Most people don't desire to be violent. Most people do not plan on being violent. Most people dislike and try to avoid violence. In my experience, most people say "I'm not a violent person, but I'll use it as a last resort if I have to."
I used to say the same thing. I want to address the misconception that those of us who leave violence as a last resort don't value violence highly. I also want to explain why I think this philosophy is misleading to the people who hold it, making them victims of their own philosophies (usually taught to them by the communities that raised and currently nurture them). Perhaps a lot of this is a reflection of who I've been but from what I have encountered I believe this may be true of a great many other people as well.
Anytime we say we'll use violence "...if I have to" we make the assumption that we have a deep need for violence. This is ultimately untrue. Such a perspective holds within it a false view of reality. For we do not truly need violence or else we would cease to progress or exist without it. That is, if violence were eliminated, we would go along with it into all that which is not. Unlike oxygen, this is not the case.* When looking at the problem with greater honesty we must admit that such a statement is only made under the knowledge that violence already exists in this world and is often a great problem. Even scripture makes this fact clear (Genesis 6:11-13, Proverbs 16:29). Let us then continue under this premise.
Depending upon what we value, we may find violence to be a very helpful means towards keeping our values safe. For instance, if we care about not dying then there will be times when violence will be the most effective option for saving our skin, as it were. If we desire peace on earth, violence won't achieve that goal because peace requires far more than the absence of war or violence. So really, this issue comes down to the matter of values and not merely means. Our values and goals will help to determine our means.
If I value the gospel of Christ over my own life, then dying is not something I fear or feel the need to fight against with certain tactics, such as violence, because the gospel of Christ holds within it a mandate to love my neighbor and endure suffering just as Christ Jesus did. If, however, I value my own ability to breathe another day more than the gospel or more than anything that may call me away from the use of violence, then I am wise to employ violent tactics when they would be most helpful for they aid me in upholding my values and reaching my goals.**
The point being made is that the only way we have some type of "need" for violence is if we are so persuaded within our own minds that we have such a need. Even then, in reality, it is a desire for violence and not a need. It is a view and not a fact. Reality and our perspective say two different things about what we need. We are merely convinced. In our persuasion we identify our desire as our need. This is in no way uncommon to mankind. Violence is merely a tactic we reserve as a means of upholding our own values and achieving our own goals. It may be an effective tool, even the most effective, in such pursuits but that still does not make it a true need but rather a relative need, that is, not a need at all but a decision (or secondary value).
Up to this point we have looked at how we view violence in the realm of values and needs. We have kept the discussion predominantly in the realm of language. Therefor, let us move forward by looking at the affects of violence as being held in the category of "last resort."
Again, most people don't desire to employ violence to achieve their goals or uphold their values. At least, they don't think or claim that they desire this. I tend to believe them. As a result many people hold violence as a "last resort" without recognizing the problems that come with such a perspective.
To have an identified last resort may actually increases the odds that such a tactic will be employed than if it were unnamed. For naming the tactic, giving it a place (when other tactics simply float in the headspace), makes such a tactic unique and more thought about.
When one has a last resort strategy that they believe is an end-all or some sort of reliable trump card, the person becomes far more likely to become lazy in their development of other tactics. If I buy a handgun and keep it under my pillow, I will be less likely to learn about tactics which are aimed more at an assailants psychological state. It would be easier to go to my gun than to try and discover the motives of my assailant and then meet their needs (sacrificing my safety for their well-being). One strategy might keep me safe at best but another might begin a relationship that keeps me safe and heals the assailant at best.
A last resort tempts us to use it before it's time. This is the greatest danger a last resort tactic such as violence can have when it comes to conflict resolution (especially for the Christian who must embrace reconciliation and restoration of others above self preservation). When we panic or when fear finds us, the temptation to skip straight to our last resort (usually a tactic we don't desire to use most of the time because we put it low on our value scale for some reason) finds us as well.
