-
Marvin Vining
- Male
- Mississippi
- United States
- Blog Posts
- Discussions
- Events
- Groups (4)
- Photos
- Photo Albums
- Videos
Marvin Vining's Groups
Marvin Vining, author/activist
Profile Information
- Favorite website
- http://www.marvinvining.com
- When it comes to peace, how would you describe yourself?
- I am a pacifist
- What do you believe are the 'burning issues' today?
- War, Hunger, Poverty, Education, Our Planet, Violence, Inflation, Human Rights, Our Shrinking Freedom
- So what is it?
- World peace will not come until we realize we are all members of the human family. At present we are a "divided house," and a divided house cannot stand.
- What must we overcome to achieve peace?
- Religion
- More
- Christianity is the dominant religion of the Western world. So why is the world not at peace?
One of the greatest ironies of history is that Jesus -- who should be known as the premier teacher of tolerance and nonviolence -- has come to be associated with a religion that has oftentimes been the very opposite. Instead of identifying with the marginalized and seeking their liberation through nonviolent means, as Jesus intended, too often Christians have identified themselves with the oppressive power structure. The entanglement of church and military state is the biggest corrupter of the gospel.
But the true gospel will always come back around. For instance, few people realize that Martin Luther King, Jr. learned nonviolence from Bayard Rustin, a disciple of M.K. Gandhi. Gandhi learned how to apply nonviolence in a political context by studying Leo Tolstoy, who was Christian.
That same corrective interfaith dialogue continues today. I notice that iPeace members come from a wide range of faiths. This is a good thing. Universal love and nonviolence will be the means and the end of this journey of discovery.
- Can we change the world?
- Definitely
- More about me
- I'm a Christian writer and an activist. Please see my Website for a fuller bio, and note my links page for my interests and ongoing projects.
- Promise to respect others and refrain from spamming?
- I'll do my best
Video: MLK on Malcolm X and Nonviolence
My commentary:
In his last address to the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke of the perceived conflict between love and power:
There is nothing wrong with power if it is used correctly. You see, what happened is that some of our philosophers got off base. And one of the great problems of history is that concepts of love and power have usually been contrasted as opposites—polar opposites—so that love is identified with a resignation of power, and power with a denial of love. It was this misinterpretation that caused Nietzsche, who was a philosopher of the will to power, to reject the Christian concept of love. It was the same misinterpretation which induced Christian theologians to reject the Nietzschean philosophy of the will to power in the name of the Christian idea of love. Now we’ve got to get this thing right. What is needed is a realization that power without love is reckless and abusive, and love without power is sentimental and anemic. Power at its best is love implementing the demands of justice, and justice at its best is power correcting everything that stands against love.
King was criticized for straying from nonviolence in this speech, but his critics missed the whole point. King knew that nonviolence is the only means Christians may rightly use to fight injustice, for Jesus commanded us to “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Mt 5:44). However King also knew that nonviolence does not mean anemic retreat. Such only invites further injustice, and injustice must never be allowed to stand. In fighting injustice, Christians are to use every nonviolent means at our disposal, including legal recourse and civil disobedience. But if necessary we must also be ready and willing to absorb an attacker’s violent blows into our own bodies, as King well understood by then. A few years before he gave this address, King and his followers were pelted by brick bats, pummeled by fire hoses and attacked by police dogs in Selma, Alabama in their fight for black voting rights. Jesus taught, “Do not resist one who is evil. But if any strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also” (Mt 5:39). When one turns the left cheek to a normally right-handed attacker, one invites an open-handed slap in the face! Christian nonviolence means that one must be willing to fling one’s life down like a gauntlet whenever and wherever injustice is encountered, and that is hardly anemic retreat.
