Last Thursday I went to Sioux Falls to listen to my son Creath present a paper at a Conference on the Campus of the University of Sioux Falls. A select group of Junior and Senior students had been invited to submit papers to this function, and Creath was selected to be one of those who presented a paper during a session focused on African American Studies. I've copied into this post his entire paper, I think he did a great job and the whole time I was there listening I was thinking, "I wish Jesse was here to hear this". I am very proud of Creath he is a highly intelligent (wherever did he get that from... LOL) young man and has some brilliant insights. He is so much higher evolved than I was at his age that I am incredibly humbled and extremely proud.
Here is his paper:
Creath Karlen
THE 490
Dr. Hitchcock
Slave Theology
19 March 2013
Justification of Violence used by American Slaves
The
words ‘slave’ or ‘slavery’ conjure up within us many images and emotions, none
of which could be described as positive. The history of slavery is one filled
with dark and gruesome images that most would like to pretend had never and do
not still happen to this day. However, the violence and bloodshed was not
always been perpetrated by the slave owners, but just as the slave owners could
treat their slaves violently, the slaves themselves at times responded with
violence. David Walker provides one example of this in his Appeal in Four Articles; Together with a Preamble, to the Coloured
Citizens of the World, but in Particular, and Very Expressly, to Those of the
United States of America, written in 1829, where he cites a newspaper
reporting on a group of slaves who had turned violent against the men driving
them, which resulted in the deaths of two of the three men.
There are many questions which could be raised in regard to this sort of event and
the primary focus of this paper will be to address the following question: how
justified were the slaves in acting violently against their owners? While in
today’s America we no longer have proper slaves, we still find people who are
under forms of oppression within our culture and across other cultures as well.
Addressing the issue from a Christian prospective, this paper explains how
violence is in fact not justified but rather shows an attempt to become independent
from God by relying on one’s self in these situations, and in fact all other
situations where violence might seem to be an appropriate response. To show
this, the paper will focus on two biblical passages: first the Exodus, focusing
exclusively on the events leading up to the Israelites’ escape from Egypt where
we find examples both of man issued violence and its consequences as well as
God issued violence and the results that follow from this. The second passage
will be Luke xxii.36-38; it is here that we find instruction given directly
from Jesus on the matter of trusting in God rather than partaking in violence. Having
looked at these two sources, I will then compare them to modern thinkers.
In
the Exodus, we are given a story of the mass escape of a nation from the bonds
of slavery to a tyrant. It is a condition that the escaping nation of Israel
had been in for the past four hundred years and during which they were subject
to the violence of the Egyptians daily. Despite this, Moses’ task in freeing
the Israelites was not one that was meant to involve violence issued from his
own hands or the hands of the Israelites. Violence against the Egyptians is
first suggested in iii.19-20 where God makes Moses aware that Pharaoh will certainly
not allow a single one of them to leave unless force is used against him.
However, it is not anything that the Israelites will do that will cause Pharaoh
to let them go but a direct action of God that we are told will result in the
release of the Israelites from their bondage. After Moses and Aaron had
embarked to return to Egypt, Moses is again given instruction on what to do
once they have arrived. In Exodus iv.22-23 we have again a foretelling of what
will happen once Moses has confronted Pharaoh, here God anticipates the tenth
plague that will befall Egypt and claim the firstborn of every household
outside of the covenant family. Once again we have foretelling of violence that
will be used against the Egyptians in order to free the Israelites and just as
in iii.20, it is not from the hand of Israel that the violence will come from
but it is the hand of God that will inflict violence upon the Egyptians. These
instances in the Exodus story along with Moses’ commission, give clear
understanding that in this case violence was not a method to be used by the
Israelites against the Egyptians and that should any violence be used, it would
be directly from the hand of God against those who had enslaved his people.
Further
evidence of this is found even prior to Moses’ first encounter with God. The
first story told of Moses’ adult life begins in Exodus ii.11 where we read of
his encounter with an Egyptian task-master who is beating an Israelite slave.
Having made sure that no one was within sight of the place, Moses enters into
the conflict and strikes down the Egyptian, killing him, and then proceeds to
hide the body in the sands. While it might be a ridiculous idea to think that
the death of one task-master might free the countless enslaved, Moses
undoubtedly has in mind the wellbeing of the slave who he is attempting to
rescue. Even so, it is clear to see that nothing in fact comes of his actions
here except for his fast approaching flight from Egypt in order to evade
Pharaoh’s wrath. There are two forms of violence in the first chapters of
Exodus, from which we can see the consequences of what happens when violence is
used. In the first instance, it is manmade violence, man-to-man violence which
is stirred up from the independent actions of man; the violence is issued from
man from a trust and dependence upon himself to achieve the desired results. In
the second instance, violence does not come from man at all – in fact there is
no human factor involved in the issuing forth of that violence – it is directly
from God and requires a dependence on God. Had the Israelite slaves not been
dependent in this event and rather taken the violence into their own hands, as
Moses had already done, then we can expect that any effort to free them would have
failed as well. From this we can see
that good is seemingly not a possibility when man acts violently against his
fellow man, that even in this most extreme of circumstances it is futile when
that violence comes from man’s dependence upon himself. Justice from violence
only occurs in the Exodus when the Israelites place themselves at the mercy of
God and allow for the violence to be issued from the hands of God alone against
those guilty of injustice, without any effort on their own part.
