Lest Innocent Blood Be Shed

A central conflict in the book is between violent and nonviolent resistance to an evil or destructive force. Associated with that conflict is the distinction between positive and negative ethics. Negative ethics require abstaining from doing harm, one example of which is the Ten Commandments, which prohibit certain harm-causing actions. Positive ethics go further and require action to prevent harm: The book mentions the Good Samaritan passage in the Bible as an example. Both sides of the resistance were trying to practice positive ethics and prevent great harm. However, only Le Chambon’s nonviolent actions successfully combined both ethics. This success was largely the result of Trocmé’s personal adherence to nonviolence, which arose from the death of his mother, his meeting of Kindler during World War I, and his interpretation of the Bible.

When Trocmé was arrested, his parishioners rallied around him. In addition to giving him affection and gifts, they gave him spiritual support, asking what harm or evil he’d done to justify his arrest:

The French word mal means both ‘evil’ and ‘harm,’ and the rhetorical question meant: ‘We know that the laws of Vichy and the Nazis have been broken by you and by us, but we have done no evil because we have done no harm to our fellowman; in fact, we have tried to help those whom the law was designed to hurt’ (22).

This definition of the double meaning of the French mal shows that evil and harm were linguistically and culturally connected for the Chambonnais. The response to Trocmé’s arrest underscores the occasional necessity to break rules that, like “thou shalt not bear false witness,” are designed to prevent harm but can, in extreme situations, increase harm. This was especially challenging for Trocmé and Magda. When Trocmé was detained in Valence, he planned to be truthful about his identity because he would only put himself, rather than others, at risk of harm. Circumstance saved him from that choice, but he would lie only out of the necessity to protect others: To betray his ethical core did more harm to him than any physical harm he might have experienced as a result of honesty.

Trocmé was a fervent adherent of nonviolent action because of several formative events in his early life. His mother’s death showed him the sanctity of human life and the potential for redemption in those who do harm. His father’s anger was the cause of the car accident, so the violence of emotion caused the violent act that accidentally killed Trocmé’s mother. Because Trocmé’s father was the perpetrator and felt genuine remorse, Trocmé learned early that the value of the perpetrator is not less than that of the victim, so resisting violence through nonviolence is the only ethical way to prevent more harm. Trocmé’s encounter with Kindler in World War I further reinforced the power of nonviolence and clarified the relationship between nonviolence and religious faith. Because of Kindler’s religious awakening, he could participate in the military while actively refusing to be violent or carry a weapon. This inspired Trocmé and taught him that nonviolence was even an option during war.

The courage and resilience necessary for Le Chambon’s continued dedication to nonviolence and resistance sprang in large part from Trocmé’s conviction and massive influence on people. He delivered that conviction to the villagers partly through his sermons, which focused on the story of the Good Samaritan and the City of Refuge in Deuteronomy. The Good Samaritan teaches that it is not sufficient to refrain from doing harm. To avoid the sin of doing harm, one must provide aid and protection to those who are harmed or in danger. Furthermore, the story of the City of Refuge shows that if one welcomes those fleeing harm into one’s home or town, one must be willing to do whatever is necessary to protect them. As a result, the people of Le Chambon essentially received a biblical commandment to protect others from harm when possible.