Hello to you all. I am new, and this is my first post. I noticed at the beginning of this thread that a list of the "historic peace churches" was mentioned. If I may be permitted to add one which was left out, the Church of the Brethren.

Not my main point, just making sure the Brethren get their listing

I often hear talk and have seen it here about using violence only after all other alternatives have been tried. My questions are these: How do we know when *all* other alternatives have been tried? Might this be a justification for deciding on our own that we will stop looking for non-violent alternatives?

shanti

Good point, shanti. The Church of the Brethren does indeed need to be mentioned along with the other "peace traditions" in Christianity.

You ask a question about when non-violent options are exhausted, and it's probably the most relevant one concerning Just War Theory. I'll post the Just War principles below so all can view them in their entirety to see where that point fits in. Perhaps we can have more discussion of this, especially with the possible war against Iraq looming on the horizon.

-----------------------------------

Just War Principles

* Initiation of War *

1. Legitimacy. The war must be initiated by a legitimate authority, usually meaning a duly constituted government.
2. Intent. The war must be initiated with a right intention, namely to promote peace. It is never permissible to wage war so as to promote or establish tyranny, oppression, or domination.
3. Exhaustion. War must be undertaken only as a last resort. No war can be condoned so long as there is any reasonable chance of resolving the conflict by discussion, negotiation, the employment of economic sanctions, or other means short of military action.
4. Potentiality. The war must have a reasonable chance of success. To do otherwise is the pointless loss of human life.
5. Reluctance. The war must be initiated with a profound sense of reluctance and regret, with a sadness of heart, realizing that, even if the lesser of all evils, war is an affront to God's wishes for mankind.

* Conduct of War *

6. Proportionality. The war must be waged using means proportionate to the ends to be accomplished. That is, there cannot be excessive destruction for the sake of minimally desirable ends. Stated another way, the good to be accomplished must be outweighed by the evil that will be exercised in bringing about that good.
7. Moderation. The war must be waged with all moderation possible. At the very least, violations of the treaties, codes, and standards of warfare are not permitted.
8. Discrimination. In using force, one must discriminate between combatants and noncombatants, and between combatants in different circumstances.
9. Restoration. Upon conclusion of the war, all steps must be taken to restore the vanquished, to dispense mercy and forgiveness, and to institute a just and lasting peace.

Thanks for posting the "just war" theory, Phil. No doubt, my views on war and other forms of violence are transparent, so I'll just stick to the point about "exhaustion." I think my original questions apply there.

Waiting to see what develops....

shanti

quote:

Waiting to see what develops.... shanti[]

yes, it will be interesting to see if a discussion about this develops. I should mention that the number of people who post on its form is rather small compared to lots of other discussion forums. We go for quality, however!

I think it must be very difficult to to decide when all nonviolent options have been exhausted, and I wouldn't even know what to suggest as criteria for determining this. For example, a it's pretty clear that in previous wars, some nations have used negotiations as a way to enable them to build up their military. While the negotiations were taking place and dragging out, they were planning attacks, and using the negotiation process to buy time to plan their aggressions.

In addition, leaders must evaluate the risk of waiting to wage war against the risk of going into it sooner. These are not easy decisions to make! one can only hope that one's leaders are going through this discernment process in good faith, and are not biasing their decisions on other concerns.

Hi Phil,

You bring forth a very important (and unfortunate) point that sometimes nations use the guise of negotiation in order to buy time and build up means for violence later. Clearly, they are not acting in good faith at all. But then, that's not exactly in the job description of a sneak.

I guess there are many levels of engaging in the work of non-violence. At a personal level, at personal relationship/family/community level, at a national level, international, etc. But, in light of world events, it seems that international acts of war is the most salient issue right now.

My belief--and I know many people from peace churches as well as others share this belief--is that the search for non-violent alternatives is on-going, limited only by the conscious decision to stop searching. Yes, people will abuse those who hold this ideal, but to me the commitment is to the ideal itself, not to the expectation that others will agree with me or play by the same rules.

When people try to subvert non-violence, they are in effect providing a reason to *continue* looking for non-violent alternatives (which is not to say, passivity). Of course, sometimes the on-going search for non-violent alternatives can be *exhausting* and call for deep creativity, but I don't believe it can be *exhausted.*

I try not to be intractable in life, but on this issue, I feel quite convinced. That is why I (and others who feel the same) will not participate in war taxes, join the military service, or support military efforts, etc.

This issue is a very volatile one with good people on all sides of the issue. I don't want to gnaw on the bone too much.

shanti

Shanti, I respect the stance you are taking, and am sure that the witness of non-violent resistance is one used by God to bring forth the reign of God. I am spiritual director for a number of ministers from peace traditions, and have, through my interactions with them, come to appreciate the deep theology and spirituality which informs this stance.