In
Luke xxii.36-38 we have a New Testament comparison to the Exodus passage, one
that displays a dependence upon God rather than a dependence upon ourselves through
violence. This passage opens with Jesus having just reminded the disciples of
the previous times in which they were sent out and were told to bring nothing
with them
because they would be provided these things along the way. This is the first
instance in which they are being told to have these things with them prior to
setting off and is the only time when the mention of a sword is included.
However this passage is to be read, whether taking what Jesus is saying as
literal instruction to carry a sword or as a figurative clue, it is an
indication of trial to come. In this aspect, we can relate it to the condition
of the Israelites and likewise to the Black American slaves. This relation
though should not be seen as an excuse or permission for either party to use
aggressive force but only to act in self-defense; that is if we choose to read
it literally. If we do choose to read it literally, the passage is read as
saying that in the up-coming trials they are to face, self-defense is such a
necessity that all other things are secondary and they must be willing to give
up even what they are wearing in order to stay alive.
However, this view, while being the most straightforward, does not stand up
when put in conversation with other passages where Jesus speaks on violence –
most notably at his arrest in the garden of Gethsemane in Luke xxii.49-51. This
view also does not correspond to the way that the disciples actually did
respond when confronted by violence and hostility after the resurrection and
ascension of Jesus. When faced with persecution, none of the disciples resorted
to violence.
In Gethsemane, we see
Jesus scolding his disciples for resorting to violence, not advocating a form
of self-defense. The passage reads more appropriately when put in a figurative
light. [As Leon Morris says,] When we do this, it becomes [quote] “Jesus’
graphic way of bringing it home that the disciples face a situation of grave
peril. ‘Because He was not thinking of their weapons, the disciples require
that courage which regards a sword as more necessary than an upper garment and
surrenders even its last possession, but cannot give up the struggle.’”
[end quote] Jesus’ death is coming fast upon them and there are few things in
the struggle that the disciples will come to face as a result that are more
necessary to preserve than their faith and commission. The necessity to
preserve their faith and their commission is so great that they must be willing
to sacrifice everything else so that their faith and commission can continue
and spread. This is surely not instruction advocating violence then, but rather
one advocating the preservation of one’s faith despite the violence they may
come to face in the near future. This is only possible, however, by doing as
the Israelites had done before them by placing everything they have in the
hands of God and becoming dependent upon God rather than themselves.
However,
it is this instruction that the disciples misunderstood and likewise can be
misunderstood by us as well if careful attention is not given to what Jesus is
saying here. In xxii.38 the disciples make their response to his instruction to
them saying simply, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” The misunderstanding
becomes all too clear with the words Jesus utters to them next, “That is
enough.”
With these words, Jesus both shows the misunderstanding of the disciples and
ends the discussion on the matter altogether. His response hints to us his
frustration with his disciples for their inability to apprehend what it is he
is saying, their dullness has made them unable to hear his words. [According
to Leon Morris,] While the disciples [quote] “spoke in terms of this world’s
arms and said they could only muster two
swords. Jesus’ response, It is enough,
means not, ‘Two will be sufficient’ but rather, ‘Enough of this kind of talk!’”[end
quote] They have sorely missed the point.
From both the Exodus and the Gospel of Luke,
there are two distinct and yet intertwined purposes given for non-violence.
From the Exodus, we see an enslaved Israel, who finds herself in a condition
much like that of the Black American slaves. In their escape from captivity and
oppression they are moved forward only by a reliance upon God rather than
taking matters into their own hands to violently overthrow their
worldly-masters. This is seen most strikingly in comparing human action – what
Moses would do – to divine action – what God actually did. Had the Israelites
relied solely upon human action, on their own hands, we can assume from the
consequences of Moses’ actions that their condition would only have worsened.
Only relying upon divine action realizes the promise of God to rescue them from
the hands of the Egyptians. In the Gospel of Luke, we see the disciples who
will soon find themselves being hunted down, much like the escaped slave, but
who are told to remain faithful to the very end at any cost. When they do
resort to violence at Gethsemane, even in what they might see as self-defense,
they are scolded by Jesus for having missed the point.
