Non-resistance does not mean silence

[Josh]

In another thread, another poster quoted this:

Let's say one person from a fellowship is following Jesus' example of non-resistance by refusing to debate his persecutors.

This is a common misconception I run across from people outside of Anabaptism - that non-resistance extends beyond physical force to not using words or speaking.

In my experience in actual Anabaptist circles, there is no principle that one will not respond to being challenged or engage in debate or discussion. And I don't know anywhere Jesus demonstrated this, except when actually going to the cross. Before then, he frequently debated the Pharisees.

[ohio jones]

Menno, Marpeck, Sattler, and Blaurock, among others, also missed that memo.

[Robert]

And I don't know anywhere Jesus demonstrated this, except when actually going to the cross.

If you read the 4 Gospels as a whole, he was not silent then either. He talked, engaged, and spoke to many during that time. We find a time or two that he was silent in a certain situation, but that was not a consistent practice.

[Sudsy]

In another thread, another poster quoted this:

Let's say one person from a fellowship is following Jesus' example of non-resistance by refusing to debate his persecutors.

This is a common misconception I run across from people outside of Anabaptism - that non-resistance extends beyond physical force to not using words or speaking.

In my experience in actual Anabaptist circles, there is no principle that one will not respond to being challenged or engage in debate or discussion. And I don't know anywhere Jesus demonstrated this, except when actually going to the cross. Before then, he frequently debated the Pharisees.

I think the key word here is 'persecutors'. If in the discussion a person believes they are being persecuted and not questioned for learning purposes, then they may figure that withdrawal is the best way to keep the peace. Imo, if they take this step of withdrawal, they should also let the one seeking debate know the reason for this withdrawal privately.

[RZehr]

...that non-resistance extends beyond physical force to not using words or speaking.

Non-resistance does extend beyond physical force.

But typically boycotting is not going beyond. Typically boycotting is nonviolent resistance, but is still trying to force some issue. I think it is important to know what side of boycotting is found, and I believe boycotting actually is falling short of non-resistance instead of going beyond.

True non-resistance of evil is rooted in love.

[MaxPC]

Non-resistance does extend beyond physical force.

But typically boycotting is not going beyond. Typically boycotting is nonviolent resistance, but is still trying to force some issue. I think it is important to know what side of boycotting is found, and I believe boycotting actually is falling short of non-resistance instead of going beyond.

True non-resistance of evil is rooted in love.

I agree to a degree.
I'm also of the position that if there's a point of "no progress"; that to continue a conversation after the others become increasingly repetitive in their hostility and false accusations, even after a private conversation, then it's not promoting the mission or love of Christ. It's time to shake the dust from one's feet rather than to enable the hostile party by continuing the conversation that always ends with the hostile party continuing the hostility. Of course that's the Catholic perspective of non-resistance. We don't call it boycotting. We assess the situation (discernment) and take the course of action that does not involve hostility or vitriol (prudential judgement) for a nonresistant response.

[Soloist]

I would never claim that non-resistance means being quiet. If you dispute that we are to answer with meekness and not be self seeking, then there is no agreement between us and discussion is not worthwhile. Warn a disruptive man and avoid him if he doesn't respond to your admonishment. Would you ever continue pushing on someone's buttons offline if you knew it bothered them? I would assume any Christian would attempt to love their "enemy" and try to avoid causing offense.

Debate and discussion are perfectly permissible for the Christian. Arguing is not.

[TeleBodyofChrist]

I have witnessed in Anabaptist circles where someone would say something completely racist and no one said anything. They just looked around at us for a reaction, and looked uncomfortable. We said something but we are NMBs. We asked why and we were told that it was to avoid confrontation. However, I can not see tolerating hatefulness.

[Bootstrap]

I would never claim that non-resistance means being quiet. If you dispute that we are to answer with meekness and not be self seeking, then there is no agreement between us and discussion is not worthwhile. Warn a disruptive man and avoid him if he doesn't respond to your admonishment. Would you ever continue pushing on someone's buttons offline if you knew it bothered them? I would assume any Christian would attempt to love their "enemy" and try to avoid causing offense.

I agree that we should try to avoid causing offense, but I don't think that's the whole picture. After all, Jesus offended the Pharisees persistently, Paul offended Peter and did not back down, the Apostles were jailed and martyred because they offended people, the early Anabaptists offended people too. The goal should never be to offend, but sometimes it's important to speak up.

Debate and discussion are perfectly permissible for the Christian. Arguing is not.

I agree. And I think that the difference is that debate and discussion focus on the topic, not on the other person.

[Bootstrap]

Would you ever continue pushing on someone's buttons offline if you knew it bothered them?

Offline, I would probably say, hey, this topic isn't working, can we discuss something else.

Online, here's a quandary for me in that thread. I think that thread started with a shocking story (probably not entirely true as reported) and encouraged people to push each other's shock and disapproval buttons. Peter was the first to pick up on that, and his question was labelled hostile. My questions were also labelled hostile. But I really don't think we should rush to judgement on people we don't know in circumstances we don't know much about, no matter how much holy language we sprinkle on our conversation. The college is having hearings, the story seems to be a little different than what was first reported, the man involved is in hiding because he is receiving death threats. Max seemed to want to shut down all discussion of that part.

As Peter put it:

"Just look as those bad people! Please join me in my disapproval of them."

So when Max labels us hostile for pointing that out, should we leave the room so that people can keep going down that path, or should we discuss how we Christians respond when we hear shocking accusations about other people? When Max labels us hostile for asking questions about the situation that was reported, and labels us as hostile if we suggest that pushing each other's shock and approval buttons about a situation we aren't involved in actually adds to vitriol, I'm not sure withdrawing is the right response. It builds a culture where you can respond to a question by saying you don't like the other person so they should just shut up. It builds a culture where we cannot discover the facts over time.

If he actually is a professor and actually is developing ethics training, that's a much more positive response. And I hope he will share the contents of that training - how do you balance free speech, academic freedom, and the need to make everyone feel safe and welcome at a secular university? That's a very hard and interesting question, and a question that universities spend a lot of time on. But if he is a professor, "I'm a professor" shouldn't mean "I don't have to answer any questions because I'm an expert", the whole point of being an expert is being able to answer questions with information. I'm at a conference right now where I'm probably the only person without a PhD, several people have more than one, and some of these people are considered real experts in their fields. They love questions. Even challenging, hard questions.

I don't think the right response to a question is "you are a hostile person so go away" unless it is a hostile question. And I think we give an awful lot of power to bad behavior if we support that. I don't know how to think through how to be a light in this dark world without asking a lot of hard questions. I don't know how to see through mainstream media reports without asking a lot of questions.