Jesus was non violent. I don`t think there is any doubt about it. The story of Jesus is the story of the Cross, is the story of non violence. Gandhi saw the life of Jesus and the Cross as a profound example of violence being met by non violence. Some say that the so called “cleansing of the Temple” was a violent act in that, they say, Jesus took a “whip” and drove the money changers out of the Temple.. The biblical account, however, is different in that it was the animals he drove out of the Temple with a so called “whip” – the literal translation being closer to “woven reeds” - the normal way of driving animals in those days. The Temple incident was far more like a modern day protest where one of the foremost institutions of the establishment is closed down for a couple of hours – in much the same way that some of us disrupted the Army Extravaganza at Hillarys. And what a great demo that was. No one was in any doubt where we stood with relation to violence. (1) It was a great day and one that I identify with the closing down of the Temple.

I don`t think there is any doubt about Jesus being non violent. On the first Palm Sunday two processions entered Jerusalem. Through the Western gate rode Pilate from his residence in Caesarea. Passover time in Jerusalem was a time of civil unrest as a people called to freedom considered their subjection under the heel of Rome. Pilate rode in on a prancing horse with a detachment of soldiers in their jangling armour and weapons. Through the Eastern gate rode Jesus on a donkey with a crowd of peasants waving palm branches. If you have ever seen a man riding a donkey you will appreciate how humbling it is. The story of the cross is the story of a non violent man being strung up between two terrorists. Tradition refers to them as “thieves” but you don`t get crucified for theft. The word used in the text is “brigand”. They were terrorists – and even they could see the injustice of Jesus being crucified.

Jesus was non violent. And so were his followers. For the first few centuries they refused to take up arms in the name of the State. It was only when Constantine made his take over bid of the Church in the fourth century that they went gaily off to war with Constantine saying, “And may God bless the Roman Empire” – an utter and complete distortion of the Prince of Peace, the one who said, “My peace I give to you – but not peace as the world gives it”, a peace based on violence.

And that violence is the basis of the world`s peace there is also no doubt. Walter Wink refers to it as “redemptive violence” and maintains that the myth of redemptive violence undergirds and maintains our culture. Violence is the ethos of our day and the myth that sustains it is that violence works. This myth of redemptive violence (or the myth of effective violence as I sometimes prefer) is part and parcel of our culture. Violence is a structural problem. You see it expressed clearly in children`s comics and in classical and contemporary film - the good guy wins by clobbering the bad guy. Whether it is Popeye or contemporary cartoons, whether it is a classical western or a modern thriller, effective violence is the theme. Only the technique has changed. It used to be a man on a horse with a sword; today it is a technician directing a drone to its target – the myth of redemptive violence remains integral to our culture – the voice of the Daleks saying, “Exterminate! Exterminate!” Those of us who believe in the radical social implications of Jesus of Nazareth are really battling uphill against the myth of redemptive violence and the adulation of the military machine, and we need to assert with Jonathan Schell that violence does not work, that “it is dysfunctional as a political instrument.”(2)

Somehow we have to recognise violence for what it is and how it is destroying us. Somehow we have to stop talking of heroes who give their lives for their country. We need to start referring to them as victims of vicious, senseless slaughter. The soldiers who were killed at Anzac Cove weren`t heroes who gave their lives for their country. They were the victims of stupid and pernicious propaganda. We need to stop talking about war crimes. War is the crime and the sooner we realise it the better. The so called International War Crimes tribunal is farcical in many respects, the foremost being that it is only the defeated who are charged. The greatest war crime of all time was the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima – correction, the dropping of an atomic bomb on Nagasaki when we had seen the utter devastation of Hiroshima. No charges were laid or are ever likely to be charged. It really is nonsense to talk about war crimes. War is itself the crime. It is the logical outcome of our belief in violence as over and against a belief in non violence. “My peace I give to you – but not peace as the world understands it.”

What then is the basis of non violence vis-a-vis a belief in violence? It is the recognition of a common humanity. Non violence according to Jim Douglas, “seeks to persuade the aggressor to recognise in his victim the humanity that they have in common”. Common humanity is the name of the game. Non violence is based on a common humanity, a common humanity which when recognised overcomes violence. Those of you who know your bible will immediately think of those lines in Galatians - “There is neither Jew nor Greek, bond or free, male or female – all are one in Christ Jesus”. At one point I considered the recognition of this in practical terms to be an almost impossible task. Today I see our common humanity as the most obvious thing in the world.

