Donald M. Borchert considers in the article, Marx and Christ: The Question of Violence*, whether Marxist affirmation of violence hinders or narrows any cooperation with Christians.
Borchert starts by looking at how Marxism can only implemented by reworking the social structures. According to him
[s]uch a revolution is possible when there develops an economic crisis so severe that it can be solved only through a complete reconstitution of society by a self conscious challenging class. This kind of revolution, however, requires a violent overthrow of the ruling class because the ruling class has at its disposal legalized methods of social coercion.
The specific aim of a communist revolution is to abolish the ruling class, and create a society of “cooperation and brotherhood.”
In case of Jesus, he focused on bringing about God’s Kingdom. His method was not a violent revolution against the ruling powers, but by recognizing the tension between “egoistic injustice and the heavenly forces of altruistic neighbor-love.” In taking a stand against “demonic egoism” and by “commitment to heavenly altruism”. Jesus did this by implementing the Suffering Servant model.
He takes upon himself the violence and hatred of men, and conquers that violence within himself by extending forgiveness and other-affirming love to his assailants. Thereby, he refuses to allow that violence to extend itself further in an unending spiral.
Those two different responses to violence and oppression seem to be at odds with one another, though the hope for the future is similar or perhaps the same.
The question whether a Christian can participate in a Marxist-like revolution or whether the nonviolent Suffering Servant model is the only acceptable mode of resistance against oppression, was and perhaps is a critical question in relation to the Liberation Theology in South America.
Borchert goes on to explain violence quite broadly as
the imposition of one’s will upon another,…
Leaving room to explain almost all human activity as a violent act. He then continues and says:
Violent acts, I think, can be described in terms of a continuum or spectrum. At the ultraviolent extremity would be acts, such as murder, which impose the will of the actor upon others with a dreadful finality. … At the other end of the spectrum would be infraviolence, such as the subtle bribery used by a parent who is aware of the power of Skinnerian positive reinforcement applied to a child.
The question according to Borchert, becomes how far can Christians allow them self to go on the spectrum?
Jesus did not adopt the Suffering Servant model for its own sake. That model was instrumental to the accomplishment of his mission; namely, the reconciliation of men to God and to each other. … I submit then that only that violence which facilitates the goal of reconciliation is legitimate within the Christian perspective. Consequently, ultraviolence cannot be legitimized from the Christian point of view precisely because ultraviolence means killing, and that means placing one’s opponent beyond the possibility of reconciliation.
Whether violence leading to a death, is the only violence off limits is not answered clearly but Borchert calls for a situational decision making.
Whether Marxist revolution can be achieved without ultraviolence, is according to Borchert based on whether we consider communism to be first and foremost a societal necessity where “people appear as dispensable chiphers”, or whether we see communism as “the moral solution to an immoral society”. In which a man is “an individual-social being, a freedom clustured with other freedoms”. The later view
led Marx to condemn the dehumanization of society and to call for the realization of communism as the end of dehumanization and the inauguration of unprecedented levels of human fulfillment.
Borchert states that
[v]iolence – the imposition of on will upon another will – is an inescapable feature of human existence. Accordingly, the question initially posed by the Latin American situation – Will the inevitable social change be violent or nonviolent? – is a pseudo-question. Similarly, the dichotomy between a violent Marxism and a non-violent Christianity is a pseudo-distinction. The real question … is, What is the norm by which we judge or use of violence?
Borchert finally claims that the Christian norm of reconciliation and the Marxist “norm of continuous self-world creatorship” are both human-affirming, and therefore mutually inclusive.
This is of course an old article, published in January 1974. Some might even claim that Marxism is dead. However, the question of inequality is as strong as ever before, and the search for a more just society continues, as capitalism has proven flawed, perhaps beyond repair.
Borchert’s take on violence and Christianity is worthy of some consideration. However, I don’t think allowing a concept to mean everything and anything, is necessarily helpful. His understanding of the Suffering Servant and nonviolent protests is not convincing, and I am not sure that refusing to participate or pushing one self through a hardship can be seen as imposing one’s will upon other.
* According to the website the author is Roberta C. Bondi. In the printed version the author is said to be Donald M. Borchert.