Subscribe to “Nonviolence Radio” on Apple Podcasts, Android, Spotify or via RSS.
This episode of Nonviolence Radio welcomes Dr. Craig Atwood, professor of theology at Moravian Theological Seminary and director of the Center for Moravian Studies. Together with Stephanie and Michael, Craig discusses his research and teaching on the history of the Czech Brethren and Moravian thought and faith with special attention to medieval thinker, Petr Chelčický. Chelčický was explicit about the Moravian commitment to nonviolence, calling it:
a necessary expression of faith…you cannot use force in matters of faith. He contrasted power and love and argued that the Christian can only be motivated by love, even at the cost of your life.
Identifying the central role of nonviolence in Moravian theology at that time illuminates its long historical roots, extending the community of those committed to nonviolence far into the past and in this, strengthening and legitimizing a tradition which – as seen in the Nonviolence Report at the end of the show – continues to grow today.
—
Stephanie: Welcome dear listeners to another episode of Nonviolence Radio,. I’m your host, Stephanie Van Hook. And I’m here with my co-host and news anchor of the Nonviolence Report, Michael Nagler. And we’re from the Metta Center for Nonviolence in Petaluma, California.
In today’s episode, we are honored to bring you insights from a distinguished guest, Dr. Craig Atwood, as we delve into the intersection of theology and nonviolence through the lens of Moravian tradition. Dr. Atwood’s expertise sheds light on the rich tapestry of Moravian theology and its profound implications for the practice of nonviolence in our contemporary context.
Through this discussion and our reflection, we really aim in this conversation to uncover the essence of nonviolence and its active power to heal, transform, and unite. We invite you to join us on this illuminating journey, guided by principles of peace, empathy, and understanding. Let’s turn now to Dr. Atwood
Craig: I’m Craig Atwood. I’m professor of Moravian Theology at Moravian Theological Seminary, and I direct the Center for Moravian Studies. I’ve been there since 2010. All our courses are online now, so I’m teaching students from as far away as Labrador and Central America. And I very much enjoy what I do.
Part of being at the center is I get to travel to many countries to teach about the Moravians, Moravian history. So it’s been a wonderful time.
Michael: Craig, could you, for my sake and our audience’s sake, give us a brief rundown on the various schools of, you know, East European – well, I guess it’s the pacifist dimension, and the pacifist orientation that I’m interested in? So, I keep running into names of groups like the Czech Brethren, the Moravians, the Hussite, and of individuals like Petr Chelčický. So, could you give us just a brief orientation? First of all.
Craig: Sure, I’d be glad to. The Czech Reformation started before the general Protestant Reformation by more than a century. And it was a concern about corruption in the church, especially during the period when there were two and then three popes.
And Jan Hus, who was rector of the University of Prague became the leading voice for reform, preaching in a place called Bethlehem Chapel in Prague. And he opposed the sale of indulgences, urged Catholic priests to live according to their vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, and not sell church offices, and eventually was excommunicated, and then condemned of heresy at the Council of Constance, and burned at the stake. The most prominent intellectual to be burned at the stake during all of the Middle Ages.
And this launched a period of radicalization of the Hussite. I often tell people, of modern religious figures, the one whose theology is closest to Jan Hus is Pope Francis. A liberal social justice form of Catholicism. But when he was executed, and when the Empire decided to launch crusades to try to repress the reform, some became more radical.
And we basically had a fairly moderate majority of Hussites, and these radical people called Taborites – who believed that the end of history was coming soon. And they started off as pacifist communalists, all things in common. And then when the war started, they flipped completely and became among the most feared warriors in medieval history.
Michael: Wow.
Craig: They defeated five crusades, but very violent people based primarily on their reading of the Book of Joshua and some of the Old Testament stories. And it’s in the middle of all this turmoil and conflict that the most unique figure, perhaps the most unique writer, in medieval history appears, named Petr Chelčický.
He was a young man, he had heard Hus preach, he was very inspired by this. He read Czech. We don’t know for sure if he read Latin, actually. But the Hussite reform believed in putting material out in the Czech language, including the scripture. So, a hundred years before Martin Luther, they were translating the Bible into Czech. And he showed up in Prague in the days after Hus was killed, arguing with the university professors and theologians.