My commentary:
In his last address to the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke of the perceived conflict between love and power:
There is nothing wrong with power if it is used correctly. You see, what happened is that some of our philosophers got off base. And one of the great problems of history is that concepts of love and power have usually been contrasted as opposites—polar opposites—so that love is identified with a resignation of power, and power with a denial of love. It was this misinterpretation that caused Nietzsche, who was a philosopher of the will to power, to reject the Christian concept of love. It was the same misinterpretation which induced Christian theologians to reject the Nietzschean philosophy of the will to power in the name of the Christian idea of love. Now we’ve got to get this thing right. What is needed is a realization that power without love is reckless and abusive, and love without power is sentimental and anemic. Power at its best is love implementing the demands of justice, and justice at its best is power correcting everything that stands against love.
King was criticized for straying from nonviolence in this speech, but his critics missed the whole point. King knew that nonviolence is the only means Christians may rightly use to fight injustice, for Jesus commanded us to “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Mt 5:44). However King also knew that nonviolence does not mean anemic retreat. Such only invites further injustice, and injustice must never be allowed to stand. In fighting injustice, Christians are to use every nonviolent means at our disposal, including legal recourse and civil disobedience. But if necessary we must also be ready and willing to absorb an attacker’s violent blows into our own bodies, as King well understood by then. A few years before he gave this address, King and his followers were pelted by brick bats, pummeled by fire hoses and attacked by police dogs in Selma, Alabama in their fight for black voting rights. Jesus taught, “Do not resist one who is evil. But if any strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also” (Mt 5:39). When one turns the left cheek to a normally right-handed attacker, one invites an open-handed slap in the face! Christian nonviolence means that one must be willing to fling one’s life down like a gauntlet whenever and wherever injustice is encountered, and that is hardly anemic retreat.
Welcome to
iPeace.us
Latest Activity
© 2024 Created by David Califa. Managed by Eyal Raviv.
Powered by
Comment Wall (6 comments)
You need to be a member of iPeace.us to add comments!
Join iPeace.us
http://afifichestclinic.ning.com/
Visit The Truth
Dear Marvin, thank you so much for your understanding and the words of John which are so true. Some years ago i visited his prison cave on Patmos and read his life story while living on the beach for a week. I'm very pleased to have met you this way. And me too, consider you as a dear iPeace friend. Be well, William
Dear Marvin, thank you for haertfelt comments. The pinnacle, yes. I could start to eleborate on the choices i had to make after being very dissapointed about established religious systems. But i won't, probably you know all about it. It is my religion to leave a situation better behind then i found it. Every day, for my work, i visit the sick, the old and dying people. I sit with them and listen, and just say something if necessary, that's all. Be well, Willem
http://afifichestclinic.ning.com/
Find more videos like this on iPeace
Dear Marvin, First of all I have to point out that I’m not a very religious person. Although I regularly join into the Buddhist practices given by a Tibetan lama who’s living close to me, my true religion is the declaration of Human Rights. I have embraced the wisdom of Jiddu Krishnamurti and take, without identifying myself with any system of faith, full responsibility for my own thoughts and actions. Probably I have to agree with you that the Dalai Lama is actually a more effective spiritual leader now that he is no longer the head of an established “state religion”. I’ve understood but never agreed with His Holiness’ Middle Way approach. I'm all for a more pro-active approach towards the occupation of Tibet. I believe that Tibet is a colonized sovereign country.
I’ve sent your question to the chairman of our foundation which we’ve initiated to support our teacher Geshe Konshog Lhundup during his last period of life among us. He wrote that nonviolence is a pursuit that never can completely be fulfilled. “From the moment we’re born we commit unwillingly violent acts against each other and other forms of life. The Dalai Lama is not only the spiritual leader but also the head of the Tibetan people. He has a special responsibility towards his people. His Buddhist faith orders him to solve problems in a nonviolent way. The day that he had to admit the failure of his approach had to come sooner or later. He can no longer fulfil the expectations of his people anymore. For this reason he stepped back to let his people decide about the future means to achieve meaningful autonomy or even full independence.”
Who knows what the future may behold, often it is, and at the same time it’s not within the power of people. In my time as a guard at death’ door i’ve learned that impotence is the greatest power in life. I’m a nonviolent person, always have been and I will step back in my support to the Tibetan cause if change will be brought about by violent means. Thank you very much for asking me that question that made me think again about my position in my peaceful pro activism.
Kind regards, Willem