A Mending Shift

a bird sings, not because if has an answer to give, but because it has a song to sing … this is my song

Peace Through Violence?

amish_taliban_2

One of the things I enjoy about blogging are the discussions that emerge from seemingly simple posts. A case in point is the discussion Derek and David have been having about peace and war and violence—all from a 6-word post. There words, though not lacking spirit or passion, have gone miles beyond simple cookie-cutter Sunday School answers and wrestle with the complex issues that come when trying to apply Jesus’ heart for peace to the realities of the world. Their comment trail can be found here, about 1/2 way down.

As they finished up their dialogue, I drafted my thoughts about what I had been reading. I was going to post them as a comment, but opted instead to drop it into a post. Here are my thoughts:

Derek and David, I’ve really been enjoying your spirited discussion, as have others. As I read, one of the things that kept showing up for me was this. I am not sure how to handle nations fighting nations or what the way-of-Jesus looks like in that bigger spectrum, but this I do know: When Jesus disarmed Peter his disarmed all his disciples and then went on to die for all. I am convinced that as followers of Jesus we can give our life for peace must never take a life for peace. To do so goes against all that Jesus stood/stands for. I really believe that a follower of Jesus should never take up arms to kill. So for me, it comes back around to what I can/should do and not so much what a nation should do. Should I use violence to try to end violence? No. Jesus chose and taught a third way and said His kingdom was not like the world. I think this is what the examples of Jesus, Martin Luther King Jr., Gandhi, and others speak to…willing to die for peace and justice, but never willing to kill for it.

There was an interesting article written by Diana Butler Bass shorty after the Amish school shooting back in 2006. It is called, What if the Amish were in charge of homeland security? She begins:

Their practice of forgiveness unfolded in four public acts over the course of a week. First, some elders visited Marie Roberts, the wife of the murderer, to offer forgiveness. Then, the families of the slain girls invited the widow to their own children’s funerals. Next, they requested that all relief monies intended for Amish families be shared with Roberts and her children. And, finally, in an astonishing act of reconciliation, more than 30 members of the Amish community attended the funeral of the killer.

Near the end of her article she said:

What if the Amish were in charge of the war on terror? What if, on the evening of Sept. 12, 2001, we had gone to Osama bin Laden’s house (metaphorically, of course, since we didn’t know where he lived!) and offered him forgiveness? What if we had invited the families of the hijackers to the funerals of the victims of 9/11? What if a portion of The September 11th Fund had been dedicated to relieving poverty in a Muslim country? What if we dignified the burial of their dead by our respectful grief?

What if, instead of seeking vengeance, we had stood together in human pain, looking honestly at the shared sin and sadness we suffered? What if we had tried to make peace?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


This entry was posted by on Monday, February 2nd, 2009 at 8:23 pm and is filed under blessing, Christianity, ethics, forgiveness, freedom, God, grace, Jesus, justice, Kingdom of God, love, missional, theology, transformation. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

About The Author

Jeromy Johnson
I live in Folsom, CA, with my wife, Jennifer, and three kids. I am surrounded by and cared for deeply by some great friends. Their love for me is truly a moonlit reflection of Papa's love, and for that, I am deeply blessed and grateful.

Comments

  • derek

    Hey Jeromy. glad we could help out :)

    I will say that nonviolence seems to illicit some very violent responses.
    Though luckily not from the people reading and posting on you blog. I'm glad David and I could get a very timely and important discussion started here.

    I agree that when Jesus disarmed Peter he disarmed all soldiers. But plenty of people don't. Its a very hard thing to say, too, because David and others are exactly right about one thin: Evil people will take advantage of a situation where their opponents wont fight back.

    More atrocities will be committed. If all the Christians in the world decided to give up their guns and violence, a great many people of all walks will be killed by cowards who are only being held at bay by the threat of force. Not an easy thing to have on the conscience.

    I hope some new readers will put their two cents in to this debate.
    Have a good night!

  • http://windblownhope.wordpress.com abmo

    I think it's OK not to defend yourself, but is it OK not defend other people? Let the weak be killed? What if you saw somebody being raped? Is that OK?

    I always think on how the world would have been if no one would stand up to Hitler? Would there still be any Jews left? The Bible for that matter.

    I believe that every situation has it's own merit. Violence CAN give you peace.(If you win). But can it change hearts for the good? Probably not.

    The last question that was asked in your piece was “What if we had tried to make peace?” Well, peace can only be made AFTER a war and most Americans didn't know they were in a war to begin with. Sept 11 was a very big surprise.

    There is probably a difference between defending and going out to kill. Should we use violence to defend? Should we stand against evil? I don't know the answers to these questions. But what I do know is that violence is a dangerous tool, because it can change us into what we are fighting. In short, violence has the possibility to change us into the monster we are fighting against. And when we are monsters we lose the ability to care and love.