What makes him especially interesting is he took the Sermon on the Mount as the Law of Christ. He said, you know, you’re rejecting corruption in the Catholic Church, claiming the Bible and the Law of Christ, but the true law of Christ is the Sermon on the Mount. Which includes the commandment of do not return evil for evil, do not strike on the right cheek, turn the left.
And he argued that all of the concerns over ceremonies and fasting were less important than the issue of do you kill people? And so, when the Taborites turned violent, he turned against some and published several works against Catholics, Taborites and the main Hussites, always pushing that true Christianity must be nonviolent.
Just to jump way ahead in the story, one reason he’s important is in the 19th century, Czech scholars republished his works and translated them into Russian. And Leo Tolstoy read Petr Chelčický when he was going through his spiritual transformation and, you know, launched the 20th century pacifist movement. And of course, a young man in South Africa, named Gandhi, read Tolstoy.
So, we actually, it’s you know, 500 years apart, but just three degrees of separation from Petr and Gandhi.
Michael: I had forgotten that aspect of it, actually. That’s absolutely delightful. You know, this idea of what they call in India a parampara, a tradition of truth that goes on and on.
It reminds me a lot – you’re probably very familiar with this book, Geoffrey Nuttall, a “Christian Pacifism in History.”
Craig: Oh, yeah.
Michael: He talks about the five stages of constant rediscovery that Jesus actually meant.
Craig: And for Petr, it very much is a Christian pacifism. Tolstoy and Gandhi, you know, will develop, and in different ways. Where I think Petr is even more important is he is the first writer to argue that there can never be a Christian state.
Michael: Oh, right.
Craig: That Christianity fell with Constantine. There were underground movements like the Waldensians and others who weren’t corrupted. But you cannot use force in matters of faith. So, he contrasted power and love and argued that the Christian can only be motivated by love, even at the cost of your life. Before all the great religious wars of the 16th century, Petr is already saying that the effort to use, you know, the military or the Inquisition or even threats of taxation and imprisonment has nothing to do with Christianity, and you need a complete and total separation of church and state.
Michael: Boy, was he ahead of his time. Unfortunately.
Craig: I think it’s a message we really need in America today. This Christian nationalist movement is a –
Michael: I have a theory of religions that goes through three stages. The first stage is revelation. When you have a Jesus or a Petr coming along and saying, “This is serious.” And then you have a long stage of what I call accommodation, where you water it down so that ordinary people could get hold of it. And then, finally, you have co-optation, where you reverse it. And this you have the Crusades going to liberate Jerusalem and spilling all that blood and so forth in the name of the Prince of Peace.
Craig: I’m glad you gave me that schema because I realize that’s how I organize my history of Christianity course. And I hadn’t been so clear in that process.
Michael: The old saw about great minds, I guess it’s true.
Craig: And my students in Moravian theology class are always surprised because we encounter Petr at the very beginning of the semester, and many of them have never had such a clear perspective on nonviolence as – for him, a necessary expression of faith.
Michael: Of course, Augustine is an interesting figure here because he – his instincts are purely nonviolent. And like Gandhi says, the force that organizes things has got to come from love. But on the other hand, he is in the real world.
Craig: I’ve sometimes wondered with Augustine’s just war theory, if he expected to ever find a truly just war. Petr will talk about that – there is no such thing as just war – because there is always exploitation and the desire to control at the root of war.
Michael: That is exactly what the modern church pacifists of my acquaintance are saying now. You know that “the just war” is a contradiction in terms. It cannot be achieved.
Craig: With Petr, he’s also interesting because he rejected the whole justification of medieval society, which was the nobility, the clergy, and the commoners. And he is the first to argue that Paul’s notion of the body of Christ means that you cannot have exploitation within society either.
And the way the commoners are being exploited by the nobility and the church is contrary to Christianity. So, he is one of the most brilliant people at demolishing all the ways we tried to sanctify state-sponsored violence.
Michael: Which would include execution. And that is why these people, God bless them, are always getting – let me just use the word, eliminated, because in threatening the ultimate sanction of violence, they threaten the whole social order as understood by most people.
