Violence, revisited
A friend intro'd me to podcasts (available for free with a few quick clicks on iTunes). I thought I'd share an interesting quote from the podcast I listened to last night. I already posted that I am anti-war, but I like the way these guys phrase their answers, so I share them with you. Enjoy.
Q: "Is there ever a time when violence would be justified? Should the US be involved in militarily intervening in ending genocidial wars?" - podcast moderator
A: "For starters, America is not a christian nation. This is not a theocracy, and while our founding fathers had some christian ideas in framing a great document, this is not a christian nation. And it shouldnt suprise us when the actions of our nation dont line up with the bible. That shouldnt be a huge shock. America is not a 'new Israel'. We are not God's chosen political people on the earth, carrying out his will, punishing people or dealing out his judgement. That said, there is a huge difference between the ethic that exists in the bible for non-violence and doing nothing. It isnt a question of whether we fight, but do we kill? Do I fight? Absolutely-tooth and nail. But do I kill? Thats where the nuance of the discussion has to exist. My citizenship primarily lives in the Kindgom of Heaven, not in America. So what should my response be? Scripture calls us to act, to be an advocate for the poor. Violence is not one of my resources." - Derek Webb
A: "My concern with this subject in the church is that its so lop-sided, not a debatable issue. To come in and say "Hey, what about peace?" is perceived as scandalous, unpatriotic, even unbiliblical. Christians follow the "Prince of Peace" but have no interest in studying peace. Are you following the Jesus of scripture, or are you following the Jesus who is the poster-boy for the American dream? I get weary of being perceived as a liberal when I feel like I'm the one looking at the bible through the eyes as a fundamentalist." - Donald Miller
posted by Brad @ 1:08 PM
10 comments
10 Comments:
In your opinion, should the U.S. have gone to war against Hitler(Germany) in World War II?
Very interesting, bro. I like that last one especially.
hey Bob, way to press the issue! you should also ask, "if a man with a gun entered your home and threatened your wife & kids with torture & death, should you not try to kill him?" (You and Dan Dawson should collude in your questioning, as you both raise essentially the same ones... Dan in my earlier "anti-war" post).
I didnt give the whole quote from those guys, but later in the podcast, they were asked the same question as you ask me now. Their response was something akin to "our resolution to non-violence comes from the examples of the apostles, who all (save John) gave their lives rather than take up arms." While the apostles were never faced with World War 2 (or Rwanda, or Dafur, or Bosnia, or China, or . . . . .), I think it is wise to follow their leader, who was also a champion of non-violence.
Thus, my short answer to your question is no. But I quickly follow that by saying there is a huge difference between not going to "war" and not acting. I am definitely not advocating inaction; that, I believe, runs strongly counter to God's heart and scripture. I ask you this: what kind of a witness would it have been to the German soldiers - and also the millions of prisoners - most of whom I believe died without knowing the Lord, if believers stood with them, vociferously demanded peace, and (most likely) dying in the slaughter? Webb & Miller reminded us of the story of Jim Elliot in Ecuador, who willingly gave his life only to have his wife and family lead the tribe into relationship with Jesus.
I agree with you that these are very hard questions, to which no straightforward solutions exist. But I still believe that I cannot support a war, even if it is arguably for the purpose of bringing about peace. To quote Gandalf in the Lord of the Rings, "None of us, not even the very wise, can see all ends." (only God) Your thoughts?
PS- I wonder how differently those days would have been had the evangelical church risen up in the Germany of WW2. Or if the church of today were to rise up and selflessly offer Christ's love in the atrocities of Dafur, Uganda, AIDS, Nepal, etc. As much as it pains me to say, I - and I think many other believers - live in a 'not in my backdoor' mentality. Was the action of WW2 strictly humanitarian, to rescue brutalized Europe? Or were we finally jilted to realize our own livelihood was at stake? Unfortunately, in your lifetime, I think more people have died of genocide than died in all of WW2. It is important for the church to not ignore their global brethren in time of need :)
Q: did you transcribe this while listening?
Oh, and I am glad you finally got over your stubbornness and enjoyed said Podcasts...I try not to lead you astray ;)
Two thoughts to follow up your response (in list form, of course!)
1) I think sometimes you have to use force to save people. I.e., you have to kill evil people before they kill others.
2) I don't know what you mean when you say, "I wonder how differently those days would have been had the evangelical church risen up in the Germany of WW2. Or if the church of today were to rise up and selflessly offer Christ's love in the atrocities of Dafur, Uganda, AIDS, Nepal, etc. As much as it pains me to say, I - and I think many other believers - live in a 'not in my backdoor' mentality." If you really believe that, then you would quit graduate school and work full-time on trying to find a solution to these problems. Which makes me think that you don't really believe this.
Ball's back in your court, brother!
Hey, great dialogue! Thanks for helping me process. Two replies to your points:
1- I think I should refine my position: by not advocating violence, I mean to say I do not advocate killing. I'm not an expert in either confrontation or battle, but I guess it would be possible to prevent people from killing others - without actually killing them in the process.