I remember talking to a US soldier in Baghdad. He was about 19 years of age, looked for all the world like Harry Potter, and had joined the army to get an education. With tears in his eyes he told me he had not slept a wink for five days. They had shot up a car at a check point and he had to pull out of the car the bloodied bodies of women and children whom they had killed The reason he hadn`t been able to sleep was that he recognised their common humanity. I remember another who said that he thought that when you shot a person he died instantly. “Not so,” said this 20 year old. “I shot him. His guts poured out in front of him and he looked at me with eyes that I will never forget.” He recognised their common humanity. Any wonder that so many of the returning veterans have committed suicide. More US Iraq veterans have committed suicide than were killed in the war. Such is the significance of recognising our common humanity. Common humanity is of the essence of the concept of non violence. As Archbishop Tutu constantly reminds us, “We are all children of God”.

It reminds me of the story of the ancient philosopher who was asked, “When is the precise moment of the dawn? Is it when you can distinguish a sheep from a goat?” “No,” said the wise man. “Is it when you can see the horizon?” “No,” he said. “Tell us then. What is the moment when a new day begins?” “It is when you look into the eyes of another and see there your brother or sister. Until that happens, the new day has not arrived.” Non violence is about our common humanity. It is about loving – loving God, loving one`s neighbour, and loving oneself. As Eric Elnes points out, prior to the idea of biblical inerrancy being introduced two centuries ago, love was always the determining principle within the Christian faith.

Non violence, however, must not be confused with non-action. It is different from Pacifism. Non violence involves action. Non violence goes beyond Pacifism. Walter Wink puts it well. “Non violence must not be construed as a way of avoiding conflict. . . Christians have all too often called for non-violence when they really want tranquility. Non violence, in fact seeks out conflict in order to bring it out into the open and lance its poisonous sores. Non violence is not a way of avoiding conflict but a way of dealing with it.”(3) Or as Eduard Schweizer says, “There is no escaping the conflict. What Jesus expects of his disciples is courage; he expects the vigorous investment of his love, not the innocence that always stands on the sidelines”(4). Non violence is about actively recognising our common humanity and acting accordingly.

Will the peaceful revolution commenced by Jesus continue? It depends. It depends on those of us who seek to follow him.

What does all this mean for you and me? With one notable exception I don`t think any of us here are going to be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. I am not anticipating any Gandhis or Martin Luther Kings or Dorothy Days emerging from this congregation. So what does it all mean for us?

Rosa Parks is my heroine – the woman who fifty years ago refused to move to a back seat on a bus when a white passenger demanded to have her front seat. Why Rosa Parks refused to move we will never know. She certainly didn`t do it to start the civil rights movement. It was in all probability that she was tired, so tired of being pushed around that she refused to co-operate with injustice – one of the primary principles of non violence. “Enough is enough.” It was a “Here I sit. I can do no other!” kind of moment. As William Watley notes, “No one anticipated that Rosa Park`s actions would be the last straw in a long series of abuses borne by the black community. No-one anticipated the emergence of Martin Luther King as a latter day Moses who would clearly enunciate the principle of refusing to co-operate with injustice – the way of non violent resistance.”(5) Rosa Parks is enough for me – acquiring the courage and the grace to say of the Afghanistan war and any other war “Enough is enough”.

Rosa I salute you! And I hope so say all of us!

“My peace I give unto you, but not peace as the world understands it.” Jesus was non violent, and expects his followers to be likewise. “If anyone would come after me, let him/her take up the cross and follow me.”

(1) That was the occasion when Margaret was arrested and when having her details taken by the Sergeant was asked “Colour of hair?” to which she replied “Clairol 43”. It was also the occasion when Dave appeared in court dressed to the hilt in an immaculate suit and tie. When we chided him about it he wisely responded. “When you do something outrageous make sure you are conservatively dressed”.
(2) p7 “The Unconquerable World” (Metropolitan) 2002
(3) p192 Engaging the Powers (Fortress)1992
(4) p207 Good News According to Matthew(SPCK)1978
(5) p 53 Roots of Resistance,(Judson) 1985