What I have sometimes wondered, however, is if the same can be said by those in peace traditions of other Christians who, in their own attempts to be faithful to Gospel principles, find the guidance provided in the just war theory to be an acceptable response to an unjust/evil aggressor? No need for you to reply to that, and no intent to put you on the spot with it.

My own view is that there is room in Christianity for both approaches. The peace traditions, in particular, can help to shed more light on alternatives to violence and extend that "line" where "last resorts" have run out a lot further than perhaps we thought it could go.

Hi Phil,

Believe me, you are not putting me on any spot I haven't occupied many times before.

Anyway, I understand that we disagree *somewhat, but not completely* about this issue, and I like your willingness to think about "extending the line" further.

Meanwhile, I'm not convinced that this is entirely a spiritual issue. Modern western society seems to have an increasing need for instant gratification and vengence (a spiritual void, perhaps). The combination of those two encourages the line to be drawn in rather than extended. Road rage is a good non-war example of this.

Perhaps more patience and more invitations for the Spirit to attend our meetings, summits, press conferences, political conventions, etc. would help.

From what I understand, the word "shalom" means "right relationship" as well as peace. It means acting justly toward someone without having to actually like the person or approve of what that person stands for. I am discouraged by the fact that we seem to have so much reactivity on our planet and so little patience than I am by the fact that not everyone is on the non-violence bandwagon.

And this is, of course, my humble opinion, not directed toward anyone who has posted here, but perhaps to the world at large, or at the very least, a few world leaders....

shanti

Oh-oh! I just realized that my remark about "inviting the Spirit" to press conferences, etc. might spark some sort of religon vs. government discussion which I did not intend (and might better be served in a different thread).

I was talking about *individuals* inviting the Spirit personally, using whatever their concept is of who or what the Spirit is.

shanti

Dear All,
The Ethical Roots of Karl Popper's Epistemology by Mariano Artigas , is neither as difficult nor as dry a read as the title might imply. The biographical account of Popper's own search for integrity and intellectual honesty might directly address some of our own personal struggles, whether in our decisions for Christianity, for Christ or for an authentically Christian approach to nonviolence.

At least, I see the same integrity in those of you who have contributed here, the same humility, too.

namaste,
jb

RE: Phil's comment about "extending the line."

Walked down to a religious bookstore on my block yesterday and purchased the latest issue of "Sojourners"--the magazine that first captured my attention re: radical Christianity.

Anyway, if you go to the web site <www.sojo.net> you can see two articles on non-violent strategies. On is re: Iraq, the other re: the Intifada.

shanti

Also read a review of Steven Pinker's book "The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature" in which he apparently (I haven't read the actual book) claims that humans are innately aggressive and have to learn to be otherwise.

Dr. Pinker is a somewhat controversial psychologist/linguist (with good credentials), and I'm not sure what to make of the apparent thesis of his book. I will have to read more than a review.

Unless convinced otherwise (always open to the Spirit), I believe (through my faith, experience, lessons from spiritual teachers, and whispers in my heart) that within each of us is a desire for peace. However, I also believe that we all come into this world with a desire to have our immediate needs met (anyone with children knows this ). The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Has anyone read this book?

shanti

Walked down to a religious bookstore on my block yesterday and purchased the latest issue of "Sojourners"--the magazine that first captured my attention re: radical Christianity.

Shanti, There are very many Catholics who resonate with the Sojourners approach and, increasingly, the thought occurs to me that you sound very much like a lay Franciscan (and I mean that in the highest complimentary way, no patronizing or condescension)!

You bring an important prophetic presence to our forum, both powerful and gentle, and may find additional fellowship to nourish you on your journey at these sites as well:

http://www.cacradicalgrace.org...s/aboutus_index.html

The Center for Action and Contemplation serves a dual purpose as not only a radical voice for peaceful, non-violent social change but also as a forum for renewal and encouragement for the seeking individual who sought direction from and understanding of God's will and love.

http://www.paxchristiusa.org/

Pax Christi USA strives to create a world that reflects the Peace of Christ by exploring, articulating, and witnessing to the call of Christian nonviolence. This work begins in personal life and extends to communities of reflection and action to transform structures of society. Pax Christi USA rejects war, preparations for war, and every form of violence and domination. It advocates primacy of conscience, economic and social justice, and respect for creation.

http://www.maryknoll.org/GLOBA...NOTES/1-contents.htm

Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns :
Peace, Social Justice and Integrity of Creation

http://www.forusa.org/

The Fellowship of Reconciliation , the Largest, Oldest Interfaith Peace Organization in the United States

pax Christi,
jb

A lay Franciscan, hmmmm....I'm going to check this out. No patronization was felt, btw.

Thank you, JB, for the info on various groups. I'm most familiar with the Fellowship of Reconciliation.