If we do not work hard to develop creative strategies, that are not violent, to help us achieve our goals and uphold our values in times when those values and goals are threatened then we will more quickly rush to our last resort for we will not know what else to do. We have made our last resort a dependable foundation. Because we've reminded ourselves it is available to us for so long (and probably neglected to develop other strategies and thus made them unavailable to ourselves) we will find it the most attractive of options. In this situation, our last resort is no longer a last resort at all.
The reason that our last resort creates such a temptation is because a last resort is also a commitment. Though we often wish to view last resorts as unlikely possibilities they are actually more like unfortunate commitments. We don't desire to employ them but we're committed to doing so, that's why we've deemed them the "last resort", because we will use them if we deem it necessary. If the conditional arises, we've made a commitment to a specific strategy. This can be dangerous as I've shared before.
Violence is too easy. To have a gun under the pillow, to bring damage to our enemy, these things are too easy. We think bad people bring violence upon others and so we don't want to be violent, but we say we shall be violent against violent people because it makes sense to us, because we've told ourselves it will work, because it's working for the enemy, because everyone has told us to, and because it's been done for so long in our human history we can't conceive how a vulnerable strategy could bring a valuable result (If we know the gospel then this becomes more difficult for it was the weak God who conquered the strong death).
We have valued violence. We value our last resort more than the resorts we refuse to develop for we have named it and in so doing kept it as a constant reminder. We have made ourselves faithful to our last result by making it a commitment while we have often never named other tactics and only assumed their presence, never committing to them at all. We've assumed we'll know what to do in crisis but when crisis comes we soon learn we've not valued the development of tactics and skills that could help both us and the enemy and we run back to our faithfulness last resort, the only tactic we've ever truly valued with consistency.
I'm painting with a broad brush. Many people develop various crisis strategies but I'm willing to bet that more don't. I'm willing to bet that most of us who keep violence in our back pocket or under our pillow don't have many other tactics in our hands ready to be deployed. The reason? If we're honest? ...We don't need them. Our last resort has our faithfulness, our trust, our heart. Deep down, we want our violence. We don't want to let it go because once that backdoor is closed we are forced to be creative and actually work hard to develop other strategies, possibly risky and vulnerable strategies. It's easier to run out the door than jump out a window or hide under floorboards.
If we let go of violence we will have to begin thinking more about our enemy, thinking about ways to stop them and protect them (maybe not in that order). We will start seeing our enemy differently because we will have declared they are too valuable for us to bring violence against them. When we enter that space the struggle becomes greater because we now have more values to uphold, more goals to reach, and very few strategies already made ready for us because nobody has taught us the way of nonviolence. We've not yet been armed and this scares us. As we've learned from Kung Fu movies, the training will take a lot from us and this is scary.
Violence is easy. It's been around. We've been told we can trust it. It's been put upon us our entire lives. We've been told it's a need and not merely a desire. We see it in the hands of our enemies and we think that if we have the weapons they have then we'll have a fighting chance.
When we keep violence as a last resort we make it clear than we value violence far more than we ever admit. Whether we can see it or not (I never could), we desire violence to be in our hands because we trust it and we value it. If we did not respect it, trust it, and think it a blessing in times of crisis then we would not make it an option, not even a "last resort." We would then seek other ways. Even when we call it a necessary evil we claim we need it. We choose to need what we call an evil, a thing we despise others for. We value it, but only when it is within our own hands and for the sake of what we value.
I believe we keep violence as a last resort because another way has not been modeled for us enough. We have been taught to trust violence. Maybe we're scared of a life in which we can't access violence, maybe we're too lazy to develop other strategies, maybe we never gave it any thought, or maybe we're convinced the love of Christ looks like a handgun under a pillow.
I can't say what the case is for everyone. For me, I was trained in violence and trusted it, not knowing how much of my heart it had. Nonviolence and the way of Christ (who suffers for the sake of his enemies) scared me. That lifestyle threatened my values and unveiled my fears. It horrified me. It still horrifies me. Yet I've been taught by the God who saves his people, who delivers the enemies of his people into their hands, who becomes weak and still overcomes, that faith in his way is best and that he demonstrated a life void of violence and asked me to live as he did.