Craig: Absolutely correct. And again, my students are often disturbed by this aspect of Petr, that Christians have to separate from the structures of violence, which takes you out of the government. So, for him, not swearing oaths was as important as pacifism. Because when you swear an oath, you invoke God to help bind you to something. But you’re often swearing an oath that you’ll, like in the military, that you will kill on someone else’s order and give up your moral agency.
And so, the early Brethren who followed Petr very closely would not serve on juries, they would not bear witness in trial, they would not swear oaths to their landlord. And they repeatedly argued, “We’re not overthrowing society. We work hard, we’ll pay our taxes, we will obey the law. When we speak it is always truthful, you know, we will not lie to you.”
It’s a whole, whole moral structure. But it’s so hard to convince people of that when you’ve based society on violence and fear that, you know, how can you trust people to function unless you are threatening them?
Michael: Boy, does that sound fundamental and familiar.
Stephanie: We’re basing justice on punishment.
Michael: Yeah.
Craig: Exactly. And he is very consistent in going through the number of ways people, you know, what they call justice. And, of course, it’s the Middle Ages, so punishments are often maiming someone. And he said, “If somebody is called for theft, and you cut off their hand, you’re not just punishing the thief, you’re punishing his wife, his children. You’re throwing people into poverty.” And, you know, how can Christians participate in that?
He’s the only theologian I know from that time period, well into modern times, that recognizes that Romans 13, where Paul says, be subject to the authorities – the authorities are pagan, they’re not Christian. And so often that is used by Christian nationalists and others who want to impose their will on others. And Petr goes, “No, Paul is not even imagining that there could be a so-called Christian state because that would be impossible.”
Michael: I have so many questions to ask you, so many things that come up. This question of not swearing an oath, as I’ve understood it, first of all, it starts in the third century A.D., where you have one of the earliest conscientious objectors known to history who says, “I’ve already sworn to God, so I cannot swear to the legions.”
And that that really becomes – this is something that surprised me, it becomes the criterion almost more than non-injury. You know, for us, the reason to be a conscientious objector is completely because you do not want to kill. But for them, it was more in a way legalistic.
Craig: Yeah, I could see how that would work out. It’s interesting, I just came out of class today, and we were talking about the second generation of the Brethren. And one of the things they will moderate is the strict not swearing oaths. And in part because it had become legalistic.
They were also worried about people being overly proud of their stance and judgmental. And so, a Brethren’s theologian named Lucas of Prague argued that it would be wrong to be so strict on the swearing of oaths if it brings persecution down on us. You can be so legalistic, you can get people killed. And we don’t need that.
And his argument was that there may be circumstances where you cannot avoid swearing an oath because you do need to participate in a labor guild or, you know, some landlords require it. Do anything you can to do something different. Explain yourself. But if you have to, make sure you’re swearing an oath for a good purpose and with integrity.
So, you still, you know, shouldn’t swear an oath frivolously. And the second generation of Brethren argued that, you know, it may be permissible to serve on a jury because you may be the voice of mercy. We need to participate in society enough to show love for neighbor. And if that includes bearing witness in a trial or on a jury, but you can’t be an executioner. You can’t be, you know, an active participant in the violence of the state.
Michael: Stephanie has just come back from jury duty, where she faced that very question.
Stephanie: Yeah, I, I had to, I had to play the fool a bit in that selection process because I was against – I don’t think that the criminal justice system is something that works.
And it just makes me extremely uncomfortable to think that through adversarial processes, people think that they’re going to achieve a sense of justice. But a lot of people do. I was one of the only voices there who made that case. A lot of people felt very comfortable with the system as it is.
But I knew that that’s kind of part of our role is to be that voice. And, you know, it might have annoyed people at the time, but they gave me a lot of space to say what I needed to say. Yeah.
Craig: Oh, very good. I think it’s odd that everybody in court has to swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth except the lawyers.
Michael: They’d be out of a job.
Craig: It’s interesting, this is somewhat related to this. The early Brethren actually forbade people to take certain professions. They were not just concerned about pacifism and oath swearing, but what we would call business ethics and economic justice. You were not allowed to serve in a profession that they interpreted as exploitative of people.
