Attached to Paper Session
Meeting Preference
Historically, the violent military effort by foreign nations invading indigenous lands generally results in the indigenous people being colonized by governmental authority. This oppression of indigenous peoples has always been met with resistance toward the invading oppressor in some form of protest, negotiation, and/or violence. Paradoxically, the ruling empire inflicts violence to maintain non-violent peace.
The concept of violence in theology is unpopular, but it can be regarded as necessary when it comes to the God of the oppressed. The religion of Jesus systematically espouses love, and this love preserves rather than directs violent acts toward human life. In fact, the Golden Rule should explicitly be the basis for non-violence. Therefore, if a person does not want violence directed toward them, they should not inflict it on others. Treating others as one would want to be treated by them holds true because the religion claims that no evidence exists that Jesus was violent in his lifetime. Or does it? There are a number of individual who attempted to overthrow those who colonized and oppressed. One individual whose story fits this narrative is Demark Vesey.
Denmark Vesey, an insurgent against African enslavement in America, was also a leader who had followers. He plotted a violent insurrection against the ruling government in an attempt to liberate his people from the invading empire. As a result, he was betrayed, tried, and crucified: not on a cross but, in keeping with the tradition of his time, by being hanged. By comparing Denmark’s story and insurrection attempt to Jesus’ story, we can conclude that Jesus too had a planned violent insurrection attempt when reading the Gospel. However, liberation through violent attempts is not always met with successful outcomes of freedom—in the case of Jesus in Roman-occupied Israel and Vesey in African-enslaved Charleston, South Carolina. This paper examines how, when a group of people are oppressed through violence, liberation from the said oppression must be met with violence.
In my proposed presentation, I will demonstrate that God is on the side of violent liberation if God’s people are oppressed through violence. This act is known as retributive justice. This will be done by drawing parallels between Jesus’s failed historical insurrection and death through the lens of Denmark Vesey’s infamous failed insurrection and death and using Black theology as a backdrop. This includes framing the stories in their proper context by understanding the leadership, cultural/societal conditions, betrayal, failed attempt, trial, and death. Addressing the question, “Was Jesus’ death God’s plan for an attempt at retributive justice, or was it because his attempt was violent instead rather than non-violent?” Finally, I explore one of, if not the primary outcome, of Black theology: all whites are to surrender their presumptions of superiority and abuses of power.[1] This begs the question, “how?” Will the surrender be through non-violent or, with at the least, violent retributive justice attempts in the name of God, as Jesus did?
[1] Wilmore & Cone, eds, Black Theology: A Documentary History, 101.
Abstract for Online Program Book (maximum 150 words)
The notion that Jesus was a nonviolent leader must be critically reexamined in a theological context. A lack of written evidence of Jesus perpetrating violent acts does not mean he lacked violent intent. In fact, in his trial and his conviction for being the King of the Jews implies violent intent but, however, was unsuccessful with the insurrection. Similarly, Denmark Vesey, an insurgent against slavery in the United States, led a failed attempt insurrection and was tried and sentenced to death for his intent of violence. Using Denmark’s story as the methodology, this paper argues that Jesus attempted to instigate a violent insurrection, but did not succeed, resulting in his death for “treasonous” acts against his oppressor. If, according to Black Theology, God is on the side of the oppressed and Jesus’s liberation from Roman oppression could have involved violence, should a liberation theology support freedom through violence?