New Page 0

Is the use of violence in accomplishing Christian goals in society morally acceptable? In favor of using violence, some argue that violence of some sort is endemic to human relationships. Even representatives of the Lord do not always refrain from violence in accomplishing their ends (cf. American missionary efforts at times). In addition, some countries are born out of violent revolutions, so violence is not entirely foreign to our experience.

Second, it is commonly argued that societal institutions are often structured so as to favor certain groups above others. Those oppressed by such structures at times experience both psychological and physical violence. The powerful are not likely to relinquish their power. Thus, the only hope for escaping the injustice of these institutions is to meet violence with violence.

Third, some claim that in a democratic society one can always redress grievances without violence, but government moves very slowly in rectifying injustice. Often the only way to get government’s attention is mass confrontation of existing structures. Unfortunately, confrontation often involves violence, but without confrontation it would be difficult to bring needed changes.

What seems to us the strongest line of argument stems from an understanding of the function of society and government. Generally, it is agreed that any society needs both order and justice to survive. Often demands for justice are modified or overlooked in favor of demands for order. Proponents of order fear that without order there will be great societal upheaval. Consequently, various forms of oppression can be justified in the name of order. On the contrary, proponents of using violence think the real issue is not between order and disorder, for there will always be some sort of order. The question is whether that order will be just or not. Those who argue this line claim that the end justifies the means—i.e., the end is justice; any form of government or order is justified insofar as it accomplishes that end.³⁸

According to this line of thinking, justice is clearly more valuable than order. In fact, it is claimed that it is wrong to say in a particular case that an appeal to justice must be modified, delayed or denied out of regard for order. “What justifies any order is the degree of justice it embodies, or makes possible.”³⁹ Consequently, the use of direct action to rectify a wrong does not necessarily show disrespect or rejection of order; it merely demands a different order.⁴⁰ All of this means that when there is injustice in society and all other means of redress have been attempted, as a last resort violence may be justified. The argument does not end here, for further appeal is made to the analogy of the just war. Just war theorists hold that it is morally right in certain situations for nations to wage war to rectify an international injustice. If it is morally acceptable to use violence to right an international wrong, why not to address a domestic wrong?⁴¹

Opponents of Christians’ using violence answer the first argument by admitting that while violence is endemic to human relations, that hardly suggests the ideal or justifies the retributive use of violence by individuals. One cannot move to an “ought” from an “is.” Moreover, we should note that the first three arguments favoring violence are based on the utilitarian notion that the end justifies the means. Anyone rejecting that ethic should not be convinced by those arguments.

The line of argument about government and the functioning of society is more challenging but inconclusive. Though Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 command believers to obey governments, that does not preclude protesting injustice or trying to work within the law to rectify an injustice. Only if the Christian is directly asked to disobey a command of God may he disobey the government. Moreover, even when disobedience is permissible, nothing scriptural justifies disobedience in the form of violent disruption of the state. One might respond that nothing explicit prohibits it, and that is probably true. However, we contend that the overarching obligation to submit to government and the fact that God has instituted even the worst government to maintain order at least indirectly suggest that if one must disobey, he should try to create as little disruption as possible to the state’s general right to maintain order. Thus, even if violence is permissible, it seems preferable to protest in a more peaceful way.

From a non-scriptural standpoint, we also find this line of argument unconvincing. One should always strive for justice, but violence tends to produce anarchy, not order, in society, and we see little justice in times of anarchy. Some may respond that one or two people using violence will not eliminate all order, but once the precedent of getting one’s way by using violence is set, the temptation for others to try the same thing increases, and that can lead to anarchy. At any rate, we find it odd to think that justice can only be legally accomplished and guaranteed by means (violence) which go outside the law. At some point that strategy will return to haunt us in the form of anarchy.

Another problem with favoring violence to bring justice is that it is not always clear which policies, programs or actions would be just. The initial difficulty is agreeing on the notion of justice that should operate in society. Should government implement egalitarian justice (everyone receives an equal amount) or compensative justice (rendering each his exact due even if that differs from person to person)? If I opt for egalitarian justice and also believe in using violence to procure justice, I then should encourage violence to ensure that everyone in society (including myself) has an equal income; pure egalitarian justice demands that. If you favor compensative justice, you will disagree that I should make as much money as you, regardless of my skills and how hard I work, and you will see my use of violence to inaugurate egalitarianism as unjust.

Our point is that since there are conflicting notions of justice, before one encourages confronting order with violence in the name of justice, there must be agreement on what justice is. Moreover, even if everyone understood justice in the same way (which is most unlikely), that would not guarantee that in any given situation it would be clear that circumstances are unjust. Nor is it always easy to calculate when the point comes that all non-violent means to overturn injustice are exhausted so that the only recourse is violence.

As to the analogy with the just war theory, we are unconvinced. There is a major difference between trying to right a wrong within a society as opposed to trying to correct injustice in the international setting. Within a country there are legally and politically established means for redressing injustices, especially in a democratic society, and the government has power to enforce any changes in laws that would be enacted. However, on the international scene there is no organization with either authority or power to enact or enforce justice among nations. Since there is none, the only recourse for an individual nation to protect itself against unjust attack is the use of violence. The just war theory allows a nation to protect itself in self-defense. Within a society, then, the situation is not analogous to international relations. Since that is so, appeals to just war theory to justify domestic use of violence are improper.

One final word against using violence to accomplish societal goals. The basic biblical approach is that believers, rather than retaliating against those who persecute them, should follow Christ’s example (cf. 1 Pet 2:21–23; 3:10–12). The oft-quoted comment of Jesus about bringing a sword (Matt 10:34–36) has nothing to do with Jesus’ relation to the political structure; it emphasizes the dramatic impact discipleship has on personal relationships. Moreover, biblical examples of people disobeying civil authority in order to obey God do not include the use of violence in defying the authorities. While examples are not prescriptive, they do suggest that one can protest and even disobey governmental policy without violence and still make an impact on the social order. We conclude, then, that the basic biblical perspective excludes violence as the way for Christians to effect social change.

From our discussion it should be clear that Scripture does not answer all questions about the Christian’s relation to society. Nor does it present a comprehensive Christian social and political philosophy. Christians should be salt and light in society, and as a result there will be times when they must speak and act in protest. Perhaps there will be occasions when they must even break the law. When those decisions arise, believers should seek the direction of the Holy Spirit as to whether to disobey and as to the appropriate means for registering displeasure. They should also remember that they are members not only of a secular community but also of a religious, spiritual community, the church. Counsel and prayer with other members of the body of Christ are advisable not only when planning strategy for representing God in society, but also when the option of acting beyond the law presents itself.

³⁸Walter Wiest, “Can There Be a Christian Ethic of Violence?” Perspective 10 (Fall 1969): 131-135.

³⁹Ibid., p. 140.

⁴⁰Ibid., p. 141.

⁴¹

Ibid., p. 143ff.

Feinberg, John S. ; Feinberg, Paul D. ; Huxley, Aldous: Ethics for a Brave New World. Wheaton, Ill. : Crossway Books, 1996, c1993, S. 402