And one of those was being a lawyer. Embarrassing for me, being a professor was also forbidden. So.
Michael: I would imagine that they were against the practice of usury as well?
Craig: They were. And again, not just on a legalistic, you know, there are biblical statements against it. It was okay to loan money. Some of the Brethren were more prosperous than others. But if you’re loaning someone money, it means they are in need of money. And they said, you know, it’s really cruel to then demand more money back.
And so, they would not have understood the modern banking system. They were definitely opposed to neoliberal capitalism, shall we say.
Michael: Well, I have to join them on that. I’d like to ask you a kind of historical question before we get back to these, you know, fascinating ways of organizing life and how to behave.
To what extent is there a direct continuity from the early Czech Brethren to almost anything today, outside of the academic study? That is, are there communities, geographical or not, where people do still try to live by most of these values? And if so, where are they?
Craig: That’s an excellent question. And the short answer is, not much. The interesting historical one would probably be the Hutterites. The Hutterites start in Switzerland, faced persecution and eventually find refuge in Moravia. Some of the Brethren who remained closest to the teachings of Petr Chelčický join with the Hutterites, and it’s still a little fuzzy. When you’re looking at groups that didn’t have power, you often don’t have enough sources.
But the Hutterites were already, you know, Anabaptists and Sermon on the Mount people. When they hooked up with the Brethren, they developed one of the most effective and enduring Christian communal societies. Setting up agricultural enclaves that live strict pacifist principles.
They will continue to suffer persecution without giving up their core values. Eventually, to Ukraine and Russia, and in the 19th century, they come to Western Canada and the Western United States and have large agricultural complexes. And I think that would be the closest historical connection, past to the present connection, would be them.
Michael: I see. So, you’re referring to the Doukhobors? Whom Tolstoy was very happy about.
Craig: Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Michael: So, what kind of connection would you see between this medieval tradition and Quakers, and Shakers, and other religiously based pacifist groups today?
Craig: You know, when you were talking about the idea that you keep rediscovering this? It’s hard to trace any direct connection between Petr Chelčický and some of these later groups, except they, like the Quakers, also emerged during the English Civil War, during a time of great conflict justified on all sides by religion.
George Fox has his revelation and – or revelations, and begins to read the New Testament differently and developed some very similar ideas to Petr without having any contact with him. There may have been contact with Mennonites in the Netherlands and so forth, but I think a lot of this is just this, being able to read, read the text of the New Testament without all of the tradition that tells you not to, not to believe what you’re seeing.
And again, with the Quakers, like with Petr and the early Brethren, pacifism is rooted in a rejection of structures of oppression. So, you know, the Quakers refusing to take the hat off and calling people thee and thou, was a way to undermine the tendency to claim lordship over others, which they believed is the root of all violence.
My students are often very – like I say, they get disturbed at this idea that with these groups you can’t even fight back to defend yourself. And I point out to them that, you know, most of the time these are people who are the victims of violence even before they become pacifist. Violence is an expression of privilege. And in America today, it’s one of the aspects of white privilege.
White people are allowed to be more violent than people of color. You know, when you have some rioting related to a Black Lives Matter protest or march, society is so angry, the police come out, people get arrested, shot. When you have riots after winning a Super Bowl in, you know, in Philadelphia or somewhere, that’s perfectly fine. It’s just white people having fun.
Michael: Yeah. On the other hand, when you have riots in Watts, Los Angeles, among black people, similarly, that’s alright too, but for a different reason.
Craig: Yeah.
Michael: We got a ways to go yet. We have been talking a lot about, and quite reasonably, about restrictions and negatives, you know, ‘Thou shalt not’. Which kind of backs you into, in a way, Gandhian positions which come from love. A word which you mentioned at one point.
Could you comment on that a little bit, Craig? To what extent are people conscious that they are seeking to love one another? And to what extent are they just trying not to disobey the law?
Craig: Yeah. You ask such good questions.
Michael: I’ve been in this business for a while.