In
order to help clarify how just it is for a slave to use violence against his
master, we look further to Stanley Hauerwas’ discussion of war and its
morality. The assumption can be made here that the violence of slaves upon
their masters is a rational violence, that is to say that they are not acting
out violently for no purpose but have as their primary motive their human
rights which have been taken captive by their owners. From this assumption we
can then compare the “violence” of the slaves to those actions that take place
during a war because war, as described as war rather than mere violence,
appears to have a different moral evaluation than simple violence. [Hauerwas
explains,] [quote] “At the very least, war
denotes purposive human activity that violence
does not always imply.” [end
quote]
However, even though
this sort of violence does seem to serve a moral ends it does not appear to be
the best Christian ethical response to the problem at hand. Hauerwas, in his
essay Should War Be Eliminated? A Thought
Experiment applies eschatology to this problem of moral violence in order
to help us see that while violence certainly is an option, it is not the option
most suited or most advisable for the Christian. [In this essay Hauerwas
states] [quote]
Thus the Christian must live
between the vision of the reign of God and its concrete realization in history.
Any ethical response to war must be worked out in light of this tension.
Christians may take different stances about war as they move toward the
realization of God’s kingdom in history, but all Christians will “find in any
violent situation the consequences of sin: not only sinful patterns of
domination, oppression or aggression, but the conflict of values and interests
which illustrate the limitations of a sinful world.”[end
quote]
Violence then, understood as a result of
sin rather than the sin itself, only exists because of sin, because of man’s
effort to make his own way. We see this in Exodus with the behavior of Moses in
attacking the Egyptian; in an effort to do things his own way Moses attacks and
kills another man thinking some good might come from it, but because it was
done of his own accord as an effort to pave his own path rather than depending
on God to find a solution rather than himself, the action has a negative result.
If
violence is not the ethical answer in this eschatological age, what then is the
correct answer to violence? In the case of the Israelite slaves, their freedom
from Egypt was only made possible by their reliance upon God for their rescue,
rather than taking matters into their own hands. This meant for them to
patiently wait for God’s business to reach the point at which they were able to
escape, and once they had, to further rely upon God’s assistance, and when
violence was needed to allow it to be issued by God rather than themselves. For
the disciples, Jesus gave them instruction saying that soon they would come to
face persecution because of him and when they were faced with this violence
that they must be ready to sacrifice everything else for the sake of protecting
their faith and their mission. Hauerwas, as did Jesus, advocates pacifism and
non-violence, saying that [quote] “Christian nonresistance is a form of
discipleship to Jesus, not in a legalistic way but rather ‘as he is, so are we
in this world’ (1 John 4:17). Such discipleship is inherently eschatological,”[end
quote] for it is only in relation with God’s future that nonresistance is
meaningful.
So,
can we say that a slave is justified in killing his master? The answer seems to
be a resounding ‘no’ from these three voices. This act, from the perspective of
Exodus, is to take matters into your own hands which rightfully belong to God.
It is God’s duty in the Exodus to act as the rescuer, not the Israelite slaves
whose duty is to rely upon God and maintain their faith in the God of their
fathers, this is done for them by allowing for God to lead them away from
violence rather than partaking in the violence themselves. Luke echoes this
idea saying that it is the duty of the disciples to maintain their faith at any
cost and to spread that faith, not to strike at or kill those who oppose it,
which only acts against their purpose by imposing their own purpose for the
faith they wish to spread into that faith. While it is an option to act
violently against their oppressors, I believer Martin Luther King, Jr. was
right when he said, [quote] “the nonviolent approach does something to the
hearts and souls of those committed to it. It gives them new self-respect. It
calls up resources of strength and courage that they did not know they had.
Finally, it so stirs the conscience of the opponent that reconciliation becomes
a reality.”
Bibliography
Hauerwas, Stanley. The Hauerwas Reader. Durham and London: Duke University Press,
2001.
King, Martin Luther, Jr. Strength to Love. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981.
Morris, Leon. The
Gospel According to St. Luke: An Introduction and Commentary by Leon Morris. London:
Inter-Varsity Press, 1977.
Rice, Edwin W. People’s
Commentary on the Gospel According to Luke. Philadelphia: The Union’s Book
Agency, 1889.
Walker, David. Walker’s
Appeal, in Four Articles; Together with a Preamble, to the Coloured Citizens of
the World, but in Particular, and Very Expressly, to Those of the United States
of America. Massachusetts: 1829.
On the way home I stopped and took a couple of photos of country churches. Here are two beautiful Lutheran Churches in South Dakota.
In His Love and Glory,
Roy
.jpg)