Proverbs 3:31-32: "Do not envy a man of violence and do not choose any of his ways, for the devious person is an abomination to the Lord, but the upright are in his confidence" [emphasis mine].
*This, is seen as a strange notion even more so when we think about the point of violence. Violence is employed to bring harm or a type of damage or destruction. If it does not totally destroy then it impairs, damages, or brings the object which receives the violence to a less productive and healthy state. How we could need such a damaging thing to progress makes little sense. While true, there are times when pain is a part of progress and unwanted procedures must be employed to bring about healing, such as surgeries, dental work, and the like, we must remember that there is a great difference between the shooting or stabbing of a man and the removing of one's appendix. We don't put our doctors in jail for minor surgery. We don't tend to call force that helps a person violence but rather force that does the opposite.
**Perhaps it seems unfair that I make the claim that the gospel calls us to a lifestyle of nonviolence. I can see that perspective. What I mean is that Jesus never employs violence against another person and we are called to model our lives after his, and in that simplification we have a call to a type of nonviolence.
By T.G. Blankenship at The Gethsemane Blog
True
Comments (60)
@Nous_Apeiron@xanga - Being awesome takes practice, but it's the American Way.
Anyone can and should become awesome.
It's our birthright.
@IfIOnlyKnewThen@xanga - no no no, your wife must never be raped, she must willingly give herself after all we are commanded not to resist an evil man right? if someone demands your robe give him your cloak as well and so on..
[in case you didn't catch on(since text doesn't convey tone very well and you don't know me) i'm simply taking the OPs opinion to its furthest(and most ridiculous) logical conclusion.]
...of course then you have the option of divorcing your wife on grounds of adultery.
@TheGreatBout@xanga - Hey, I submitted comments twice to your Gethsemane blog but they did not "take." I submitted under my Wordpress username since that was one of the options but... no dice :( so I'll comment here.
I don't embrace a philosophy of total non-violence even though I do see that in Jesus. For one thing, we are dealing mostly in hypotheticals... in the real world I love my enemies in many ways every day. However, if that moment should ever come when my loved one (or even a stranger) must either be defended physically or suffer harm, I know I will defend, so it's no use trying to adopt a principle I won't live by. Take a moment to think through one simple hypothetical:
My wife and I are accosted. I try to interpose myself non-violently but that doesn't work... I get conked badly and fall down. Now my wife is being assaulted. Her life is in imminent danger. I can make another "non-violent" attempt and (most likely) get hurt even worse. Nevertheless, I adhere to my principle of non-violence, my wife is either killed or injured, the perp escapes... but at least I "loved my enemy" by not assaulting him. Mind you - my wife may be dead at this point.
OR... from the start I can physically defend us both by any means necessary, stop the assault, and possibly hold this violent person for the duly appointed authorities. My wife and I will go on with our lives, thankful to be alive and well.
Given choices like this - and I don't think it's entirely unrealistic - there is simply no way I will put my principle of total non-violence over the life and safety of my family. And because defensive action is not motivated by hatred or greed or evil intention, I am confident that Jesus understands. And I think many if not most sincere believers in Christ would feel and do the same. We are human after all.
@IfIOnlyKnewThen@xanga - Sorry about my blog. I don't know what to say. I'll look at it and see if I can fix that problem.
I'm intrigued by your wording. If you see "total non-violence" in Jesus why do you choose to not embrace it?
@TheGreatBout@xanga - The "total non-violence" I see in Jesus was a product of his mission and purpose. Obviously he allowed himself to be assaulted - it was the very reason he came. Likewise, persecution for the sake of our testimony about Christ is also to be expected, and our reaction to that - if any - is to flee. Those are special cases.
When it comes to loving our enemies we don't have an explicit example of Jesus applying that to a self-defense / family defense situation. I believe there is room to question whether he meant for us to not defend our loved ones when the attack is an unprovoked criminal assault rather than persecution. And by "defend" I mean whatever physical force is necessary.
To love our enemies implies - to me - that my enemy knows me and bears some sort of grudge or evil against me. I love him/her by blessing when they curse, praying for their good, being kind to them, etc.
