I am these days in Nairobi, training a session about Conflict Resolution for 17 Peace Builders from all over Africa, English and French speakers together, in this 19th University of Peace in Africa (UPA).
My doctoral thesis was interested in the emergence of a new paradigm: efficient forces capable of lastingly curbing destructive violence are of another nature, of another order than this. These non violent forces deserve, as such, to be qualified otherwise than by the formula « legitimate violence ». The issue is much deeper than the terminology. It is a question of knowing the nature of these so-called non-violent forces, and recognizing their qualities, their characteristics, distinct from violence.
Among these,
1. the forces of law, capable of outlawing violence;
2. sociopolitical forces, able to manage the conflict without it drifting into violence;
3. psychological and spiritual forces, able to create a good relationship between one another, by respecting each in their dignity and their deep truth.
Jesus ended badly, crucified on a cross, because he shocked and even scandalised the orthodox custodians of Revelation, while people of ill-repute flocked around him, fascinated by his Good News: Our Father makes us all true brothers and sisters. He calls us to conversion, to open up to a Kingdom where those who want to be first will ultimately be last…
This message is so habitual in the mouth of a priest preaching from the pulpit that it passes by like humming in our ears. But outside the church, what diabolical process is used to scandalise people when the message comes from the mouths of those who are bizarre, from people of the night who are keen on bacchanalia of all sorts; or when the message comes from the mouths of those who have been flayed by life and despised by society? Do the orthodox thinkers have more right to a place at the Last Supper on Holy Thursday than they do? And what about the Barabbas of today who violently denounce the Olympic Games as « bread and circuses » / opium for the subjugated people? Thank you to the victims of injustice and the marginalised of every stripe when they choose weapons other than terrorism to shake up good consciences!
Jesus truly created scandal, notably by driving the merchants out of the Temple, calling for a conversion of heart and mind in favour of a true relationship with our Father (See my article :
in French : https://etiennechome.site/mise-en-scene-de-la-cene-sur-la-seine-en-faire-toute-une-scene/).
Greek bacchanalia or Last Supper? What were the artists referring to who painted this highly controversial picture of the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games in Paris? My question lies elsewhere. Can the Good News be heard? Can the Gospel be heard? What is it really?
The motley crew who painted this picture disturbed me, and I thank them for this salutary shock. I thank them for having scandalised so many socially respectable people. What a wonderful opportunity for the Holy Spirit to ask the question of Jesus to each person one more time, « Who do you say I am?… Repent and believe in the Good News of the authentic reconciliation of everyone in Him… ».
Thank you to these passionate enthusiasts of pop-culture, the outsiders, the overweight, the drag queens – for offering their insights into our shared values of inclusion, generosity, solidarity and freedom.
« Our intention was to show tolerance and communion » (Anne Descamps, Paris 2024 spokesperson). Thank you for having created a time-in-space at the heart of these Olympic Games in which the Gospel bomb can explode anew. His message of fraternal communion is revolutionary (re-love-Uturn), it is no longer just a humming in our ears now, when we are suffering because of our nearby enemy; it is a concrete reality between the far left and the economic and political elites who defend their established disorder, between Israelis and Palestinians, Russians and Ukrainians, Rwandans and Congolese, and so on. Everything is grace: a call to conversion and an opportunity for salvation isn’t it?
If this message makes sense to you, don’t hesitate to share it!
Article (7 pages) published originally in French : Vers une théologie de la paix juste, grâce aux nouvelles pratiques en gestion des conflits, dans Actes du colloque Paix des Églises : paix du monde ?, ISEO, Paris, 2023, p. 205-214.
One Saturday evening, I’m sitting with three friends in a pub. At the counter, some U.S. Navy sailors are heckling each other, enjoying their shore leave. One of them, particularly muscular, is provoking some rough housing. He obviously needs to let off some steam. It’s clear he wants to fight. After half an hour, he comes up to us and insults our Belgian mothers, hoping for a gutsy response to finally start a fight. I’d seen the provocation coming and was well aware that I mustn’t let him draw me into his game, in which he’s the strongest. I rose to my feet, and began leading my friends and the other merrymakers in the pub in a popular local song and an exuberant dance that included all the sailors: a boisterous round dance, in true local fashion!
Cheers! Let’s drink together, without letting the aggressor profit from his violence, by inventing a way out of conflict!
Women from a slum in Medellin, the capital of Colombia, repeatedly asked their mayor to extend the water pipes to their neighborhood. More than once, they received promises, but no action was ever taken. One day, some of them who had taken a seminar on active non-violence led by Jean and Hildegard Goss called the women to a meeting. They decided to intensify their struggle but in a non-violent way, that is to say by deciding explicitly, that whatever happens, they will exclude all means of violence which degrade the one who commits them as much as the one who undergoes them.
They formed groups of 10 women, each with her smallest child. The first group went to the central square of the city where a beautiful fountain was pouring out its abundant waters. They began to bathe their babies in the puddles beside the fountain. When shocked middle-class women intervened, it allowed the group to explain to them the lack of clean water they were suffering from and the indifference of the authorities. The police took them to the station, but they were followed by a second group which did the same. The police had to come back to chase them away, and so it continued. In the fifth group, an angry policeman raised his baton to hit a woman but a well-to-do woman grabbed his arm stopping him, and said, « If your wife lived up there like these women, would you hit her? “
Following this incident, women from the middle and upper classes joined the women from the slums and they returned together to address the administration. A solution was found in which each side took a step towards the other. The many unemployed men from the slums dug the trenches and the municipality financed the water supply.