  • http://ballymennoniteblogger.blogspot.com Robert Martin

    As a Mennonite about 2 or 3 generations out from the horse-and-buggy set, you may be surprised to hear that this topic is sometimes debated even in the Anabaptist communities. But not on the lines of whether or not taking a life is right, but as to whether or not someone who believes so is a “lesser” Christian.

    My personal belief, and one shared by countless others of my faith tradition, is that there is no clear justification for taking another human life in self defense or even in the defense of the weak. Note that I said “clear” justification. All one has to do is look at the book of Leviticus and other of the Old Testament law books to find laws of justice towards the perpetrators of heinous acts of taking human life.

    But for myself, I cannot be that judge. For me to be able to take someone elses life, in defense of myself or others, is to place the ultimate judgement on that other person and, in essence, declare that they are beyond redemption. They cannot be forgiven, they cannot be reconciled, they cannot be healed, so therefore they must be killed.

    I cannot, in good conscience, make that call. I don't know that person's circumstances. I don't know what has gone on in their lives to put them in a place where they feel they need to murder or rape. They may be a psychopath with no hope for redemption… or they may be a hurting, damaged soul that has not been shown the way out.

    “Do not return evil for evil” I think are the words in the New Testament. I think we should all learn heavily from the Amish at Nickel Mines.

  • http://jeromyj.com/mendingshift Jeromy

    Hi Abmo, I get where you are coming from, which is the challenge of following Jesus is complicated matters such as the violent defense of the innocent. But I am not so sure that “our” world is more violent than Jesus'. In fact, I am sure Jesus, growing up and living 33 years in one of the more violent and oppressive empires, saw plenty of violence and injustice towards innocent people, which is all the more testimony to his never taking up a sword. In the Peter scenario, do you think if it was Peter innocently being taken away by the Roman soldiers that Jesus would have drawn the sword to violently defend him?

    Personally I think that we have veered so far from the non-violent ways of Jesus that we cannot even imagine what he would do in most violent situations…

  • http://www.tsdi.wordpress.com mooney

    I was talking about this with a friend just two days ago. He sees the country heading toward revolution and is prepared to defend what is his. He would also have no problem taking out some terrorists should he happen upon them. Personally, I disagree with that position.

    It's a hard line to draw I guess, when is it right to take a life? I read of the martyrs, and how they laid their lives down regardless of consequence to friend and family, and I think, “Is that what He is asking of me? Is that what he means when He talks about loving others more than him?” Because that is how I see it, as my taking their life is a selfish act to preserve what I believe to be my own. My life. My family. My country.

    Or do I really believe that He is the best steward of what belongs to Him.

  • http://jeromyj.com/mendingshift Jeromy

    Robert, you said: “I cannot be that judge. For me to be able to take someone else's life, in defense of myself or others, is to place the ultimate judgment on that other person and, in essence, declare that they are beyond redemption. They cannot be forgiven, they cannot be reconciled, they cannot be healed, so therefore they must be killed.”

    Nailed it.

  • http://jeromyj.com/mendingshift Jeromy

    “Or do I really believe that He is the best steward of what belongs to Him?” Mooney, I believe God is…but it is very hard most time to trust God to that extent. I see violence as just another aspect of our I-fear-therefore-I-need-to-control problem that plagues us from the smallest things to the biggest things.

  • http://www.ephemeralthoughts.com Kay

    Great conversation Jeromy!

    This is a tough one. I'm trying to put myself in the theoretical position of what would I do if someone threatened the life of a family member. I think I would defend myself and him/her, but I don't think I'd do it by killing the perpetrator.

    Certainly there is a middle way?

    Do I think Jesus would come to the rescue of someone he saw being raped? Yes. Do I think he'd do it by killing the rapist? Probably not.

  • derek

    lots of good insights!

    Kay hit home with the idea of protecting our families. How many of us have friends, or even ourselves, who keep guns in the house in case they need to defend their family from an intruder? Where does turning the other cheek stop? I have to agree with everyone here that, if I see someone being attacked I can't simply walk away. But I don't think we can be violent in return. Maybe the answer lies in putting ourselves in between the oppressor and the victim, If a guy on the street is being beaten, maybe we should stop it by stepping in and taking his place? Maybe its our willingness to suffer that makes Christianity unique. Our faith is based on a man who suffered and was a victim of capital punishment. and we're supposed to act like him

  • http://ballymennoniteblogger.blogspot.com Robert Martin

    I like that! Why does violence need to be the answer? If Christ is our example, the death that was meant for us he took on himself. If we are to live like Christ, why can we not put ourselves in the place of the victim, take the brunt of the attack. That, in and of itself, may be enough to deter the attacker.

