Curious Christian

Reflections on culture, nature, and spirituality from a Christian perspective

Reimagining Nonviolence: Ahimsa in the New Testament

Published by

Matt Stone

2010-07-22

It often surprises me how people are eager to embrace Buddhist teachings on ahimsa (nonviolence), yet become uncomfortable when Christians speak of nonviolence. This raises an interesting question: why is nonviolence applauded when it comes from Buddhist philosophy, but labeled as impractical or even irresponsible when rooted in Christianity?

There could be several reasons for this reaction. Perhaps it’s the perceived exoticism of Buddhism compared to the assumed familiarity of Christianity in the West. Buddhism, with its philosophical distance from Western culture, feels fresh and intriguing to many. In contrast, Christianity can feel overexposed, entangled in Western politics and culture, making its teachings seem too familiar or even politicized. There’s also the fact that Buddhists, particularly in the West, are a smaller and less politically significant group, while Christianity is often seen as intertwined with power structures.

When the Dalai Lama speaks of ahimsa, people seem to listen intently, finding wisdom in his words. Yet when a Christian advocates for nonviolence, reactions can range from skepticism to outright rejection, often dismissed as unrealistic or naive. This double standard is worth examining, particularly since both traditions emphasize the same core principle of nonviolence.

This discrepancy led me to wonder: could we help people see the Christian message of nonviolence with fresh eyes? Could we de-familiarize the New Testament in a way that allows its teachings to be re-encountered without preconceived notions? What if we were to translate its key messages using a different vocabulary—like incorporating the concept of ahimsa?

Ahimsa in the New Testament

Let’s imagine for a moment that we introduce the idea of ahimsa into some well-known New Testament passages. How might that change our understanding of Christian teachings on peace and nonviolence? Consider these examples:

“Blessed are the ahimsa practitioners, for they will be called sons of God.” (Matthew 5:9)
“Finally, brothers, goodbye. Aim for perfection, listen to my appeal, be of one mind, practice ahimsa. And the God of love and ahimsa will be with you.” (2 Corinthians 13:11)
“But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, ahimsa, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness.” (Galatians 5:22)
“He came and preached ahimsa to you who were far away and ahimsa to those who were near.” (Ephesians 2:17)
“Hold them in the highest regard in love because of their work. Practice ahimsa with each other.” (1 Thessalonians 5:13)
“Make every effort to practice ahimsa with all men and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord.” (Hebrews 12:14)
“But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then ahimsa-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere.” (James 3:17)

A Fresh Perspective

Reading the New Testament with the lens of ahimsa—a term often associated with Buddhism—offers an intriguing shift. It prompts us to ask: does using this language disturb you? Does it make you feel uneasy about how we approach Christian teachings on nonviolence? Or does it encourage you to see Christianity’s commitment to peace in a new light?

Perhaps the discomfort comes not from the message itself, but from our assumptions. When we translate the Bible with language we associate with Buddhism, we may find that the core message of nonviolence becomes more visible—stripped of cultural baggage and political connotations.

Christianity, at its heart, carries a profound message of peace, compassion, and nonviolence. But these teachings, especially in the West, often get obscured by layers of history, power struggles, and familiarity. By using the concept of ahimsa, we can help Christians and non-Christians alike re-engage with the radical call to peace that runs through the Gospels and the epistles.

A Call to Reflection

So, what happens for you when you encounter the words of ancient messengers this way? Does translating these verses with ahimsa change your perspective? Does it deepen your appreciation for the nonviolence at the heart of Christianity? Or does it make you question how we’ve come to understand and practice these teachings?

Ultimately, both Buddhism and Christianity call us to a life of peace and nonviolence. Perhaps by reimagining the language we use, we can bridge the gap between these traditions and allow their shared wisdom to inspire a deeper commitment to nonviolence in our lives.of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere. (James 3:17)

What happens for you when you encounter the words of the ancient messengers this way? Do you object to the translation? Do the implications disturb you? Does it encourage? Or give you a fresh perspective? On Buddhism or Christianity?

Tags Buddhist, Nonviolence, Peace

6 responses to “Reimagining Nonviolence: Ahimsa in the New Testament”

Kalessin

2010-07-23

If the Hebrew ‘shalom’ lies behind the New Testament use of the Greek ‘eirene’ in those passages, then I’d think it contains a very non-Eastern view of what constitutes peace. More like flourishing than being in state of tranquility, in broad-brush terms.
(I base this impression mostly on Cornelius Plantinga Jr., ‘Not the Way it’s Supposed to Be: A Breviary of Sin’, from about 10 years back.)

LikeLike

Reply
John

2010-07-23

I would suggest that it comes down to perception which is largely fashioned by the evidence of the countless millions of bloodied corpses created by the Christian West.
Summed up with: Onwards Christian soldiers forever marching into war.
Such was inevitable when the church was co-opted by the Roman state, and by the “great commission” to convert the entire world to Christianity.

LikeLike

Reply
Kalessin

2010-07-23

I’d say John’s right on the perceptions. When we don’t learn from history we are condemned to/for Empires.
The questions this raises for me are:
a) Do I link the wars of the ‘Christian West’ to Christian principles (vs. the principles they stood in conflict with)?
b) Do I think the Christian principles should have overcome the others sooner than they did (which I’d make end of the 17th century in Europe’s case)?

LikeLike

Reply
Matt Stone

2010-07-23

I’d say John’s view of the East is somewhat romanticized. Buddhists and Hindus have both spawned terrorist organizations, and armies and theocratic states. And he seems to have missed my point, which is, why do people prefer Christians would not talk of nonviolence? I think John prefers it for apologetic reasons, from what he’s said previously that is.

LikeLike

Reply
Justin

2010-08-02

Excellent post Matt.
I think John is right in part, that people see hypocrisy when they hear Christians talking about nonviolence. That is certainly something I have come across in my nonviolence work.
I also think it’s less confronting when Buddhist say it for the reasons you mention: we think Buddhists are non-threatening, often de-politicised, cuddly, etc. I don’t think Buddhists are these things, but that’s the way they are often portrayed in our society.
So when they talk about ahimsa, we hear spiritual, personal nonviolence, rather than a challenge to the systems and structures of violence. That’s not threatening to anyone. When Christians talk about nonviolence, they are always explicitly talking about those systems and structures, and often acting boldly in opposition to them. When we get it right, that’s very threatening to the upholders of the status quo!

LikeLike

Reply
Matt Stone

2010-08-02

Justin, good observation about the personal/individualistic emphasis of Buddhist nonviolence teaching in contrast to the political/systemic emphasis of Christian nonviolence teaching. Yoder distinguished between vocational nonviolence, characteristic of state sanctioned monastic systems, and countercultural nonviolence, characteristic of state repressed reforming communities. Buddhist teachers tend to be more representative of the monastic type than the reforming type, barring a few exceptions. After all, most Dalai Lamas have commanded armies without seeing that as a violation of ahimsa.
Oh, and note, why I’ve countered John has nothing to do with an inability to acknowledge hypocracy in the history of Christianity. Rather it’s his own tendancy to throw rocks at others for non being “open”, when he’s rather closed himself. John doesn’t want Christianity to be any different, he likes it being the boogyman.

LikeLike

Reply