The attitude of my heart is the focus here - instead of bearing unforgiveness and hatred toward my "enemies" I love them. There is no hatred or unforgiveness involved in defensive action, only the desire to see the situation resolved with minimal injury or loss of life. So I am not giving in to violence fueled by evil or hatred, but taking action based on love and a desire to peace / safety. I'm not repaying evil with evil because my heart intentions are not evil. And for me that makes all the difference.
@IfIOnlyKnewThen@xanga - Where do you see Jesus' defense of the women caught in adultery landing in all this? To me that's always looked like nonviolent defense of someone else against a violent mob (even justifiable violence in some respects according to the law).
I look at the teaching of turning the other cheek (along with the early church response to it) and can't help but think the enemy isn't anyone coming against us. When I don't see writings about Christians defending themselves/others with violence or the debate between reacting to any violence or only persecuting violence existing in the church for hundreds of years I end up thinking that the debate didn't exist because all those believers knew that when the messiah came they were to beat their swords into plowshares and give up their violent and domineering ways. There doesn't seem to be the division we often make. It all seemed tied together.I guess that's always been a big part of the persuasion for me, the early church witness.
Out of curiosity again, how do you determine what is for Christ and not for his followers who are to imitate him in your discipleship process? When you read the Gospels how do you mark what is only for Christ and what is also for you/me/all of us?
@TheGreatBout@xanga - well, I think the woman caught in adultery is quite a defferent situation from a mob of rapists / robbers attacking a woman in front of Jesus. In the case of the woman, her accusers were wanting to carry out God's law (as they understood it). More importantly, they wanted Jesus' opinion on the matter, probably to trap him in his words. This scenario played right into Jesus' desire to teach mercy and compassion over self-righteousness, and his words had the desired convicting effect.
So this was not simply a mob of evil, violent men bent on harming and killing. Like I said, there are no concrete examples of that type in the Bible from which we can concluded that Jesus - or his disciples - would not physically intervene. If such were the case, then loving the enemy (the attacker) would take precedence over loving the victim (by defending her). Loving one's neighbor - as described in the parable - is a practical, earthly love where human needs are met. The need for protection from attack is certainly a vital human need, as necessary as food or clothing or shelter. To withhold such protection in the name of non-violence is to withhold love for my neighbor. And as I've said before, I don't think we show love to our enemies by allowing them to carry out wicked acts of violence. If we stop them by physical force, we are - in my opinion - doing good to them.
Is it possible that no debate existed in the early church because it has always been a matter of common sense that Christians can defend themselves and others from violent criminal attack?
Jesus is our example in many things, and his teachings inform us how we ought to think about life and God. But he also has to be interpreted into situations that were not directly addressed by him. Your interpretation of his non-violent life and ministry is to embrace total non-violence in every life circumstance. My interpretation is to see violence as inappropriate in most situations, but physical action / intervention as permissable in some situations. I arrive at that by balancing "love your enemy" with "love your neighbor" and how love can be expressed to both when they are in violent conflict.
@IfIOnlyKnewThen@xanga - I've not found any material arguing for violent self defense until hundreds of years into church history (post resurrection). Fighting for the state became socially permissible in the church before self defense did. Not even the early works that developed Just War Theory condoned self defense. For that reason I tend to find it unlikely that it was understood as common sense that Christians were allowed it. It doesn't seem to be something people fought for until later on.
To be clear, I'm not sure I'd characterize my philosophy as "total nonviolence." I'm okay with using some physical force. I'd agree with you heavily that withholding help from someone in trouble for the sake of the idea of nonviolence is a terrible thing. That's legalism and it's evil. I don't want to argue for that, ever. What I do want to wrestle out (like you do) is how I can possibly love my enemy in the process of loving my neighbor. I feel as though we too often want to love the neighbor when dealing with the enemy instead of loving both. In a time of trouble or opposition my duty is to ask "How do I love this person (a child of God) as Christ would?" Whatever I do to protect another child of God must fall under the means found in the answers to that question. Of course, they'll vary.
