’s the indirect, passive-aggressive form and not the explicit in your face form.
Second, spend less time focusing on tone policing marginalized groups and more on the hateful rhetoric within our own spaces and/or congregations. Instead of trying to “guilt” and manipulate members of marginalized groups to adhere to standards middle-class respectability, which indirectly states that violence is ok when the state does it, we need to focus on the hateful rhetoric within our congregations and other spaces. For those in “purple” congregations, chances are members of our congregation are in fact tolerating if not explicitly endorsing violent rhetoric and policies.
Third, we need to develop a more robust theology of nonviolence. Quoting Martin Luther King Jr selectively and out of context is not endorsing a theology of nonviolence, it is simply a continuation of the exploitation of Black and brown voices that too many Mainline Christian spaces and congregations commit. By this I mean, that quoting black and brown voices who advocate for nonviolence while indirectly or directly endorsing the institutions that oppress and kill black and brown people is exploitative. If we truly believe violence is antithetical to the gospel, that means exploring and condemning state violence, not offering celebrations and justifications for it.
Finally, a deeper understanding and definition of unity needs to be endorsed by Mainline Congregations. This will be explained more in another post but proudly proclaiming that we have members of our congregations who essentially endorse the deaths and oppression of marginalized groups, is not a flex. It demonstrates that instead of creating a space where theologies of hate are challenged, we have instead created a space where hate may not thrive but it at least feels comfortable. This is not true unity.
Nonviolence is a rich, complicated tradition. Some Christian leaders and congregations may argue that I am being unfair because they don’t actually endorse pacifism. They argue violence may be necessary. But again, the question about when and why they endorse violence is even more important. If you, as a Christian leader or congregation are going to argue that violence is “sometimes” justified, then you are going to have to explore why, many times the violence that is viewed as justifiable is directed towards the marginalized in the US and abroad. If violence is sometimes justified, then those who assert this need to explain why the lives of Black and brown people, who are often at the receiving end of this justified violence are expendable.
Image: Multicolforful hands being shaped into a dove. Text: Shallow theologies of nonviolence and cheap slogans of unity are both hypocritical and harmful