The emperor was declared an "external bishop" and the state became the secular arm that enforced the decisions of the church. But that was not the end of the matter, because, obviously, the state is not necessarily fair, no. And the auto-da-fé, the act of faith, was intended for the salvation of the condemned.
As for Luther, everyone knows what position he took at the time of the Boer War. In Africa, towards the end of the third century, many Christians were tortured for refusing to serve in the armies. This is the view that, apart from any question of authority, violence on the part of the individual can be legitimate.
I refrain from mentioning the crusades, because these were mainly carried out under the auspices of the church.). On the other hand, there were the Christians who took the side of the poor and affirmed the validity of violence to defend the poor.
Violence—Reflections from a Christian Perspective by Jacques Ellul
Today’s Christians for Violence
The exception, or election of the poor -- this idea is our point of departure. Theologically, the election of the poor is just. (I have developed this theme in detail. Now I say that the rediscovery of the central place of the poor in the gospel was largely due to the development of faith and theological thought.
This will prevent others from confusing God and religion with the oppressors of the poor and workers. To participate or not to participate in increasing the common wealth -- that was the number one question. The fact is that Israel was terribly poor in the time of the prophets and even in the time of Jesus.
And indeed he sometimes plays these roles when he meddles in the affairs of the world. This reasoning ignores the fact that the Christian revolutionary spirit is specific. Unless we participate in the struggle of the poor for their liberation, we cannot understand anything about Jesus Christ.
Today, Christians justify their involvement in violence by declaring that they are motivated by love for the poor. Now, love for the poor undoubtedly represents a genuine Christian attitude and is indeed an important element of the orientation analyzed above. But the choice violent Christians make has nothing to do with love for the poor.
For a Christian to say that he is motivated to participate by love of justice or love of the poor. How to express the uniqueness of Christian life at the level of common life. To preach reconciliation in the context of old economic and political structures is hypocrisy.
Now let me go further and show that the theology of violence both implies and arises from the theology of the death of God. Moreover, this conception of justice leads to assimilating the cause of the poor with socialism.
Christian Realism in the Face of Violence
Gandhi said as much when he declared that violence is "the law of the brute." So, he adds, there is only one remedy for the ills of the poor: violence. There is insistence on "all". There is no difference between good and bad use of the sword.
But it caused the violence of the law enforcement, of which the Commission of Inquiry (February 12, 1968) declared that the black riot was not justified. And as the government's violence increases, the people, having temporarily restrained their own violence, harbor their hatred. Research into the possible consequences of violence shows that this will have only one particular result: the reciprocity and reproduction of violence.
Furthermore, to say that similarity is one of the laws of violence means that, on the one hand, violence has no limits and, on the other hand, that to accept violence is to condone any kind of violence. This passage is not "evangelical advice to converts"; it is, plain and simple, a description of the nature of violence. Cleage, Jr., of Detroit, one of the leading spokesmen for black power in the US, declared that violence is redemptive.
The idea of violence as a cleansing agent was promoted in France to justify the violence of the liberation in 1944-45.). But it means becoming part of the system characterized by violence, which tries to justify itself. And this is one of the insurmountable obstacles that make a mockery of the theory of just violence.
That is why I think it is so important to emphasize that a realistic attitude is the basis for a true understanding of the phenomenon of violence. Moreover, violence is always used in the belief that it is the only suitable means to achieve a noble goal -- social justice, the welfare of the nation, the elimination of criminals (for the political or social enemy is always a criminal), radical changes in the economic structure. Finally, we must reject the type of Christian idealism that appears from time to time in the history of the Church.
Therefore, it is not in church (with its rituals, ceremonies and prayers) or even through study of the Bible that we do that. But these Christian idealists fully approve of the violence that accompanies the rebellion of the little people or the oppressed.
The Fight of Faith
Because the role of a Christian in society, in the midst of people, is to break fatality and necessity. For example, a Christian cannot accept America's welfare program (including a government-guaranteed minimum income) for blacks as a solution to the race problem. I am well aware that I will be told that if I do nothing, it means condoning the violence of the oppressors!).
But if he remains on the side of the victors, he is in fact admitting that he was not really concerned about the poor and the downtrodden in the first place. He did not rebuke them for having done the works of the law—quite the contrary. The Christian faith implies the rejection and condemnation of both revolutionary violence and the violence of the established powers.
But the use of violence implies total trust on the part of the user that it is justified - and this trust is a crime against God. The Christian is necessarily on the side of the poor - not to incite them to revolution, hatred and violence, but to defend their cause before the powerful and the authorities. I have tried to show clearly in what respect the Christian's action must be specific, unique.
It should be possible to tell President Johnson that his faith forbids any use of force and that the Crusades have never really been an expression of the Christian faith. It is because non-violence and the violence of love are rooted in the life of Christ that rational judgments about the work of Martin Luther King are absolutely useless. I remain convinced by Barth and Cullmann's exegesis of the powers (who are certainly not to be equated with "angels," as they are generally and simplistically understood; but this is precisely the mistake many biblical critics make!).
The exorcism of the state is embodied in the government, the police, the army, and it is not enough to receive the Lord's victory. Only Christians can fight against the forces at the root of the problem. Christians who preach violence in the name of love for the poor are disciples of Eros and no longer know Christ's agape.
Bishop Robinson recently explained that of course we cannot apply the advice of the Sermon on the Mount. The whole meaning of the violence of love is contained in Paul's word that there must be evil.