I have trouble with the notion that we do good to someone when we bring them some harm for the sake of keeping them from committing a physical act of evil. I'm all for grabbing my drunk brother and wrestling him to the ground and holding him there before he beats his wife in his stupor but some people want to argue that shooting first is an act of love because it keeps someone from sinning (you're not exactly saying that). But like you said earlier, God is concerned with the heart so we need to address the heart above all else. This is an idea I'd like to investigate more and think upon. What's our role in keeping people from committing their own sin? I've always understood our role to be living as a witness and speaking truth others, loving them sacrificially. This would be an interesting discussion.
For you, what are your limits in the force you'll bring against an enemy when attempting to protect self or neighbor? Does it depend upon if you are attempting to defend self, neighbor, or loved one?
@TheGreatBout@xanga - It's kind of humorous in a way, to think that when faced with a quickly unfolding dangerous situation I might stop to think, "Now how can I love both the victim and the attacker in this situation?" If God's love is really shed abroad in our hearts and we are walking in fellowship with Him every day, our natural instincts ought to flow from that love without having to ponder or analyze too much.
Where I work we get quite an assortment of customers - some pleasant and some off their rocker - and I've had to intervene in a few potential altercations. So far all have been resolved peacefully. But I work with several young ladies and if one of our unruly patrons ever grabbed one and began punching or whatever, my instinct (even as a believer) is going to be to grab that SOB, and if I'm not strong enough to pry him away I will definitely kick, punch, knee, or whatever is necessary to get him off her. It literally makes no sense to me in such a situation to even consider that my witness ought to be speaking truth / loving sacrificially. No... get him off her, make sure she's ok, then tend to him if he needs tending.
In such situation, it seems to me that we can't do all things in an "ideal" way. Ideally we show love by peaceful actions, truthful words, kind deeds, etc. but in some situations these approaches are inappropriate. Maybe after the fact an opportunity will present itself to witness to this violent person - I'll certainly pray for him - but at the time of attack something must be done right now, or greater harm will come to the victim. That is the immediate reality. And I wouldn't limit myself to wrestling someone to the ground, especially if I am unable to do so.
I don't go around trying to keep people from sinning, but that is a secondary effect of physical intervention. My first priority - and the reason I would act - is the safety of the victim. I'm a believer, I pray daily, I endeaver to understand God's Word and what it means for Jesus to be Lord of my life. And I really don't get any sense of disapproval in my spirit for my willingness to defend another person from attack. When it comes to guns - well, I don't carry a gun. I don't have any desire to end someone's life. But knock them on the head... yeah, I'll do that, and they'll live, and life will go on.
@IfIOnlyKnewThen@xanga - I disagree that God's love being in us means we won't need to engage our mind in moments of high crisis in order to stay faithful to that love. We're bad enough at it in times of low crisis. We also sin and there is a tension within us. His presence doesn't make us perfect in each moment. It's work, it's discipline. I'll tell ya, I've been in those quickly unfolding dangerous situations and had those kinds of thoughts. I thought about keeping everyone safe and how I could look out for the person causing the danger. To me, it's not all that far out a notion because it's been reality. Even Christ does this on the cross as he asks God to forgive those crucifying him.
I can't agree that truthful words, peaceful action, or kind deeds are ever inappropriate things. That doesn't seem to match up with the teachings of Christ that I've read in scripture. I have difficulty seeing the prince of Peace who said "blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called children of God" (Matthew 5:9) also say there are times to not be peaceful, the man who called himself "the Truth" say that we should abandon truthful speech, or the man who promised us his Spirit with it's fruit (of which kindness is a part) tell us that kind deeds are not something to be employed whenever possible.
I think part of the process of loving our enemies is seeing them as people just like us, not referring to them as sons of bitches, monsters, or anything other than what they are. Maybe they're an assailant, a rapist, a murderer, a coward, but that doesn't mean we need to convince ourselves that they're anything but sinful people like ourselves.
Honestly, we have pretty similar lines drawn for ourselves in regards to physical action. Not identical, but similar. I appreciate all your input man. Thanks for always dialoguing.