Contrasting Images
What a powerful contrast. The horse drawn wagon carrying the casket of John Lewis with quiet dignity across the same bridge where he had been brutally beaten all those years ago for marching peacefully, in the light of day, for human rights; juxtaposed, with dark night images of fire, noxious clouds of gas visible in their ominous glow, masked club wielding secret police, protestors carrying guns or throwing rocks, canisters, flares and explosives. Everyone shouting, screaming in anger, clashing in violence.

A Roughly Hewn Pacifist
I am, to use the older terminology, a pacifist––a Christian pacifist (one who rejects war and violence as justifiable). I am a rather roughly hewn pacifist. But, although I am not a very good pacifist it is my opinion that there is quite enough sadness and hurt in the world without my contributing anything further to it. I am not nonviolent by nature, but only as a result of hearing the cruciform wisdom taught by the inaudible whispers of Christ’s Spirit.

Pacifism Is Not Passive
There is nothing passive about being a pacifist. It has nothing to do with acquiescence to injustice; that would be mere cowardice. Pacifism is the energetic and active work of creating shalom––a condition of complete well-being for both individuals and groups––friends and foes alike. Jesus did not say, as the old cliché goes: “Blessed are the peace lovers;” but, “blessed are the peace-makers!” When pacifism, non-violence, is an inward spiritual principle, an honestly and deeply held creed, it becomes a powerful force in bringing about the triumph of caritas––a transforming revolution of individual and cultural values. Such a non-violent revolution is not a way of seizing power. It is a program for the transformation of relationships, for a fundamental change in human thinking until all come to that place of a sustainable peace in which there is neither the desire to oppress nor a willingness to suffer oppression.

This is the sense, then, in which I am a pacifist. As a pacifist of the cruciform way I find all violence abhorrent––sometimes understandable but always objectionable and counter-productive in striving for the good. So when I receive an e-mail, as I frequently do, suggesting that I help “waste,” “trash,” or “destroy” someone, even in a purely political sense, I delete it without opening. I do the same thing with any message in which there is abusive, vulgar, or low-life language––not because I am too pure and good to hear such words, but because they are violent and I do not appreciate anyone attempting to recruit or pull me into an abusive state of mind. I have no interest in trashing, humiliating, or hurting anyone––or in hammering anyone with language that is demeaning to both myself and them. Violence in the form of vandalism, or burning, looting, rock throwing, tossing gas canisters, flares, or any explosive, kicking and hitting and beating, or carrying, brandishing or using weapons leaves me feeling profoundly sad, troubled, and discourage––even when I am in agreement with the basic aims of the protestors. I believe in serious police reform, electoral reform, universal health care, and real solutions to wealth inequality, poverty, homelessness and hunger. I am in favor of affirmative action––apparently we still haven’t gotten that one right. I am for an end to American wars of aggression which benefit only the greed and short-term interests of the wealthy. I am opposed to the whole corrupt lobby business––both foreign and domestic. Actually, “to lobby” is just another word, a euphemism, for bribery. There are other issues I could name that any honorable system would address: systemic racism, human trafficking, violence against women, a minimum wage that is too low to sustain those who work so hard to earn it.  My dear friend and brother, Fr. Jon Connor, Ph.D., in stating what it means to him to be pro-life summed up my own point of view quite well.

My perspective on being pro-life is that one must reject war, capital punishment, animal cruelty and environmental desecration.  Furthermore, one must actively promote a quality of life for everyone and actively (non-violently) resist any attempts to marginalize and dehumanize any person.

I hope, then, this is sufficient to provide a basic understanding of my political orientation and my large agreement with those marching for solutions to these issues. But I reiterate, I find all violence abhorrent––even when used in a just cause. Ultimately such tactics not only corrode the soul of those who use them, but results in the very social evils they attempt to cure. Violent revolutions, to paraphrase the theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, change who holds power, but not how it is held. To replace one violent ideology with another, even its philosophical opposite, changes nothing.

Practical Considerations
From the teaching of Christ and the New Testament, as well as the practical writings of Gandhi, I have distilled the following conditions as helpful to the success of a genuinely peaceful resistance:
1) Pacifism, or non-violence, should be a deeply held and universal spiritual principle; otherwise, the practitioner is tempted to turn to violence when frustrated.
2) The peaceful or non-violent protestor should not have any hatred in his or her heart against an opponent.
3) The issue must be true and substantial. Resisting police brutality and humiliation is a true and substantial issue––confederate statues not so much. Secondary and less substantial issues are too easily used by the violent and corrupt as effective distractions.
4) The non-violent, peaceful protestor or resistor, must be prepared to suffer for the sake of justice. The power of John Lewis’s act in crossing the Pettus Bridge in 1965 was in his non-violent courage. If he had been trying to blow the bridge up, or attempting to lead a ferocious counterattack on the baton swinging police and their vicious dogs, it would not have impacted a whole nation the way it did. “Those who endure unjust suffering because they are conscious of God are to be commended. But how is it to anyone’s credit if they are beaten for doing wrong ” (2 Peter 2:19-20)?
5) Protests need both short-term and long-term goals. One thing that is seen in the work of The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., John Lewis, Jesse Jackson, James Lawson and many other leaders of the Civil Rights era is their ability to intelligently strategize. The Montgomery Bus Boycott (1955-1956) was sheer genius. The long-term goal was, of course, comprehensive civil rights. The short-term goal was to desegregate the racist and humiliating bus system of Montgomery. Without goals a protest lacks clarity. No one knows what is supposed to happen next or when aims have been achieved. “We want an end to choke-holds,” a practical and achievable goal, morphs into an ambiguous and unattainable, “Defund the police!”

Rewardless Reward
Having offered these suggestions, it is important to also say that in the end the truly non-violent person does not follow the path of peace and justice because it is pragmatic and gets assured results. Indeed, more often than not our species murders those who do the most to lead us out of our self-destructive aggressiveness. But although their voices have been silenced by violent deaths, such people nevertheless continue to somehow speak to us. And, what they teach is that the spiritually non-violent person, the genuine pacifist, cannot ignore the lies and fake values on which societal violence is based; but, instead, feels compelled to expose the situation for what it truly is; and, in that discovers the spiritual practice of peace as the inward sign of the cross.