MDMD context for Dixon's non-violent action

[Doug Millison]

I've mentioned his name a couple of times now, and I'll recommend again the
writings of Walter Wink.  I'm nearly finished with a three-volume work,
_Naming the Powers_, _Unmasking the Powers_, and _Engaging the Powers_,
which amount to a theology for Christian-based nonviolence and social
justice. Here's an excerpt from an interview with Wink:


http://www.sojo.net/news/index.cfm/action/display_archives/mode/current_opinion/
article/CO_010702w.html

"[...] Wink: A police action might have been as successful as a military
action. I distinguish, for better or worse, between police action and
war-between force and violence. The police ideally are people who are
engaged in a legitimate use of force that attempts to prevent someone doing
harm to others-legitimate in the sense that it is endorsed by society and
by the laws of that society, and that there are constraints that they can't
use excessive violence and so forth. Violence and war go together.
(Violence is defined as injurious or lethal harm intended to damage and
destroy.)  [...]

Wallis: What are your thoughts on a global police force?

Wink: I think it's absolutely necessary. I think that this situation shows
how effective it might be. Already, [we've experienced] the cooperation
between the police of different countries such as we've never seen before,
[such as] sharing information. There've been arrests in every country that
you can think of. Egypt has arrested 800 people already, which I guess
could be its way of getting rid of political enemies too.

Wallis: Can a pacifist support those arrests?

Wink: I don't consider myself an absolute pacifist. I'd rather say I'm a
violent person who wants to be nonviolent. So I [support] a global police
force trained in the methods of nonviolence, but armed in case occasions
come along -- let's say a killer with a submachine gun who's attacking
children on a playground has to be stopped. There might be ways other than
killing him. I do think that there is occasion for force if necessary in
order to prevent someone doing harm to others. British bobbies did pretty
darn well for a long time, and I would like to see our police forces
trained in nonviolence. There is some effort in that direction. Police in
St. Louis are being trained in nonviolent action.

Wallis: Gandhi said that the first thing to do when a lunatic is harming a
village is to lock up the lunatic and then deal with the lunacy.

Wink: Yes, I think that's right. And I think Gandhi is not as consistent as
a lot of people make him sound, and that would be a part of his
flexibility.

Wallis: What do you mean?

Wink: A lot of people think pacifism means that you can't use force at all,
no coercion. I don't think that was true of Gandhi. He believed that force
was necessary, but he used nonviolent forms of coercion. He said if
someone's attacking someone you love, there is the right to self defense,
but he would not exercise violence. He'd apprehend the person without doing
violence.

Wallis: Didn't he say that violent resistance is better than no resistance?
Do you agree?

Wink: Yeah. I think it's unfortunate that it has to be done in certain
cases, but I think we haven't even begun to explore the alternatives to
violence.

Wallis: Would you say exploring alternatives to violence is what this is
about, more than saying there is never a case where you'd support the use
of violence?

Wink: Yeah, but I think there's a trap there, and that is what I'd call the
Bonhoeffer assumption. Dietrich Bonhoeffer was studying at Union Seminary
in New York. He was about to go to India to study nonviolence with Gandhi
when he decided he had to go back to Germany. And when he got back, he
discovered there weren't any people who had committed to nonviolence except
for the Bruderhof and a few others; there were no troops, in other words.
The churches had failed their job in evangelizing people about nonviolence.
So Bonhoeffer decided to join the death squad against Hitler because he
could see no other alternatives that would be effective.

American thinkers who have used Bonhoeffer as a way of justifying the just
war theory overlook his clear statement that he does not regard this as a
justifiable action -- that it's a sin - and that he throws himself on the
mercy of God. He does not use his act as a legitimation of war. I don't
want to take the position that if you use nonviolence and it doesn't work,
you use violence. [...]