Meanwhile, if one were to ask me if there is any Christian thing I'm "a lay of" I would say, I'm a lay-Amish. I have had many years of relationship with two Amish families. I respect their dedication to a lifestyle designed to keep their minds in a spiritual realm. I also know, directly from them, that they make no judgments toward me as a non-(lay-) Amish. They are doing what they feel is best for themselves. Because they are so clearly different in lifestyle and because they wish to be not of the world, many miscomceptions abound.

I've had quite a learning experience, and it's been very pleasant. You can imagine our conversations. I've been invited to worship twice. The second time I had an embarrassing experience. All hymns are sung in German, which I do not understand. But I gave it my best, using the hymnal. Unfortunately, I misunderstood which hymn we were singing. So I was quite prominantly singing the wrong hymn in phonetic German the entire time. No one laughed or looked at me or pointed or anything. After the worship service was over, my best woman friend in the community clued me in and we had a private laugh.

And also--don't ever think that the Amish version of simplicity is easy. Begging for rice for the rest of my life would be a snap compared to some of the chores that needed my attention during my stay with these families. Chop wood, carry water.

I like the idea of being a "lay." We can't all live in monasteries, be perfect in yoga, or sit under a tree. I suspect many of us have more than one "lay" aspect to our lives. I know this is true for me.

A student as much as anything else

Hmmm....a bit off topic, sorry.
shanti

JB, After thinking about it for a few minutes, I decided to post and say that I hope my little story about being lay-AMish didn't trivialize your suggestion that I might be a lay-Franciscan. I'm feeling chatty today.

You have given me something to research and meditate on, the things that drive my spiritual journey.

Meanwhile, I was attempting to let you and others know that even though the question of whether or not I'm Christian has not been resolved (and may never be, not an issue right now), I feel comfortable walking around in the Christian context and spent quite a bit of time exploring that context. I even have Christian places I consider to be "homes" of a sort--not home as in permanent address--but home as in a place to go for comfort and nourishment.

Can't beat that.

Now, I believe we're in a non-violence thread so I'll step back out and let the thread continue.

shanti

quote:

I like the idea of being a "lay." We can't all live in monasteries, be perfect in yoga, or sit under a tree. I suspect many of us have more than one "lay" aspect to our lives. I know this is true for me.

A student as much as anything else

Hmmm....a bit off topic, sorry.

Not really that far off-topic at all. For one thing, we lay people are the ones who are asked to execute the intentions discerned by the more "professional" decision-makers. What's very much needed in both the institutional Church and in governments is more participation by lay people in discussions which will so seriously impact our lives. Would that our leaders, like you, could say that they are students "as much as anything else."

Right on, pecan.

The idea of "professional decision-makers" in the formulation of Catholic morality is one of the ingredients that Richard McCormick advocated; see this old discussion.

And, of course, professional doesn't necessarily imply clerical.

pax,
jb

I think that the participation of lay people must be especially crucial for those who find the just war theory meaningful. I say this because I imagine that the process of discernment has to be important, compicated, and perhaps quite taxing.

We seem to live in a society that has over-professionalized, and that can leave people feeling voiceless.

Meanwhile, my little story about being a lay-Amish was just that, a little story. I have no real input into anything about Amish life except perhaps decisions about which pie to serve or who will change the baby. So in that sense, I am not really a lay participant.

jb, I have done a little checking on the lay franciscan idea. Much of it sounds like me, except of course, that I am not fully a Christian. But I do happen to know a real live professed Franciscan through my non-violence work, and I may have a talk with her.

Please know that while some of us are quite convinced about non-violence, we do recognize the prayerful searching that must go into one's interpretation of a just war.

Let us all hope that the same level of consideration is being made by "professionals" at this time.

shanti

The question should be what would jesus do right?
The answer is simple, If jesus was the savior then he could have smitted them all, He could have killed pilot by blinking. But he didn't. If pilot had put a child on the cross it might have been different, but when there is another choice what do you think he would do.
P.S. Iraq didn't attack us. Bin doesnt like Saddom. Iraq wasn't a theocracy, Bin Laden publicaly stated his distast for Iraq on that note. Bush never actualy said that iraq had any thing to do with 911. Go through the tapes. He says Iraq cellebrated it, that they are a terrorist state ect but never that they attacked us.

My freinds are about equally divided on this. I followed Asher's Bede Griffiths link to the Comaldolese USA website, and found their peace statement opposing the actions in Iraq. Most mystics
including Christians seem to lean this way and I should hope that would be the case. Ultimately, peace is the way

The Dalai Lama, Wayne Teasedale and Thomas Keating signed a "Universal Declaration on Non-Violence" back it 1989 which allows for such actions.

