Nonresistance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Nonresistance (or non-resistance) is generally defined as "the practice or principle of not resisting authority, even when it is unjustly exercised".[1] At its core is discouragement of, even opposition to, physical resistance to an enemy. It is considered as a form of principled nonviolence or pacifism which rejects all physical violence, whether exercised on individual, group, state or international levels. Practitioners of nonresistance may refuse to retaliate against an opponent or offer any form of self-defense. Nonresistance is often associated with particular religious groups.

Sometimes non-resistance has been seen as compatible with, even part of, movements advocating social change. An often-cited example is the movement led by Mohandas Gandhi in the struggle for Indian Independence. While it is true that in particular instances (e.g. when threatened with arrest) practitioners in such movements might follow the line of non-resistance, such movements are more accurately described as cases of nonviolent resistance or civil resistance.

History[edit]

Perhaps the oldest recorded statement of nonresistance philosophy is that of Socrates around 399 BC. An influential ancient Greek philosopher, Socrates was sentenced to death by the Athenian democracy for teaching his students to question authority and think for themselves. Socrates accepted his fate on reasons of morality and justice, rather than accept help from his supporters to flee Athens and escape execution.

The term nonresistance was later used to refer to the Established Church during the religious troubles in England following the English Civil War and Protestant Succession. In the Anabaptist churches, the term is defined in contrast with pacifism. Advocates of non-resistance view pacifism as a more liberal theology since it advocates only physical nonviolence and allows its followers to actively oppose an enemy. In the 20th century, there have been differences of opinion between and within Amish and Mennonite churches, as they disagreed on the ethics of nonresistance and pacifism.

Leo Tolstoy, Adin Ballou and Mohandas Gandhi were notable advocates of nonresistance.[citation needed] However, there were variations between them. Gandhi's Satyagraha movement was based on a belief in resistance that was active but at the same time nonviolent, and he did not believe in using non-resistance (or even nonviolent resistance) in circumstances where a failure to oppose an adversary effectively amounted to cowardice. 'I do believe,' he wrote, 'that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence.'"[2]

Christian theology[edit]

Christian nonresistance is based on a reading of the Sermon on the Mount, in which Jesus says:

You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Matthew 5:38-42, NIV

Members of the Anabaptist (Mennonite, Amish, Hutterite and Schwarzenau Brethren/German Baptist) denominations and other peace churches like the Quakers have interpreted this passage to mean that people should do nothing to physically resist an enemy. According to this belief, only God has the right to execute punishments. Non-resistance Christians note that sacrificial love of Jesus resulted in his submission to crucifixion rather than vengeance. A main application of this theology for Anabaptist groups is to teach conscientious objection of military conscription to their youth.

To illustrate how nonresistance works in practice, Alexandre Christoyannopoulos offers the following Christian anarchist response to terrorism:

The path shown by Jesus is a difficult one that can only be trod by true martyrs. A "martyr," etymologically, is he who makes himself a witness to his faith. And it is the ultimate testimony to one’s faith to be ready to put it to practice even when one’s very life is threatened. But the life to be sacrificed, it should be noted, is not the enemy’s life, but the martyr’s own life — killing others is not a testimony of love, but of anger, fear, or hatred. For Tolstoy, therefore, a true martyr to Jesus’ message would neither punish nor resist (or at least not use violence to resist), but would strive to act from love, however hard, whatever the likelihood of being crucified. He would patiently learn to forgive and turn the other cheek, even at the risk of death. Such would be the only way to eventually win the hearts and minds of the other camp and open up the possibilities for reconciliation in the "war on terror."[3]

Author James R. Graham wrote, "The Christian is not a pacifist, he is a non-participationist."[4]

In addition to conscientious objection, nonresistant practices of Old Order Mennonites, Amish, and Conservative Mennonites include rejection of the following civil practices: sue at law, lobby the government, hold government office, use the force of the law to maintain their "rights".

See also[edit]

Footnotes[edit]

  1. ^ Oxford English Dictionary, online edition, accessed 8 April 2011.
  2. ^ R. K. Prabhu & U. R. Rao, editors; from section “Between Cowardice and Violence,” of the book The Mind of Mohandas Gandhi, Ahemadabad, India, Revised Edition, 1967.
  3. ^ Christoyannopoulos, Alexandre (April 2008). "Turning the Other Cheek to Terrorism: Reflections on the Contemporary Significance of Leo Tolstoy's Exegesis of the Sermon on the Mount". Loughborough University Institutional Repository. pp. 41–42. 
  4. ^ Graham, James R., Strangers and Pilgrims, The Church Press, Glendale, California n.d., p. 35

References[edit]