in my last post about non-violence, i had some good comments about defense of others/nations.
i want to write just a little about that tonight.
let me ask a few questions: is one life more valuable than another? if so, who determines who should live and who should die? are two lives more valuable than one? if so, is it acceptable to murder one person to save two? is one nation more important than another? if so, can we destroy one so another may prosper?
these may seem like easy questions, but i think that if we really dig deep and try to answer honestly, they wont come quite so easily. i dont believe that we can put a premium on some people’s lives and not on others. Yeshua didnt say “love your neighbor and hate your enemy”. instead, He said the opposite, “love your enemy and do good to those who harm you.”
if all people have intrinsic worth as beings created in God’s image, who are we to take their lives? as i mentioned in the past post, paul comments that this is God’s role. i truly believe God alone has the right to decide life and death. with this said, there are certain guidelines that God gives for the proper place of judgment. but first, we have to remember that these guidelines are from within a nation alone. He doesnt tell us which wars are acceptable and which are not. yet, He does from time to time allow/authorize wars in the Tanakh, which is of course extremely important to recognize.
but with all that said, God is the decider of human life. and although in the past God may have authorized His people to go to war, He no longer does so. when was the last time God told us through a prophet that we were to smite the Canaanites?
anyway, when these OT wars are brought up, we also neglect to recognize that these wars werent within our western tradition of “just wars”. they were genocide, plain and simple, an extermination of a people. so if we are to follow these as license to go to war today, does this mean genocide is completely acceptable?!
anyway, back on track, what happens when there are multiple people who will saved from the killing of another? does any of us ever truly know of someone will live or die? not really. there are babies that are aborted all the time that then go on to live and grow up. there are fatally ill cancer patients who miraculously recover. there are men left for dead on the battle field who end up living. this i think goes back to the point that God alone determines life and death. so when we say that multiple people WILL die because of one person, it isnt true. we dont know what will happen. one could hypothesize whether or not we should have killed an evil genocidal leader before he committed atrocities, but this wouldnt really change anything. God still remains in control of life and death. and murdering a person is still murder.
now, the big issue comes when we then talk about war at a national level. someone when we have a group of people we call a “country” we somehow think that murder on the national level is justified. yet, what really is the difference between an individual murderer and a nation who is going to kill thousands/millions in war?
the real difference is that one person is probably only killing one or two people, but the nation will kill many. and the ones they dont kill they will injure and the ones that arent injured will have their daughters raped and the ones who dont have this happen will have their crops burned and their houses destroyed. and the ones who kill will have it on their conscience for the rest of their lives. no my friend, war (even a “good” war and a “just” war) does much more damage to many, many lives than a single murder. so let me leave us with this question, why would we think that it is okay to kill in the name of our country???
Filed under: Non-Violence, Religion
Peter,
Good to meet you today. Doing anything ‘in the name of a nation’ is a tricky business for members of the Kingdom of God. It’s why I cannot say the Pledge of Allegiance in good conscience with my son’s school every morning.
But the questions you pose have bothered me on a local level as well. Some kind of force has to be used to stop certain actions. Morally speaking, people most often act out of necessity, not out of some moral philosophy per se.
For instance, if someone is attacking one of my daughters, I will physically seek to stop it. I will use my body or a weapon if need be, to scale the force to end the violence. If I call the police in this instance, I am still advocating the use of violence, just through an emissary. Because the police will have to use some type of violence to subdue someone, force is a necessity of restraining the evil hearts of men. So what kind of violence is the pacifist advocating that will explicate his/her pacifism in these nefarious situations?
I use force all the time with my children to both restrain their evil and better their relationship with each other and God. It is exactly this scale of force issue, that finds its height in lethality, that I rarely if ever see addressed in popular pacifism. I have very little knowledge of the grander conversation, so I don’t even yet have a structure in place that allows me to answer the questions I have postulated here.
But even more basically, how do we justify the use of force (fatal or not) at a local level that is commensurate with the national level? Or can they ever be commensurate?