Craig: So, Petr held a principle that love does have a negative and a positive. So, the first fundamental of love is not to harm. So, kind of like the Hippocratic Oath: Do no harm.
And for him, it wasn’t just violence, it wasn’t just, you know, don’t kill your neighbor. It’s more than the Ten Commandments. It’s do not injure your neighbor’s dignity. Don’t insult your neighbor. Don’t insult your children.
You know, just this nonviolence was how you live in your household. It’s not just cessation from being in the militia or whatever. That’s a first and fundamental aspect of love, not harming, but also to do good, and to seek the welfare of others. And this was written into the early Brethren teachings. The way I put it is, for them, love is ethics.
It’s not an emotion. You can show love to people that you really don’t like. I sometimes joke that I lived in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania with three foot snows. And one of the ways I showed love for my neighbor was cleaning the sidewalks. You know, it’s just –
Michael: Pretty basic.
Craig: Exactly. But they did a lot of writing on – more writing on ethics than on theology. So, for instance, merchants. How does a merchant show love for a neighbor? Well, you pay a fair price to the person who manufactured. You don’t exploit them. You don’t take advantage of your power, and you sell at a fair price to your customer. You don’t lie to them. You don’t overdo it. This is why I say they are opposed to neoliberal capitalism.
And you need to recognize that the merchant’s only role is to help get a product to the person who needs it, and it should benefit all three of you in doing this. So, a very positive aspect of love.
One of the earliest doctrinal statements of this Unity of the Brethren – oh, I should explain all those names in a minute. You had asked me that, and I forgot to do that – is that love of enemy is part of this.
To pray for your enemies. And they had enemies. They had people who wanted to kill them.
And in times of war, to try to heal those who are wounded, to care for the poor and the suffering, those are all aspects of love.
Interestingly, it’s even an aspect of love to let the wealthy and powerful know that their life is not good, and they would be much happier if they would give up some of this power and wealth for the good of others. Love can be a complex thing.
Michael: I recently saw an interview with Thich Nhat Hanh, where he’s talking with a bunch of young kids. So, Thich Nhat Hanh is asked this question by a 12-year-old, you know, out of the mouths of babes. He says, “If there’s no such thing as death, why can’t we kill?”
And Thich Nhat Hanh, you know, he’s very, he’s always calm and methodical. So, I don’t know if he had to really think that through, or he’s just being calm and methodical. But he did say, “It’s because of what would happen to you if you wish harm to the other person.”
Now, that was a long lead-up to my question. To what degree does this lie behind Moravian ethics? That is the protection of the person, not just the victim?
Craig: Oh, I think that is a central point. One of the things I say in my book is that for Petr Chelčický and the early Brethren, there are many things worth dying for, but not worth killing for. Because when you kill, you destroy those two souls. There is this moral damage.
One of the interesting things, you know, when you mention Gandhi, what they couldn’t imagine in the 15th century when Petr is writing, is how nonviolence can be used as a form of protest.
I argue that their very existence was a form of protest. You know, refusal to sanctify the state and participate in all of its rituals and so forth. But, you know, part of the brilliance of Gandhi is turning this into – you know, how pacifism is an activist activity, which is another form of love.
Michael: Exactly. Yeah. It’s the corollary of coming from a place of love, to use today’s vocabulary. You were reminding me of Gandhi’s famous line, which I don’t think he ever really said in history, but it’s quite prominent in the movie. Where he’s at that meeting, that big meeting in South Africa. And he says, “This, too, is a cause for which I am prepared to die. But my friends, there is no cause for which I am prepared to kill.”
Yeah. So we have this leftover kind of hanging to give us a historical orientation so that the various names that we encounter are not so confusing.
Craig: It is very confusing. There were actually several radical groups in Bohemia during this reformation, revolution including Waldensians, Taborites, Orebites, various kinds of societies that grew together. Among the followers of Petr Chelčický was a group that called themselves the Jednota bratrská, which is Czech for, ‘Unity of the Brethren’ or in Latin, ‘Unitas Fratrum’.
So Unitas Fratrum will become the official name of the church. They usually just called themselves the Brethren, although it included sisters. They were actually one of the first groups to educate women and have women in leadership positions in the church, not as pastors, but as elders. Since they were in Bohemia, they were generally called the Bohemian Brethren.
