Thomas Reynolds and Violence in Monotheism

After reading numerous academic papers arguing that religion is inherently violent, Thomas Reynolds' paper titled Beyond Violence in Monotheism was a welcome change. Reynolds (2009) takes a new stance on the issue of religious violence by offering a peace-making reading of monotheistic traditions. He foregrounds a potentially universal and interreligious God of justice, compassion and mercy.

Reynolds (2009: 81) firstly highlights the fact that many who write about religious violence implicate the notion of monotheism. He says that these academics deem monotheism to serve a dangerous purpose. They translate the belief in one God into claims of absolutism that in turn lead to intolerance and rivalry (Reynolds 2009: 81). Therefore, to many scholars, monotheism, or the utter belief in one true God, leads to violence. However, although it has become so easy to blame religion for the violence in our world, it is just as easy to say that the affirmation of God is fundamentally about peace (Reynolds 2009: 81).

According to Reynolds (2009: 81), “the affirmation of one God can in fact cultivate a self-transcending posture of concern for others.” In this sense, God becomes a potentially universal and interreligious God of justice, compassion and mercy (Reynolds 2009: 82). This therefore translates as a peace-making reading of monotheistic traditions.

Reynolds' (2009: 81) “God of peace” is subject to human corruption however and this is where the idea of religious violence arises. One cannot deny that monotheistic religions, including Islam, Judaism and Christianity, have been violent throughout history. Although these religions have been involved in extraordinary acts of compassion and generosity, they have also participated in many occasions of bigotry and violence.

Later in his paper, Reynolds (2009: 81) draws upon Rene Girard's notion of violence and desire. Girard believes that violence begins with desire (Reynolds 2009: 84). As human beings, we desire what someone else desires. So, the act of desire creates a kind of rivalry between the desiring parties. This, in turn, leads to violence. However, this does not make much sense. For instance, what is there to desire between the Abrahamic faiths (Islam, Judaism and Christianity)? These religions all believe in the same one almighty God. So, what is it that they truly desire from each other? For instance, Islam cannot logically believe their God to be any better than the God of Judaism or Christianity because they are the one and same God. Why can’t these religions accept that they share the one God and continue in peaceful co-existence? Is violence and hatred really easier than peace?

No culture, tradition, political scheme or religion can contain or exhaust the fundamental "mystery of God" (Reynolds 2009: 99). No person really knows how many God/s there are or if there are any God/s at all. One simply puts trust in their own beliefs. Therefore, no religion can be said to be better than another. For instance, all adherents of Abrahamic faiths believe in the one almighty God. So, it can be argued that the imaginative naming of God invites solidarity among these religions (Reynolds 2009: 100). Despite their differences, their singular belief in the same God should create unity and acceptance among the groups rather than violence. This again raises the idea of a potentially universal and interreligious God. So, why doesn't this interreligious God create solidarity among the Abrahamic faiths? Why is this not a mechanism for peace-making? What is there to be violent about when all Abrahamic faiths believe in the one God?

Reference

Reynolds, T.E. (2009). Beyond Violence in Monotheism: Interfaith Possibilities. Studies in Interreligious Dialogue 19 (1): 81-101.