These are just some scattered thoughts. BTW- I think the issue of herem warfare has been sufficiently abused as you point out and I often challenge Christians to justify capital punishment outside of the theocratic constraints of the closed Israelite society. I don’t think these are the issue for us (although they factor in), but the scale of violence/force from active restraint to lethal force must be justified in our homes and municipalities as well.
dru
it was great meeting you too. funny how things worked out like that.
thanks for commenting on this post. first, i want to say i think you are right about your comment about finding the “scale of violence/force from active restraint to lethal force”. this is the central issue in my mind.
second, there is a difference between pacifism and nonviolence. pacifism is generally defined as those who reject all use of force. whereas nonviolence generally allows certain use of force, however no violent force.
so the real question becomes, what is “violence”? or “acceptable violence”?
i think the answer will determine where each of us stands on the fence. Personally, I feel that there is no “acceptable violence”. But this is because of how I define violence.
So let me start there. I do believe that force is okay in center circumstances. (actually let me go off track for a moment and say that I think violence and force are okay, just not for followers of Messiah) with that said, I think there is appropriate use of force for us. However, this would be quite limited. You mentioned you would stop someone from harming your daughters even with a weapon. Sure, this also depends on what kind of weapon and level of force. If that weapon were a police baton and you used it without beating the person to death, then sure.
However, if that weapon were a gun or a knife, then I have to personally say that I do not feel comfortable using this kind of force. I truly believe that I am supposed to love my enemy. This includes the enemy who is attacking my family. Now, “loving” one’s enemy doesn’t mean that we don’t resist them when they attempt evil, but I personally cannot find a way to justify taking their lives in order to “save” another person.
This really goes back to this post where I discuss who controls life and death. I have no question that I am supposed to act to resist evil (in any form), but I also feel that I am NOT to use evil means. So if that meant killing another person, I cannot do it. I just cant find a way that killing is ever loving to them.
So now the real question of conflict of interests comes up. Let me try to discuss that a little further in my next post, though.
Does this make sense?
peter
Yep, that makes sense. This is why I gave up on a handgun or rifle as home defense and opted for the big ole maglight option (although I do think there is some justification for particular shotguns). Blind em’ and beat em’, that’s my way.
But I also am concerned about the emissarial use of force (re calling the police). When I call the police, I am endorsing the use of lethal violence if it scales to that. My gut reaction from (having lived through some violence as a skinhead and in combat zones) is that all nonviolence stances will suffer if they attempt a rule-based theory (re “No lethal force can be used ever.”) Real evil and real violence are messy and the scale of force has to be applied haphazardly.
Your position doesn’t seem in danger of rule-based morality, but we both probably know people who hold to some absolutist nonviolence that frankly does not reflect the fallenness of reality. Thanks for prodding me on to think about this further. I’m going to be in Brazil for the next 5 weeks, but we should grab something and chat sometime (coffee or beer).
Dru
dru
sounds great…i look forward to your return.
peter
But Romans thirteen says that they are given the sword as ministers of God for a reason -this after saying that we should not seek to take revenge- leaving me to believe that the government is God’s agent through which his vengeance is dealt sometimes. They may be evil and may not do as God would have them do but there position is appointed by God for that purpose. If it is violent, it is simply a violent official of the Kingdom of America handling a violent civilian of the Kingdom of America. At least I am not attacking someone and thus taking upon myself the Lord’s name in vein and shame to my Kingdom.
Many people think that being a Christian is not supposed to make us doormats. I do believe that a husband is to lay down his life for his wife, and I would probably defend with as little force as is necessary, but I think being the world’s doormat is the essence of the Gospel. I mean, where do you put a doormat? At the entrance to the house, duh! Jesus trusted himself to a righteous judge and he was unjustly crucified by people who had no right. What does that say to us? Well it says that no matter what happens, if you trust in God and go willingly (i.e. take up your cross) you might get crucified.
But you are not your own. How is it that a tyrant like Caesar can have men who know that they are not their own and be willing to die for their king but we who have a good King are not willing to even be inconvinienced? We need to learn what it is like to have a King and to not think of ourselves first. We need to learn that it is important that we please our King. If you trust in God all you have to worry about is are you pleasing God. The rest will be in the hands of a powerful God. You do well to do so because it shows the level of faith and trust you have in him. If you seek to avenge yourself that does nothing but scream, “I don’t believe you!” at the very God who said he’d handle it.
