Violence and Ecumenism

As a child I heard the story of St Francis of Assisi and how he founded the Franciscan Order of friars.  I remember being impressed by the church in Assisi when I visited as a young teenager in the 1960s.  Especially, the statue with the live doves living in the nest in his hands.

I also remember a young couple kissing in the square outside the church.  A monk or priest took off his belt and set about them.  Presumably this was an act of love because if they carried on in this way it would be hellfire for them.

More recently, I encountered the Dominicans, the Order of Preachers, and noticed certain superficial similarities with Methodist local preachers and ministers.  I have been reading something by Timothy Radcliffe  and I have been moved by his insights.

These are both Catholic movements.  I have also in this blog  mentioned Christopher Jamieson and his brilliant little book Finding Sanctuary , making a convincing case for Benedictine spirituality, and I see parallels here with the Wesleyan idea of Christian Perfection.  And I should mention Anthony de Mello (quoted yesterday ), a Jesuit priest, whose writings have been a constant companion for over twenty years.

I felt uncomfortable reading in Diarmaid MacCulloch's A History of Christianity , that the Franciscans initiated the first pogroms against the Jews and the Dominicans were the administrators of the inquisition.  I had not made these connections before.  (I am sure we can find similar episodes  for the Benedictines and Jesuits too.)

It is disconcerting to find this in traditions that seem so worthy of respect.  Indeed, it is difficult to think of any traditions which can point to a history without violence (except Methodists and Quakers perhaps).

Make no mistake, Christian history is brutal.  It is an account of people acting out of ideology, without compassion, without love.  Our atheist friends never tire of reminding us of this.  (I hope most Christians do not need such reminders.)  But of course, we can point to the brutality of atheist regimes during the twentieth century.  I suspect some atheists might be outraged if we lay responsibility for Hitler or Stalin at their door.  They had nothing to do with us, they would argue.  The problem is I could likewise argue that Methodists are not guilty of Christian violence (as far as I know) - does that mean Methodists have no responsibility for the crimes committed by other Christians?

And so here we are 100 years after the Edinburgh Missionary Conference, looking back at the first century of the ecumenical movement.  Do we appreciate its significance?  For 100 years Christians have attempted to resolve their differences without violence.  Maybe the resolution of differences has not gone quite as far as some would wish but it seems the use of violence is a thing of the past.

There are many reasons why violence is less likely these days.  One is the separation of most churches from  political power.  Be that as it may, maybe we have focused too much on the goal of unity and not enough on the peaceful resolution of Christian differences.  Is it even remotely possible, that in a world where violence shows no sign of abating, we have learned enough from our past, to turn our backs on violence once and for all?

Probably not.  Violence is a temptation too readily available.  And yet perhaps this should be our goal.  Churches united not in structures but in their commitment to non-violent resolution of their differences.  By remaining apart but united in our rejection of violence, maybe the churches can create the oikoumene they long for.

Comments

[Pastor Mack]

The Methodist tradition as non-violent? Wesley was a defender of the king and the empire. Early preachers took up arms on both sides of the war. One preacher of the 2nd great awakening, Peter Cartwright, in his own memoir recounts fighting off bandits on more than one occasion.

Quakers are a little more clear-cut. That said, I do recall a friend delivering a paper in my undergraduate days (I was a history major) about quaker statesman in early PA who had to hire mercenaries to deal with violent Indians, because they themselves could not fight them. There are no morally pure traditions, and it is a vain search to look for them.

[Chris Sissons]

You're quite right - I'm guilty of sloppy writing here. Methodists are not non-violent and never have been. What I should have written (and intended to convey) was that no wars have been fought by Methodists on behalf of Arminianism. This is most likely an accident of history but I think it has formed the Methodist tradition to a degree. (A glance at the letters page in 'The Methodist Recorder' and the results of the recent paper 'What kind of Bishops' are evidence that under the surface there is no lack of the anger that has marked all Christian traditions.)

The Quakers are I think unique in having a peace testimony. Of course, this does not mean they are never violent but they do see non-violence as a priority.

Your last sentence raises an issue I will address in my next post.