Why Evangelicals
Get Nervous When MCC Talks Justice

The best biblical text
on non-resistance is 1 Peter 2:21-23, which is Paul's response to
the urgent question of how Christian slaves should behave before their
masters. The answer he gives is, "always respectfully," regardless
of whether the master be good or bad, for we know that "Christ also
suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in
his steps" (v. 21). The example Christ left was his unusual behaviour
at his trial and crucifixion: "When he was reviled, he did not revile
in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten" (v. 23a). Jesus
was able to behave thus because he "continued entrusting himself to
him who judges justly" (v. 23b). In other words, Jesus chose non-retaliation
because he knew the God of heaven was taking note above, and this same
God would surely make right every wrong one day. Jesus was under no
personal obligation to oppose the moral crime committed against him
because of his total confidence that his Father would reveal all on
the Last Day. 

The imitation of Christ
is not, then, predicated upon non-violence, but non-judgement,
which will of necessity behave non-violently. The two moral options
fall out this way:

(1) Justice Deferred (1) Justice
Now

(2) Non-Judgement (2) Judgement

(3) Non-Resistance (3) Resistance

(4) Non-Violence (4) Violence

The left-hand column
summarizes the logic of 1Peter 2. The right-hand column is its mirror,
and the thesis of this paper is that the sequence of logic in the right-hand
column from steps (1) to (4) is inescapable: To bring about Justice
Now (1) in an unjust situation, there must be a Judgement (2) to name
the oppressor. Since the oppressor always has a material interest in
maintaining the unjust system, he must be Resisted (3). Peace &
Justice advocates now try to differentiate between "non-violent"
resistance and "violent" resistance, but both have the same purpose:
to sufficiently harm the oppressor so that he desists from his wrongful
ways. The oppressor himself (or the "Power" to which he is committed)
cares not whether the attack against him is non-violent or violent.
It's all about the harm done. Which enrages him. Which leads him to
return harm. We must then say that, in order to be true to the Bible,
non-violence cannot be proposed as a political tactic for achieving
Justice Now, but is in fact the price to be paid for Justice Deferred. 

The divestment of Israel
is a good example. The point of mobilizing as many Mennonite churches
as possible to the cause of divestment is to bring as much harm to Israel
as possible. It is obedient to the logic that the more harm done to
the wrongdoer, the more likely he will change his ways. But Israelis
themselves care not whether this MCC attack is violent or non-violent;
it all hurts - as MCC intends it to. Israelis will, however, be irritated
by any claim to moral superiority because the divestor happens to practice
one form of attack and not another. That divestment is violence is professed
by we ourselves when our own Peace Position condemns "economic violence".
Economic violence is a no more holier sort of violence than physical
violence. Nor, to add another common tactic of non-violent resistors,
is "reputational violence" - the weapon employed in protest marches
and public letters which have as their intent the shaming of leaders.  

There are two good reasons
for deferring justice:

1. The judgement
   inside all justice ends the possibility of redemption. Judgement brings
   the curtain down. When justice is forced on the oppressor, he has no
   opportunity to choose for himself the good. He is condemned. That is
   why God himself defers justice: "The Lord is not slow to fulfill his
   promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing
   that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance" (1Peter
   3:9). In its own small way, whomever MCC condemns is lost to us.
2. The business
   of justice is so complex that only a God's-eye view can sort out every
   factor that determines where and by how much blame is to be placed.
   When we humans presume to judge anyway, God will set out our own unjust
   ways (invisible to us) alongside the people and powers we have just
   condemned, and, "with the measure you use it will be measured to you"
   (Mt 7:2), we also are condemned. To illustrate the complexity of making
   just judgements: (a) A meaningful life is made up of qualitative
   factors (the "amount" of friendship, music, family, community),
   but the human temptation, as Aristotle recognized long ago, is to compare
   quantitative factors (how much money we make), and enforce equality
   along false lines. Or (b) when comparing rich and poor, we are simply
   unable to discern when prosperity is the reward for behaving righteously
   (Pr 13:21 - a basic law by which we should expect an unequal
   world), or the takings of theft. Is the rich person or society under
   examination wealthy because they are rightly blessed or wrongly privileged?
   We can't tell. To sum up, our efforts at equality run a high risk
   of ignoring the most important qualities of life in favour of quantities,
   punishing the righteous just because they prosper, and rewarding the
   wicked just because they are poor. And so, "In passing judgement on
   another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very
   same things." (Ro 2:1-2).

Therefore, evangelicals
get nervous when MCC talks justice because: (a) MCC justice requires
the same sort of harmful action that occurs in any war against enemies;
(b) we cannot redeem whom we have already condemned; and (c) there is
a high likelihood of getting our justice wrong, with the result that
we mightily irritate God. 

Yes, evangelicals cannot
abide the preaching of non-violence when it is used as a means of roping
them  into social justice causes, which by nature are simply smaller
wars with the usual attendant consequences. But there is another way,
which we evangelicals do share with all non-violent activists, and that
is the way of love for the neighbour we can see. Love employs non-judgemental
friendships for the sake of moving opposing sides onto the same team
so that we all begin to work together for a common good. Once
humans get their eyes set on the same goal, it becomes irrelevant whether
one human happens to be poor and the other rich, one black and the other
white, and so on. Having said this, it simply cannot be ignored that
the noble work of loving our neighbour is incompatible with the pursuit
of social justice. We cannot do both equality and
love. Equality must judge and love must not judge. And
the church is most certainly called to the second, and not to the first.

Further Notes

1. Is not
   evangelicals as the defenders of non-resistance the height of hypocrisy?
   Indeed, evangelicals do not talk about non-resistance or non-violence.
   But we do talk quite a lot about not judging our neighbour as a critical
   aspect of redeeming him or her. But for all our talk, we still do far
   too much judging, and we need more sermons on forgiveness and reconciliation.
2. Do not
   hold evangelicals to non-resistance up and down the line. The logic
   of judgement and non-judgement cannot mix, but there is a place for
   both. On the Last Day, for example, when time is up for redemption and
   evil shall no longer be tolerated, then there shall be judgement with
   its requisite logic: "Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white
   horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in Justice
   he judges and makes war" (Rev 19:22). In the meantime we have
   this divinely-ordained institution called government, which never gets
   it all right, but is there to remind us that there is still such a thing
   as justice. Because government is not in personal relationship with
   individuals, it cannot possibly choose the course of love to which the
   Bible commends, nor should government be expected to. Love is our job.
   And the better we do our job, the less onus there will be on governments
   to raise armies, fight wars, and punish criminals - which is all
   they can do.