It sounds exceptionally pious but it shouldn’t. What do we claim to be and what does that mean to us? Did we change or did we just swap hangouts and friends? I have been living like that for a year and a half and what an amazing trip. I wanted to serve a family who had no means by which to get hot water or heat in their house because their propane tank was not installed and they were out of money and a guy wanting a thousand dollars to help them. I know a little about that sort of thing so I began figuring ways to get their half full tank from the front yard to where there inlet is but I couldn’t budge it. I said a prayer the second night of thinking on it and by the next morning there was a flood that rose up to three feet and stayed there for a half hour, just long enough to roll the tank on its side and slide it around the house. The flood was gone inside of two hours with no repercussion. It had not flooded in twenty five years. I don’t think it was coincidence and I could tell stories all day long about this sort of thing. The best thing is, I didn’t have to worry about how I can serve God. I just had to show up.
Trust in God and make yourself available, forsaking everything. Violence? What violence? You mean the guy wiping his feet off on me? I hope he enters in. Praise the Lord.
Sam
sam
thanks for the comments. i think you made some wonderful points. you sounded almost exactly the same as me on these issues. although of course there is room for difference of opinion about non-violence, i believe you are right, we MUST be willing to be a doormat for our King.
great thoughts.
peter
Your discussion on proportional use of force is incredibly familiar to me as an ex-cop. As a DT instructor, I also have to emphasize the appropriate level of response on the “force continuum.” Law Enforcement agencies train ad nauseum on arenas like this because it is legally important to not overstep one’s authority and position as an officer of the peace when stopping violence. The officer’s response is solely decided by the offender’s action.
This kind of cause and effect relationship would seem to shift some of the responsibility to the criminal for any injuries sustained, or even his death. That said, if a terrorist knows that to try and harm or kill a soldier could very likely end in his death, as a result of their self defense, is it necessarily the soldier’s hand that is doing the killing? Or could it be suicide?
I say this more as a devil’s advocate and to discuss the legal aspects of killing than anything else, but there is a real issue here. As a Chaplain Candidate, I’ve been told that I may not pick up a weapon on the battlefield to defend a wounded soldier (or myself for that matter!). I promptly told them what I thought of that novel idea, as I find it my Christian duty to stand and defend (if need be, die for) the soldiers under my care.
A shepherd does not carry a staff for decoration, but to fight off the wolves. While I won’t go hunting for them, I certainly would not be able, in good conscience, to allow the wolf to ravage my flock while I sit idly by.
(And I hope I do not come off as offensive in this, as I am probably about as passionate about this topic as you are, but for slightly different reasons.
)
brad
no worries…you dont offend…with that said, what if we arent the sheep???
what if “we” (whatever group we are a part of at the time) are the wolves and they are the sheep?? what then??
peter
What if the wolf you are defending against is himself part of Christ’s flock? What if he, like other Christians, has read into the Bible the idea that we as Christian have some sort of responsibility to our government and therefore went to the field of Battle and began blowing away other Christians who have the same idea because those who should be shepherds are telling them that that nonsense is true? What if, while trying to defend the lives of the flock, Peter and the others decided to route Saul on the way to Damascus and kill him so that he wouldn’t take anymore Christian lives?
If we Trust in Him who judges righteously, we might be crucified. But we were bought with a price. We need to know what it is like to have a King. We should not be taking lives on any field of Battle. Where do we get the idea that America or the country we’re born in is ” The Kingdom of God”? Isaiah 2 says,
“And He will judge between the nations,
And will render decisions for many peoples;
And they will hammer their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks
Gentile will not lift up sword against gentile,
And never again will they learn war.
This is a reference to the Church (or Kingdom) Age. We should not be learning war. This is a crime against God’s intentions. The nations of this world will follow after their God and war against each other but, “No soldier in active service entangles himself in the affairs of everyday life, so that he may please the one who enlisted him as a soldier.” We are enlisted for the work of God. War is wholesale murder of men women and children for causes that are not of God.
Thoughts?
Sam