2- Don't think I haven't considered that very option (quitting grad school to work on the problem)! (I spent several hours yesterday browsing online job postings for int'l aid agencies, ranging from the Southern Baptist missions board to Islamic Relief [jury's still out whether it is actually a religious/islamic group, or only targeted at relief in Arab areas!]) Again, this isnt my area of expertise (even with a Ph.D., I'd not be qualified for most of those jobs, as they want degrees in "international development" and "population studies", for management, or medicine and construction, for the hands-on relief), but I think its possible to help from afar. I read an article yesterday afternoon by Billy Graham (a transcript of his talk at the Urbana '81 missions conf), and one of his primary points was to encourage attendees to not neglect the plight of the world's poor. He reminded us that - if nothing else - we should pray. I confess that I am not even doing that. But if, by committing to prayer and intercession on behalf of these brothers, I start to adopt God's heart for them, I expect the more severe acts of love - which you are right to point out that I am not doing - just might follow.
Finally, a friend reminded me yesterday that ultimately God doesn't need us. Just as he doesn't need our prayers, he doesn't need our violence/justice either. Yet he chooses to use us, and at this point in my processing of this issue, I believe "non-killing" is the way to act. Thoughts? :)
What I am hearing in this dialogue are a couple things: 1) a frustration at what we feel/know needs to happen in the world; 2) a frustration with ourselves to know that we are finite beings who cannot solve the entire world's problems (I'm not saying we can sit back and do nothing though); and 3) something that I'm always reminded of when a discussion like this is going on, and that is that we will have discussions and debates such as this until the day Christ returns. Until that day, there will be famines, earthquakes, wars (Iraq), rumors of wars (Iran), plagues, you name it. That is why I'm hoping it comes sooner rather than later.
I'd like to say that in any given situation I'd choose nonviolence vs. the alternative. I do believe that things work better that way. But I've never had someone coming into my home threatening to hurt my child, at which point I might just be inclined to rip the attacker's heart right out of his chest. I don't know. I pray I never have to find out.
Although Scripture never negates itself, I admit to having a hard time reconciling the wars led by Israel at God's command with Christ's command to "love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." All this to say, I can't give a yes or no answer!
Responding back to Brad...
With regard to your point #1, if killing an evil person would save lives, and not killing an evil person would allow that person to kill others, I don't have a problem with killing in that situation. It would be great if one could incapacitate the evil person without killing them, but suppose that option weren't available?
Here's my point: A position of "anti-war" doesn't seem to me to be an ultimate value. It seems to me to be a desirable goal that is subject to other, higher priority values (glorifying God, saving the lives of innocent others, etc.).
With respect to your point #2, my only point is that people know what we really believe by how we live. And more to the point, I can get a handle on what I really believe by observing how I am actually living (a sober thought indeed!).
With respect to helping the poor, I also don't believe that is an "ultimate goal." For example, given the choice, I think it is generally better to be a part of saving people's souls rather than saving their physical lives ("For what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but forfeits his soul?"). So, I don't have a problem not quitting my job to work for a humanitarian agency to help the poor.
The extent to which I really believe that statement is reflected in my life, which I think shows that I believe it some, but I hedge that belief (a lot) by making sure I have the "downside covered."
Grace and peace, bro.
A shorter reply:
Bethann- nice concise summary. Frustration is a good adjective (well, you use it as a noun, lol) to describe my/our state of mind!
Bob- thanks for the reminder that nonviolence & help for the poor aren't ultimate goals (and, good phrase-- I'm adding it to my vocabulary). Ultimately we are each called to follow Jesus (that is an ultimate goal). He himself reminded us that we'd always have the poor.
Bethany (her blog's linked above) and I were talking about this the other day, and she was good to remind me to not let nonviolence, or being a champion of the poor, or whichever issue/cause/etc I adopt at the time, to be a "legalism" by which I operate. In processing nonviolence & my heart for the poor, I have seen how easy it is to 1) feel smug b/c maybe I "get" something that other believers might not have a heart for [which goes bac to Bob's point that its not an ultimate value], and 2) feel righteous, like my position might somehow outweigh my other sins ["I'm not such a bad christian, sure I struggle with A, B, and C, but look, I am advocating for godly things on my blog!"].
Ultimately, its about knowing Christ and making him known!
Other comments/thoughts? Perhaps I should collate these & post them in a new entry on the main page ;)
Hey Brad, I thought I'd chime in here, because it's interesting that the two points you took away from your discussion with Bethany were nearly exactly what I was mulling over in my mind, and I'm glad to see you are aware of the potential danger of falling into a legalistic view of nonviolence, being anti-war, or even being an advocate for the poor. I myself struggle with this with certain areas that are (or have been) personal convictions for me.
In my not-so-distant past, for example, I was very legalistic when it came to a young-earth creationist view of Genesis (though I probably wouldn't have admitted it at the time). Nowadays, while I still hold some sentiments toward that view (I'm a YEC 2 days of the week, and an OEC 5 days of the week, is the best way I can characterize my current position), I understand that, as Bob said, it is not an "ultimate value", and thus I don't have that burden anymore (and it was a burden, I realize now). Now, I'm not saying you are being legalistic in your anti-war stance. I'm just glad to see that you agree that this is not something of ultimate importance.
Post a Comment
<< Home