They spread to Moravia and Poland. Strangely enough, they remained the Bohemian Brethren in Moravia and Poland. The Polish Brethren were a Unitarian sect. So, it gets very, very confusing and many people confuse them with the Hutterites or some people use the word Moravian church.
Now, this Unity of the Brethren is going to have a schism in its second generation. And the nature of the schism was over how legalistically to apply the oath. The majority voted in favor of moderation, allowing people to live in cities and to participate some in civic life, etc.
That group will eventually allow nobles to join the church. The original Unity nobles had to renounce their status to join. Very much an underclass liberation theology kind of movement.
The smaller group is the one that’s going to join the Hutterites eventually, and they are sometimes called the old Brethren. So, the new Brethren and the old Brethren. Peter Brock in his book really likes the old Brethren and is very critical of the new Brethren.
I think he’s a little too harsh. I don’t think they changed as much as he said they did. But these names get very confusing. And then, during the Protestant Reformation with Martin Luther, the Unitas Fratrum, the Unity of the Brethren becomes one of the Protestant churches and becomes much more organized as a church. Still illegal. It will eventually be destroyed by the Counter-Reformation.
And its last great figure will be John Amos Comenius, who is one of the most important 17th century advocates for peace. I also did some work on Comenius and he was not a strict pacifist like Petr Chelčický. But what he has in common is this idea that peacefulness is not just cessation of war or a refusal to use weapons, it’s internal, and it’s within the family and how we raise children and run schools. So, he’s most famous as an educator, as the first great advocate for nonviolent education.
Michael: In fact, there are some institutions today, I think, that are based on his principle and even use his name, though I’m a little vague on what exactly they do now.
Craig: Yeah, he will be the most famous figure out of this religious movement. Many, many schools are named for him, especially in Central and Eastern Europe. The most famous adaptation of his principles was by Montessori, by the way.
Incidentally, you’ve mentioned Buddhism. Twice I’ve had Buddhists take my Moravian theology class, and they have convinced me that a lot of this Moravian theology independently discovered Buddhist principles. And there’s a lot of resonance between them. Completely different vocabulary, but when you really push down, there’s some similar principles.
Michael: You know, you can go all the way back to Heraclitus of Ephesus, saying that the truth is one. You know, there’s only one truth. So, it’s not going to show up in contrary schools. The minute you get schisms, you know – I’m putting those words in his mouth, the minute you get schisms, you know you’ve departed from truth.
Craig: Wow. Now, I’m wondering if that’s where Comenius got that because he did read Greek philosophy. But –
Michael: That’s right. Yeah.
Craig: His criticism of Protestantism is the way Protestants have divided up, shows that you’re missing the point. And his critique of Catholicism is the only way you maintain unity is by forcing people to profess things they don’t believe. And we need to take a different approach to religion, education, society, everything.
Michael: I call that unity and uniformity, instead of unity and diversity.
Craig: Exactly.
Michael: And it doesn’t work. We are raising this topic on two levels. One, that we’re interested in the rejection of violence, wherever it comes from, as a theoretical issue.
And the other is, we’re fascinated by traditions. We’re such outliers that it’s good to look back and say, we may be outliers, but we’re not freaks. This has happened from time to time. So, I’d love to just solicit your comment on that before you tell us about your book, and we’ll conclude with that.
Craig: One of the things I love about the study of history is that we can uncover things that the oppressors always want to bury. I’m a theologian so I’ve taught the New Testament and other things, and it absolutely astounds me that the New Testament was able to survive when you think of how the church developed and systems of spiritual repression. But the very fact that we have the gospels to preserve, means that every generation can rediscover these things.
The freshness of what Jesus is bringing into the world is ever new. And I think it’s especially important for those who claim the name Christian to return to these roots. And sometimes we need people like Petr Chelčický to take the scales from our eyes to see what is there.
You also need examples of people who were actually able to live this way. That you don’t have to give in to cynicism and be co-opted. For me, as a modern American in the 21st century, I think this history and tradition is so important to provide a counter-narrative to the Christian nationalist heresy that has swept the nation. The idea of God and guns.
