Jesus and Nonviolence: A Third Way (Book Review)
Jesus and Nonviolence: A Third Way by Walter Wink
Book Review by David D. Flowers (posted at Amazon on 1/22/07)
I come away from Wink’s book asking myself the question, “Did Jesus have social and political change in mind when he commanded his followers to love their enemies?” I hardly think so. At least not in the way Wink proposes.
Wink makes many good statements concerning the Christian’s love and nonviolence. I enjoyed his interpretations of Jesus’ examples (go two miles, turn the other cheek, etc.) However, I feel that his application is off the mark of Jesus’ intended meaning. As Christians, we are not to concern ourselves with improving on the injustices of the day by beating them (worldly kingdoms) at their own game. Jesus would not, because he did not, ever shame someone into repentance. His motivation was strictly love of God and man. At times Jesus’ actions toward an individual may have resulted in shame, but this was NOT his motivation.
I strongly disagree with Wink’s use of “submission.” He speaks of submission as if it is a weak thing to be despised. The Apostles Paul and Peter did not seem to think so. I don’t believe his understanding of “submission” is New Testament. It seems that Wink is more concerned about causing social and political change through pacifism than he is to simply ‘love your enemies’ as evidence that we are the disciples of Christ who manifest the Gospel by our lives (Jn. 13:34-35).
Wink uses an unbelieving Ghandi and a promiscious civil rights activist like King to reveal something of Jesus’ Third Way. He also uses Bonhoeffer (of whom I am a big fan)as an example of Jesus’ resistance. Bonhoeffer’s writings are phenomonal… yet he compromised his faith and justified his actions of armed resistance. This should alert the reader to a misunderstanding of the Biblical text.
Love’s aim is not at temporarily changing the political oppressive systems in government by peaceful means, but at changing the heart of man for all eternity and bringing glory to God. Was Jesus motivation and purpose geared toward politcal upheaval and bringing down the evil men by love so that he might have partisan power!? I think not!
Do we want peace on earth? Yes, but we recognize peace on earth is a very temporal thing and will never fully be Christ’s peace. The “already/not yet” aspect of the Kingdom of God teaches us this.
I disagree with Wink that we should follow Jesus “as best we can.” The problems are resolved when we recognize that Christ’s life is in us… we must learn to walk in his Spirit and not in our flesh. We can do nothing. Our best is no good.
I believe Wink’s attempt at presenting “Jesus’ Third Way” falls short of the true way Jesus presented. If we dare say that unregenerated man can mimic the love of Christ… we pollute the Gospel’s presentation and form it to fit something we can achieve in our flesh. This kind of love is no longer supernatural… just nice… natural… and self-serving.
I recommend reading Mere Discipleship: Radical Christianity in a Rebellious World by Lee C. Camp after you have read Wink and see that his clever thinking only reflects one more sly attempt at getting a grip on the worldly kingdoms.
If you are looking for a book to carry around with you and one that you can share with people all over the world… try the New Testament. I would like to suggest you not use the patriotic version or some man’s interpretation of it. Read the words of Jesus for yourself and let the Holy Spirit discern for you the motivation behind loving your enemies. Does the love of Christ manifested by the Holy Spirit lead you to shame your enemy so you might get your way? Let the Holy Spirit guide and counsel you to the meaning of Christ’s nonsense love.
“Our best is no good.”, can also be said about Ghandi, King, Bohhoeffer, Flowers, Jones and the rest of the Saints. Discerning the Holy Spirit’s direction for us to take in service to the Lord is,might be, the thin ice.
I agree Van. “Our best is no good.” This means that Christ must live through us and give us the ability to follow his hard teachings.
I’m not sure what you mean with your last sentence.
Thanks for commenting.
I think you fundamentally misunderstand Wink. He argues that Jesus was about refusing to play the game of the domination system in any form, that the third way, the way of love, transcended the games of the domination system and thereby recalled them to their proper purpose. He argued that what we normally mean by “submission” was foreign to Jesus, that he continually and forcefully resisted evil by the force of love. Further, the purpose was never to gain partisan advantage but to bring about the kingdom of God on earth. In order to do that, Jesus pretty continually violated the norms and customs of his day which contributed to the domination system.
Thanks for commenting Barry!
I’m pretty sure I have understood Wink. I cited the reasons why I believe Wink has confused Jesus’ example of non-violence with those who use non-violence to manipulate the direction of worldly politics. His examples of Ghandi and King prove this to be true. I agree with what you have said, but I did not hear that message from Wink.
so what do you think of the civil rights movement? is MLK to be disregarded with a wave of the hand, because of his moral shortcomings with regard to sex and because he worked in the public sphere to reverse policies that oppressed and dehumanized african-americans and other minorities? wow, what a godless idolator of the nation-state, helping poor blacks. and certainly, i’ve never been guilty of any sexual sin! it’s unfortunate that many Christians, especially of the conservative variety, continue to point to MLK’s infidelities or his theological leanings to discredit his Christian witness and memory. (not surprisingly, this is a favorite tactic used by white supremacist groups in anti-MLK propaganda that they disseminate through literature and websites.) philip yancey points out that we revere as prophets not a few flawed leaders whom God used to further his kingdom, but are quick to dismiss someone like MLK. it’s absolutely a double standard, and one frequently deployed by those who are antagonistic or indifferent towards the concept of racial justice and how it matters for the church and world.
http://www.adventistreview.org/2001-1541/story5.html
MLK was a Christian. there was much that he did that was Christ-like. disagree with his niebuhrian ways, but don’t discount his distinctively Christian witness and moral courage in the face of the utter failure of evangelicals and mainline liberals to speak truth to power. the civil rights movement was not simply a secular, partisan power play or an attempt to consummate eschatological history by completing a this-worldly kingdom. i vehemently disagree with those simplistic, reductive interpretations, and for that matter i think yoder would too.
Nick,
I do understand how others get a bit bothered by my words on King. I do acknowledge that he manifested the Kingdom of God on racism. However, my point is that there are much better examples of Christ-likeness that is not intertwined with political corruption and moral failure. I would prefer we use those testimonies of believers who were doing the dirty work of the Kingdom in such a way that looked more like Christ suffering outside the city with the poor and downtrodden than a “preacher” who at times presented a distorted image of Christ and the uniqueness of his Kingdom.
Again, I don’t mean to dismiss King altogether… I am simply confident we can find one that is not wrapped in the American flag and her promise of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” I respect your opinion and take notice that you are adding to the discussion. Thank you.