Reflecting on yesterday's post, about the witness of Daniel Berrigan and the protest of the Catonsville Nine, I was reminded of a series I did many years ago about the ethics of Jesus' temple action.
One of the controversies of the Catonsville protest concerned the destruction of property, the burning of draft files. Some felt, even committed pacifists like Dorothy Day and Thomas Merton, that this destruction of property violated Christian principles of nonviolence. In response, the Berrigans argued that "some property has no right to exist" and that people seemed more upset over the burning of paper than the burning of children in Vietnam.
As I've pondered this debate, I've wondered about the ethical implications, if any, of Jesus' temple action.
Here's the curiosity I'd like us to notice.
To start, Christian commitments to nonviolence are rooted in Jesus' teachings in the Sermon on the Mount. You know the familiar text:
"You have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But I tell you, don’t resist an evildoer. On the contrary, if anyone slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. As for the one who wants to sue you and take away your shirt, let him have your coat as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to the one who asks you, and don’t turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you."
“You have heard that it was said, Love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven. For he causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous."
Christian nonviolence has always taken these teachings literally. Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on your right check, turn the other.
Wanting to push back on this vision of nonviolence in the Sermon on the Mount, I have often encountered Christians who have defended just war, along with other forms of justified violence, by pointing to Jesus' temple action. Jesus flipping tables and driving people from the temple area with a whip is declared to be evidence that Jesus' words in the Sermon on the Mount must not be taken literally. The argument is basically this: If Jesus violated his own teachings in the Sermon on the Mount, by acting violently, then might not we?
I've always found this appeal to Jesus' temple action to justify lethal violence a huge stretch. The point is obvious: Jesus didn't kill anyone in the temple. True, Jesus' actions could be construed as "violent," but that violence did not involve the shedding of blood. Consequently, it is problematic to use the purported violence of the temple action to justify killing.
And yet, and here's the point where the Berrigans come back into view, Jesus' actions at the temple were a protest, and that protest involved some violence against property. I don't know if Jesus destroyed property in the temple, but the Gospel accounts describe him flipping tables, chairs, pouring people's money out onto the ground, and driving all humans and animals from the area. To my eye, these actions seem more similar to the actions of the Catonsville Nine than as a justification for killing.
For my part, I see a great irony here. There is widespread consternation among Christians when nonviolent protests affect private property. But many of these same Christians will point to Jesus' temple action to justify war and the use of lethal violence. Which seems to me both hypocritical and Biblically illegitimate.
Now, does this mean I think you can use Jesus' temple action to justify a protest like that of the Catonsville Nine? I'll leave that question up to you. But what I am saying is that if you point to Jesus' temple actions in an argument to justify war or lethal violence I don't see how you could object to the actions of the Catonsville Nine given that their protest seems closer to Jesus' actions in both motive (that is, as a protest) and method (that is, aimed at property and no one was killed).
More simply, it seems strange to me how the Bible is frequently used to justify killing by some Christians but rarely used to defend protest when protest seems much closer to Jesus' teachings and example.