I have said in many settings that I think American Christians have confused Ares for Jesus and confused Zeus for Yahweh. They have forgotten the Holy Spirit as our mother and our nurturer. And we just have this idolatry of violence. And, you know, toxic masculinity is very much a part of this.
And when you read people like Petr or see people try to create these communities, I think it gives you some courage that this is actually possible. And it’s not it’s not easy, but it’s not easy living according to the violence of the world either.
I was raised in a violent home. And it’s not an easy life. You live constantly in fear. You don’t know, you know, what is real. I hope your work bears fruit.
Michael: Oh, thank you so much. Yeah. Let it, let it bear fruit together. I’m going to ditch the five or six other questions that are down on my paper here for now, but ask you to tell us the name of your book and how technical is it, and where can we get it?
Craig: The title is, “The Theology of the Czech Brethren from Hus to Comenius.” And I called them the Czech Brethren instead of the Bohemian Brethren, just so people would understand better today. It covers a long period of history. It’s available from Penn State University Press. But you can also get it on, you know, any of the book services.
As far as accessibility, I actually had people in my congregation read the manuscript while I was preparing it to make sure it would be understandable. And if I could be permitted just, you know, a moment of pride. The best compliment I think I’ve ever received was from the copy editor for the book, who said she got so interested in it, she was forgetting to mark the mistakes and had to keep going back through a second and third time.
Michael: My copy editors never said that.
[Laughter]
Stephanie: You’re here at Nonviolence Radio. That was Dr. Craig Atwood. And we turn now to the Nonviolence Report with Michael Nagler – news and analysis from the world of nonviolence.
Michael: Greetings, everyone. This is Michael Nagler, and this is the Nonviolence Report for mid-March 2024. Happy to say that, as usual, there is a lot going on in the world of nonviolence. And in this particular report, in this particular report, I will be emphasizing resources that have become available, but not at the complete expense of activities.
Selkirk College, which is in British Columbia in Canada, has been active in documenting and collecting resources on UCP for a long time. And now they have an unarmed civilian peacekeeping database at their website, Selkirk.CA. That’s CA for Canada. And it will probably be a complement to the database that is maintained at Swarthmore College in its peace collection. So, the more, the merrier. You know, this is all to the good.
And now there’s a very good book we have available for us. It’s called, “Wielding Nonviolence in the Midst of Violence.” The subtitle is “Case Studies in Unarmed Civilian Protection.” And it’s put out by the Institute for Peace Work and Nonviolent Conflict Transformation in Hamburg, Germany. The editors are several friends of ours, Ellen Furnari, and Eli McCarthy, along with Jonathan Pinckney.
Now, just to give you a taste of what this research is turning up, and really this is just one small, small taste. But there was an 18-month research project on the significance of unarmed civilian protection as a mode of enhancing the security of Palestinians living in the south Hebron Hills. Very close to our heart here at Metta because we visited there back in 2014. But this is an area that’s known as Masafer Yatta. And a team went there from Coventry University – this was starting back in 2022.
And they found that the presence of Palestinian and Israeli solidarity activists, alongside international volunteers, played a significant role in enabling locals to continue to graze their animals and to withstand the threats posed by Israeli settlers in that area. They found that their presence deterred Israeli settlers from attacking them, and that summing up this protective presence had a profound impact on the economic and vital security of these people.
Some of the organizations involved from the international networks were the International Solidarity Movement, which has been operating in that area for a long time, the Ecumenical Accompaniment Program and Operation Dove, Operazione Colomba, from Italy, dear friends of ours, and the US-based Center for Jewish Nonviolence. They all played an important role.
There’s an opportunity coming up from CPT, which now stands for Community Peacemaker Teams. And they are saying, “Journey alongside experienced peacemakers, hear firsthand accounts of delegations reporting from Palestine, Colombia, the US-Mexico border lands, Iraqi Kurdistan, Lesvos, and Turtle Island.” That’s us.
This will be alongside the really major event that took place recently, or a year or so ago in Geneva, which was the Community of Practice worldwide meeting there. This is a big step forward in the development of this institution of Community Peacemaker Teams.