I look at it this way. The US Constitution was written at a David Hawkins calibrated level of 450. The world as a whole calibrates at 207 currently. People like to destroy higher levels of consciousness. Look what happened to Tibet. Look what happened to Jesus. And look at what the communist did to over a hundred thousand monks and nuns in Orthodox monastaries.

If we had it to do over, we might have helped the world more by sending 38,000 Americans to die saving Tibet than South Korea. We might have aided the world more by sending our troops to defend the 6,000 Orthodox monastaries destroyed by the Bolsheviks than sending them off the fight the Kaiser, but hindsight is 20/20

caritas,

mm <*)))))><

mm <*)))))><

Welcome, kona!

You wrote: The question should be what would jesus do right?
The answer is simple, If jesus was the savior then he could have smitted them all, He could have killed pilot by blinking. But he didn't. If pilot had put a child on the cross it might have been different, but when there is another choice what do you think he would do.

Jesus' mission as Messiah is hard to relate to the morality of nations, so I don't think the answer is simple. The Church, which is the mystical body of Christ in space and time, has a long history of reflection on this topic, with various positions applying to different situations.

P.S. Iraq didn't attack us. Bin doesnt like Saddom. Iraq wasn't a theocracy, Bin Laden publicaly stated his distast for Iraq on that note. Bush never actualy said that iraq had any thing to do with 911. Go through the tapes. He says Iraq cellebrated it, that they are a terrorist state ect but never that they attacked us.

You're right, and that's the point made by the Catholic bishops as well in their condemnation of the war in Iraq. To be fair, however, I think you need to consider the reasons given by the Bush Administration. We've had lots of discussion on this on the Religion and Politics forum on this web site. See the threads "On the verge of war," and "Concerns along the way," for example.

-----

Michael, I'm aware of the positions taken by the Dalai Lama and Fr. Keating. Of course, nonviolent resolution should always be the first priority, as even the Just War theory affirms. But, as I have argued on this thread, non-violence is not an absolute value in Christianity, nor is it a pre-condition of loving behavior. That is where pacifists go wrong, I believe.

It's interesting that the Dalai Lama considers the war in Afghanistan just and is reserving judgment for now concerning Iraq. Click here to read more about it.

Paul says individual vengeance is not apporpriate.

(Rom. 12:17-21; 13:1-4)

But the leaders of a nation have a right to protect their citizens from wicked men.

Here's my uneducated opinion:

Violence in any way shape or form is wrong. On the cross, Jesus said, "Father forgive them for they know not what they do", and he just loved and forgave them anyway.. no resistance by Him when he was beaten, etc. and crucified. I don't think they DID know what they were doing. They were "unenlightened", not even guilty... objectively guilty, but not subjectively guilty. Jesus let them do it. What happened then? We know what happened to Jesus. But what kind of effect did this have on those who were involved in the crucifixion. Do we know? Were they remorseful, transformed? If so, Jesus' non resistance made the world better, and so His followers should do as he did. If it means death, so be it.

Anyway, I think back then and prior to Jesus' time people were barbaric, ignorant, and unenlightened.. of a lower consciousness. Today people are more evolved. Those who ARE can protect themselves having a lasar-like spiritual body/mind. What about the scriptures such as "no evil shall befall me, nor any evil come near my dwelling". Well, don't know if any of this makes sense. Just got up. :-)

Katy

P.S. I wonder what Mother Teresa would have to say about it. Does anyone know what her position was?

:-)
Katy

Hi again,

Been doing some surfing and went to Richard Rohr's web site. BTW, R.R. was the first one I heard speak on the Charismatic movement, back in the late 60's; he also said masses at the church where I went...a hippy church here in Cincinnati :-))

Anyway, I was kind of shocked to read what he said about the movie "The Passion". Am I behind the times, or what? Or is he off the straight and narrow.. lol

Here is the link to his comments on The Passion:
http://www.cacradicalgrace.org...nnected/passion.html

Phil, sorry if this should be in another forum. .

Katy

Katy, we do have a thread in the movie reviews and one in religion and politics on "The Passion of the Christ." Please do post the link to Richard Rohr's review there, just so it can be noted by people visiting those threads. I'll reply to his review there if you decide to post it.

-------

I don't know that Mother Theresa's view on this topic would have much significance, as her witness was never from the standpoint of theological critique. Holy people, saints, and mystics are not always the best people to look to for moral critique on politics, for example. What we have that we can look to is the teaching of the Church, which, on this issue, does allow for the use of violence in self-defense and even interventions for humanitarian reasons.

Katy, I think there are still some very unevolved parts of the world, as the Spiral Dynamics teachers point out (see thread on this in the Religion and Politics forum). Some of these groups cannot envision themselves becoming integrated into another kind of society and so they would rather the world stay away from them, or else. That seems to be the agenda of Al Qaeda, for example, which isn't much more evolved than baboons, imo.