Chasing Gandhi: Understanding the Difference Between Nonviolence and Pacifism.

I have a confession to make. I am far better at talking the talk than I am walking the walk. I have always admired the tremendous courage men like Gandhi and Martin Luther King exhibited in their public and personal lives, while sadly admitting that I could never hold a candle to them. I cannot even imagine what Christ’s final moments on this earth must’ve been like. To come to this stage of one’s life and realize that you are as far removed from your personal heroes as the moon is from the earth is a sobering reality.

Worse, while I have a deep and profound respect for what those men stood for, I also have to confess that I feel more of an affinity for those individuals who more often than not flexed their muscles in response to oppression. Whenever I have seen an injustice – regardless of what it is – my first response has not been to pray for the perpetrator, but rather to lash out at the transgressor and fight for the victim. I feel an almost reflexive need to come to the aid of such people and a strong, intense hatred for those who caused the malady. Out of all the sins of the world, cruelty to those who cannot fend for themselves and poverty anger me the most.

My writings have often reflected this deep sentiment and I have always felt a peculiar and profound calling to continue to bring to light any inequities that scar the Kingdom of God. So-called believers who besmirch the very faith I hold near and dear have earned the bulk of my wrath. In this endeavor I have been unapologetic to say the least.

But of late I have listened and read, with great interest, the words of King and Gandhi in the writings of other Christian men and I feel a sense of bewilderment. It is clear that both King and Gandhi were proponents of nonviolence in their lives. It is equally clear that both were profound men of peace who represented the very best principles of what it means to be a Christian. As such, they have earned the status accorded them.

But I sometimes wonder whether both men may have been as misunderstood as they were admired. There has been a long tradition of nonviolent movements throughout history. The Great Samil Movement of 1919 during Japanese colonial rule was one of the largest nonviolent demonstrations in the twentieth century and resulted in over 7,000 martyrdoms. And of course the most obvious example of nonviolence was the life and ministry of Jesus. But the biggest problem I have with nonviolence is not its resistance to violence but its connection to pacifism. Over the years the two words have somehow become synonymous with symbolizing an almost pathological resistance to any form of aggression whatsoever. At first glance both terms seem somewhat similar in scope, and in deed both share some qualities. But a closer look reveals a staggering distinction. See for yourself.

Pacifism: The belief that disputes between nations should and can be settled peacefully. An opposition to war or violence as a means of resolving disputes. Such opposition is demonstrated by a refusal to participate in military action no matter the provocation.

Nonviolence: A philosophy and strategy for social change that rejects the use of violence. As such, nonviolence is an alternative to passive acceptance of oppression and armed struggle against it. Practitioners of nonviolence may use diverse methods in their campaigns for social change, including critical forms of education and persuasion, civil disobedience and nonviolent direct action, and targeted communication via mass media.

In other words, while proponents of pacifism may employ some of the techniques of nonviolence, proponents of nonviolence can hardly be called pacifists. If anything, they typify the very essence of what it means to be a revolutionary. In fact, the more I learn of Gandhi and King, and for that matter Jesus, the more revolutionary they become for me.

Part of the problem I, and I’m afraid many good-natured Christians, have when delving into this arena is that we tend to focus on the peaceful and loving parts of these men to the exclusion of all else. Yes all three of these men loved their neighbors, and all three felt it their moral duty to give his life for his fellow man. But there has been an almost glossing over by many historians of the very traits that truly defined what each man singularly accomplished.

Jesus’ mocking of the Pharisees, Gandhi’s refusal to acknowledge British sovereignty over India, and King’s admonishment of the Christian Church are as much a part of their stories as the feeding of the four thousand, the hunger strikes, and the march on Selma respectively. It would do violence – no pun intended – to their contributions to humanity to highlight the latter at the expense of the former. In deed if all these men had accomplished were a few good deeds – and in the case of Jesus a few good miracles – I suspect that we would not revere them to the extent that we do. Their collective rantings and rebukings were what ultimately came to define their lives and helped usher in the elements of change we now take for granted: Christianity, an independent India and an awakening of a race and a blind nation. One could no more separate the peaceful elements of their lives from the volatile than to separate oxygen from water. Truth be told, their volatility was what gave their serenity weight and authority. They were no mere pushovers. They were righteous in their indignation, confident that they were justified before God, and in the case of Jesus before the Father.

And so should we. Nonviolence is not a call to lay down one’s arms and roll over. Rather, if anything, it is a call to rise up and make a stand. Temerity must overrule timidness if our lives are to have any meaning before God. We must resist the urge to permit ourselves to be used as doormats and, in the naïve hope that we might persuade those with whom we are diametrically opposed, grant even a semblance of latitude. There is only one correct stance for any of us to have when faced with hypocrisies, bigotry, and outright hatred. We are to call it out, like poison from a wound, and curse it to the ground. Jesus never minced his words when confronted. Why then are we so polite when we find ourselves in similar situations?

We must acknowledge the painful reality that to truly seek a path of nonviolence means we must abandon our pacifist ways, identify who are enemies are, and pursue them with all the vigor of an exploding sun. Each of us has a Jerusalem and a Memphis in his or her life. The only question is whether we will be moving towards that destination or away from it.

No Party Pooper Am I

The following petition is currently making its way around the internet and is being embraced by many thoughtful and conscientious Christians. It is worthy of serious consideration.


Declaration of Unity

Dear Candidates, Incumbents and Party Leaders, In this election, please find a way of campaigning without deliberately triggering anger, hatred and fear. Please avoid contributing to the DISUNITING of America. It is the last thing we need in a time of two wars, an environmental catastrophe and an economic crisis.

We will hold accountable those who engage in the politics of division. We will support those who offer facts, civility and solutions. We choose to be united as a People and refuse to be divided. We hereby Declare Our Unity.



Now, while I appreciate and respect the thought behind this petition and agree in principle on the importance of civility in American politics, the sad and simple truth is that neither side would ever willingly sign it, and furthermore I think all of us deep down know it.

I also am of a mind that our correct posture as concerned Christians should be anything but civil in the face of what can only be described as the battle of our lifetime. Yes we are not to behave as our enemies do, but we should stop being so high-minded and eager to reach consensus. There is a time for a righteous indignation that I feel is way overdo.

I have been saying this now for well over year. The far Right, and with it fundamentalist Christianity, is actively engaging in tactics that are downright despicable and, in the case of the fundamentalists, unChristian. To show even the slightest hint of civility in the face of such rampant hatred and evil is akin to throwing down with it. You do not negotiate with evil; you confront it and expose it to the light of day.

The country DOES need a healthy and spirited debate on real issues; what is taking place more closely resembles the rumble scene from West Side Story. It is nothing short of insane to ask one side to lay down their sticks while at the same time allowing the other side to pummel the opposition with theirs.

To those who would say I am being obtuse and exposing my heart, I would say wake up my friends and smell the very coffee you want to drink. This isn’t about winning the hearts and minds of those who have fallen; it has always been about not letting the enemy get a foothold. Do not kid yourselves; silence and complicity are one in the same. Would Jesus have sat down with Satan? Did he once seek compromise with the Pharisees? Of course not and neither should we. It is foolhardy to believe we have no enemies, especially when they have no problem seeing us as theirs’.

Two wrongs may not make a right but it at least preserves balance; a balance that one day may yield to saner and more rational participants in this experiment we still call democracy. And when that day arrives, I will be more than willing to share a cup or two of hazelnut or French vanilla with anyone who seeks mutual respect and honors honest disagreement.

In the meantime, I will hold off singing Cumbayá, and suit up my armor, thank you.