Originally published January 16, 2006

Today, we remember the life and work of Martin Luther King, Jr., which inevitably means many hours of TV and radio programming devoted to him. Much will be said about his practice of nonviolent resistance, and yesterday it struck me that the emphasis is too often placed on the first word of that phrase, nonviolent, and not enough is made of resistance

During 2004-2005, my wife and I watched every Oscar-winning Best Picture, in order, from Wings to The Return of the King. (More on this - perhaps - in a future article.) This lineup included Gandi. Neither of us had seen the film before. Dr. King was greatly influenced by Gandhi’s practice of ahimsa (”nonviolence”), but again, too often, our culture (particularly our media) focus entirely on nonviolence, and not on resistance.

Poetic Resistance

Dr. King and Gandhi changed the world not because they were simply nonviolent. Many people are nonviolent and do little; for that matter, many people are violent and change the world dramatically. They changed the world because they resisted injustice in a particularly brilliant fashion. Each of them chose situations which brought societal evils into sharp relief and then acted in such a way so that their own deeds are blameless, but their opponents are forced to choose: Will they actively support the evil structures of their society, or will they repent?

These “crucial acts” of Dr. King and the civil rights movement should be well known to North Americans. A woman simply sits in a different part of a bus, and her entire city is thrown into upheaval. Two young men place themselves at a lunch counter, and they are dragged into the street and beaten. A large crowd of men, women, and children decide to walk from one city to another, and they are attacked by police with dogs and firehoses. A dynamic preacher arrives in Memphis to support a garbage workers’ strike, and he’s shot dead on his hotel balcony.

For many of us, Gandhi’s crucial acts are less familiar. Perhaps his most famous is the March to the Sea. In British-controlled India, it was illegal for native Indians to sell or manufacture salt, ensuring that the colonial powers would hold a monopoly on this important resource. Gandhi led a train of followers (ultimately reported to be two miles long) to the sea, where they made salt out of seawater. Thousands more across India copied his example, and thousands of people were arrested across the country, including Gandhi himself.

The Example of Jesus

This child is destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be spoken against, so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed. (Luke 2:34-35a)

For the past few years, in my church’s Easter musical, we have tried to work into the script the question, “Who killed Jesus?” There are many bad answers floating around out there, and our music director was tired of hearing discussions that made it sound like Jesus was a helpless victim. Originally, the answer we gave was, “We all did - we, because of our sins, killed Jesus.” But this year we realized that answer was still incomplete. After all, we could have never forced Jesus to die unless he wanted to die. This year, our answer will be, “No one killed Jesus. He willingly chose to die.”

There are many points at which Jesus could have (in theory) done something different and not been crucified. He could have stopped preaching. He could have avoided Jerusalem. He could have negotiated a power-sharing agreement with Caiaphas and Annas, or even conspired with Pontius Pilate to create a new power structure in Jerusalem, shutting out the priesthood. But then he wouldn’t have been the Christ.

Like Gandhi and Dr. King, Jesus created a situation where his opponents were forced to choose between good and evil: would they accept his authority, or would they kill him?

We don’t often think about Jesus as a genius of political resistance, yet both Dr. King and Gandhi drew inspiration from him. Simeon’s words from Luke point to the reason why: he reveals “the thoughts of many hearts.” It’s easy to ignore injustice, especially when you can’t point to a specific person as the root cause. The “crucial act” - a symbolic, blameless act that wedges between good and evil - leads to a “crucial choice.” No one can truly remain neutral, because remaining “neutral” admits that you accept the (evil, unjust) status quo.

Jesus’s words and acts repeatedly demand that we follow, reject, or ignore him. Only by creating a “new Jesus” (e.g. by claiming the Biblical witnesses were wrong, that his closest associates misunderstood him, etc.) can we pretend that we can be neutral. Jesus refuses to be put into a box on the shelf. Two thousand years later, the question remains:

Will you join his march?

Posted in Uncategorized |