Extract from my article published on May 13, 2000, available at http://etiennechome.site/outils-pour-de-meilleures-relations-humaines/
By understanding that turning the other cheek (Mt 5:38-42) is a call to not resist, to renounce one’s own rights, to bear injustice patiently, the coryphaei of Tradition were obliged to limit evangelical non-violence as best they could:
1) Yes, to the evangelical spirit while still assuring an effective defense, was the idea of Augustine. As the Church became the official religion of the Empire, he organized an internalizing solution that distinguished actions from intentions: the commandments of Mt 5:38-42, which are addressed to everyone, do not teach a specific behavior, but a « spirit » in which we should defend ourselves. The texts do not say: « Let the wicked do as they wish, » but rather, « Correct the wicked, while loving them entirely with your heart filled with pure intention ».
2) Yes, to turning the other cheek, but not for everyone, was the proclamation of Thomas Aquinas reflecting the spirit of his time. In the medieval era, which clearly marked the differences between clerics and laity, Mt 5:38-42 was applied differently to each: one commandment for those who had left everything behind in order to witness in anticipation of the Kingdom, and on the other hand, for all those who had the responsibility of protecting their family, their business or their country, a counsel of perfection subordinated to the duty of defending one’s neighbor. Religious can bear witness to that radical love which goes so far as to give one’s life for one’s enemy, while the laity exercise their vocation of love by defending their loved ones. This is the solution of a free and personal vocation.
3) Yes, to this impossible precept, but by grace, and only for Christians in their interpersonal relationships, affirms Luther. The Protestant Reformation centers on the Savior who alone is able to give the grace to accomplish what he asks in Mt 5:38-42. This is the Christological solution. Mt 5:38-42, sets out commandments for every Christian, whether cleric or layman. But they are valid only in the relationship of Christian to Christian; honoring the Kingdom of God which comes in Christ. They are not valid, as such, for governors, judges or economic leaders in the organization of the affairs of the society.
These three theologies, which express the ideal of the society in which they were produced, agree on the following guidelines: yes as much as possible to the evangelical precepts of non-violence in Mt 5:38-42, but it is necessary to limit those to whom it is addressed, and/or the obligatory character and/or the scope of its application, given the need to protect the innocent against violence and to resist injustice. Hence the dilemma that has arisen in all Christian thought over the last two thousand years between the duty to assist and protect one’s neighbor on the one hand, and on the other, to remain faithful to the non-violence advocated by Jesus in his words and actions. Ambrose of Milan already spoke in the fourth century of this conflict of duties for every Christian, which is taken up again by the Jesuit Joseph Joblin: one will either observe the precept that he must abstain from all violence, and fail in his obligation to come to the aid of the victim of unjust aggression (because of the risk of becoming an accomplice of the unjust aggressor); or, he will put his strength at the disposal of the victim of injustice and he will fail in the precept of non-violence contained in the gospel
Today, studies in conflict management reveal that this dilemma is very poorly framed. See the diagram below: departing from the traditional dilemma because the best possible defense is neither in counter-aggression nor in passivity, it is rather in a mobilization of our best forces and an optimization of those ingredients that there will be an effective resolution to the crisis. And, on the Gospel side, if we understand that the outstretched cheek is a call to resist, to fight against injustice by taking a disconcerting initiative which does not fall into the trap of counter-violence, but which effectively stops the dominance, then a theology of a just peace becomes possible, integrating both the treasures of the Gospel and the know-how of constructive conflict management. See my book « La non-violence évangélique et le défi de la sortie de la violence ».
« You have heard that it was said to the elders… But I say to you… » is the refrain that provides the cadence of the verses in Matthew 5: 21 – 48. The refrain is repeated six times, ending in the crescendo: the law says no to all forms of violence; from the nearest to the farthest away; to that which we inflict on others (murder, lies, concupiscence) to that which is inflicted on us (5th and 6th antitheses*). Jesus fulfills the law; he holds it upright from its very root; he establishes it definitively in accordance with his own intention: « It has been said… but I, I give the fundamental meaning » in accordance with the justice of the Kingdom of Heaven (these are the 3 words that come up most in the ‘Sermon on the Mount’ (Matthew 5, 6 and 7). That we are all his daughters and sons, and therefore brothers and sisters, radically changes the relationship between human beings…
These six antitheses, these six roots, all maintain the same dynamic: « Not just murder… but also the judgments that demonize the other, and the words of hate that lead to the judgments. Not just the finality of justice: an eye for eye – but also the importance of choosing other ways than violence; not only a just struggle, but also the means for a just peace; not only the truth about the warlike ideology of the neighbor who attacks us, but already regarding the enemy with a look filled with love.
Unfortunately, until the 20th century, theologians understood that the outstretched cheek was a call to not resist, to renounce one’s own rights, to bear injustice patiently. Since this non-violence is socially and politically impracticable, it is logical and wise to limit its scope and to deny its obligatory and collective character. This continuing interpretation has thus set up the proposition: « Yes to evangelical non-violence, but not in certain cases », which is a dynamic very different from « not only… but already, and again… »; hence, the difficulties in reconciling such an altruistic, self-sacrificing love and a realistic political stance in the world.
Everything changes if the Gospel of turning the cheek invites us to resist with realism, lucidity and love! It can then inspire a responsible political response. This was the subject of my doctorate in theology. Laissez-faire is toxic and passivity is the breeding ground for the abuse of power by the unscrupulous, but resistance to oppression has an interest in inventing alternatives to violence…
* Antitheses is a term in biblical scholarship used to characterise the repeated refrain, “You have heard it said… but I say to you…”