There’s also a book by a woman named Julie Thomas-Beckett, which features Meta Peace Team, that’s meta with one ‘T’. It’s called, “The Work of Nonviolence: Stories from the Front Line.” And there’s a six-week course coming up, which will not be limited to but include unarmed civilian peacekeeping by Rivera Sun.
In the US, it’s interesting to note that a poll was released last week which revealed, unsurprisingly, that a majority of Americans want the US government to stop supplying the Israeli military with weaponry to carry out its brutal assault on Gaza that has by now killed over 30,000 Palestinians. One of the most egregious violations of nonviolence and human rights that is occurring in our world.
And I’m happy to say that Meta Peace Team, again with a single ‘T’, which used to be limited to domestic operations, but it’s like we were saying before, having learned how to do it in a team close to home, you’re ready to branch out. They have been invited to place international teams, also in the West Bank, by Palestinians who are committed to nonviolence, striving for justice and ending the occupation.
So, to get beyond that particular activity and broaden our vision here. Just a minute. There is a new project of World BEYOND War. It’s called, “It’s time to begin a conversation about using BDS – boycotts, divestment, and sanctions – to bring the US government into a global community of law-abiding nations.” They have a nice refrain here, “BDS the US.”
So more locally, in June, the 1st – 2nd, and the 8th – 9th, join everybody to get ready for the next national ‘Guns to Gardens’ days. Those are days when people are invited to turn in their weapons and have them destroyed. This is the modern version of Swords into Plowshares, which has quite a distinguished long-term run, as we know.
So, there is also an interesting resource created by a team of researchers. They have created the largest global database on the status of women. It’s called WomenStats, and their findings are illuminating for global security and world peace. Quote, “Consider that feminist revolutions to gain human rights and equality for women and girls have freed and saved the lives of millions of womens and girls without weapons, without fists, without a drop of blood spilled.” So, that definitely is the way to go about it.
One final note, or maybe two, in the UK, we have been reporting from time to time on Extinction Rebellion, which started as an environmental group, but they are now saying, again, quoting, “The deadly links between war, resource robbery, and climate breakdown have got to be addressed.” And they have mounted a protest against the role of the UK in violence in, for example, the Democratic Republic of Congo. This was just last month. And as usual, the hope is, and the great possibility is, the likelihood is, that they will go beyond protest and get a few more, if I may just put it this way, strings to their bow.
Finally, there is a broad coalition of national and local Christian organizations. I’m back in mostly in the US now, but they have launched something called the Lenten Ceasefire Campaign. “Rooted in the transforming power of Jesus’ way of active nonviolence.” And this, again, has arisen out of a collaboration, I’m glad to say, of many different organizations. And they say, “We believe that the focus must shift to diplomacy, accountability mechanisms, and strategic nonviolent peacebuilding,” and that “neither war nor retribution fits into this model.” They are not accountable. “We believe urgent action is needed,” they say, “to stop the slaughter, destruction, and generational trauma that is being created.”
I will end with some words from Meta Peace Teams. “MPT’s vision is a just world grounded in nonviolence and respect for the sacred interconnectedness of all life.” They say we put the tools of violence de-escalation into the hands of ordinary people, creating a safer and more just world. “Nonviolence,” they say, “is the next great revolution. Join us.” And we could not agree more.
This has been Michael Nagler for the Nonviolence Report. Please take care. Talk to you again soon.
Stephanie: So, that’s our show today everybody. You’ve been here at Nonviolence Radio. Special shoutout to our guest, Dr. Craig Atwood, to our mother station KWMR, to all those who help syndicate the show, including the Pacifica Network and our friends over at Waging Nonviolence. Thank you so much. And to those who help make this show possible, including Matt and Robin Watrous, Sophia Pechaty, Annie Hewitt. Thanks so much for your help. And to you, all of our dear listeners, until the next time, learn everything you can about nonviolence and please take care of one another. Bye.
That was a great show. At 75 I am a life long pacifist and nonviolent peace activist and yet learned so much. I had never heard of Petr Chelcicky. Thank you.
Glenn Cratty