  • http://jeromyj.com/mendingshift Jeromy

    And I think you hit home with your insight. The power to voluntarily suffer on behalf of the victim is I believe the key. If it doesn't detour the attacker it at least has a disarming and life-changing impact on those witnessing some be beat senseless by a choice of his own will for another. I know if my kids saw me step in between them to be beaten it will show them what love and peace and the way of Jesus looks like, and I cannot help but think that their life and perception will be changed forever.

  • http://unorthodoxology.blogspot.com David Henson

    I wish someone would have stopped the genocide in Rwanda. And I think the Rwandans being slaughtered might have wished for that, too.

    Would it have brought about peace? Certainly not.

    Would it have stopped a greater evil? I think so.

    If lots of people tried to nonviolently resist when the soldiers came, would it have given them pause, or empowered their neighbors to see them all mowed down, raped and pillaged? I doubt it.

    Other questions:

    Should policemen be armed?

    Should guns be allowed at all, even for hunting?

    Should we eat meat and should certain types of animal farming be banned?

    These questions hit at the majority of violence in our society and, contrary to war talk, it is more likely within the people's immediate power to advocate for these.

    What does it mean that Jesus taught nonviolence, yet his Heavenly Father, according to many dominant Protestant teachings, demanded death and sacrifice to bring the world back to equilibrium. Isn't there something odd in that? A stridently nonviolent Son of God who must be slain a la Isaac to slake God's blood lust that seems to run throughout the Bible ? Isn't there something odd about a nonviolent God who demands blood to wipe away sins?

    If we are going to talk nonviolence, the death of Jesus has to be reinterpreted, in my opinion.

    I'm a violent pacifist. :) I believe that nonviolence is the right way. I also believe that it is an ideal that we will always strive for, but will always be forced to fall short of.

    I know, I'm in the minority here, so be gentle. :)

  • http://jeromyj.com/mendingshift Jeromy

    I will only (perhaps at this time) address the Jesus' death issue. The substitutionary atonement theory of Jesus' death is one of many “atonement” theories. There are some Christians who use that as there primary definition of what happened 2,000 years ago, there are others who don't. But you already knew that. I agree, it does seem a bit odd for God to demand death for “payment”, but it seems right up God's alley to offer his own death for peace and restoration of all creation. In my opinion, what Jesus did on that hill for humanity is too big for us to fully comprehend…let alone nail down to any one theory.

  • derek

    David those are all good questions and we should discuss them too, certainly the question of death for food is important to anyone who likes to eat.

    And I agree that the death of Jesus needs to be re-interpreted, for the reasons you mention and some! I mean, If we want to reconcile scientific belief with faith, we know mankind evolved from some earlier form. Which means there was no 'original man' just an earlier one. No original man, no original sin, so no need for substitutionary atonement! (NOW whose in the minority!!!)

    And as far as a peace loving God, we definitely need to reconcile that idea with the many, many stories of Bod-blessed murder and killing in the Bible. I don't think the original Canaanites would make the claim that Israels God was non-violent.

    I think David is right, too, in that we should really be addressing more personal aspects on non-violence. Debating the pros and cons of stopping the nazi's is one thing, but what about the guy who steals your neighbors TV or is selling drugs to kids? The rise in domestic violence and the violence on TV are issues we need to think about and can actually do something about, too.

  • http://jeromyj.com/mendingshift Jeromy

    Perhaps the illusion we are buying into is that peace and the end of violence (if not all, perhaps some) can be achieved–period–either through violent or “peaceable” means. Jesus never promised ultimate peace through the way of nonviolent love…he simply said this is His way, not the worlds. As a follower of Jesus, for me, there is no other option but Jesus'.

    What might have happened in Rwanda if the nations of the world stood between the attackers and their victims, much like we discussed earlier? Not sure. But ultimately, regardless what the “nations” do, I have to follow in the ways of Jesus…regardless the outcome. To do less would not be following him…

  • http://unorthodoxology.blogspot.com David Henson

    And I agree that the death of Jesus needs to be re-interpreted, for the reasons you mention and some! I mean, If we want to reconcile scientific belief with faith, we know mankind evolved from some earlier form. Which means there was no 'original man' just an earlier one. No original man, no original sin, so no need for substitutionary atonement! (NOW whose in the minority!!!)

    Derek, I'm with you 100 percent here. Have you read any Herzog? He's got an interesting take on Jesus' death and resurrection that's worth a look, as well as a more complicated take on the miracles than I'm used to from a historical jesus perspective.

  • http://placeofgrace.wordpress.com Anette

    Although I would probably not be physically strong enough to kill anybody, and I also do not have a firearm to shoot with, the fact that I am human make me realise that I would probably try to defend myself and especially my children in the event of any of us be in danger.

    I also firmly believe in “turning the other cheek” and ” walking another mile”. We also teach our children that Jesus would have done that, and dying is not the worst thing that could happen to a person. We teach that and we try to live by that but unfortunately we also live in a country with an above average violent crime rate. I also used to work for many years with young people who committed violent crimes. If you are constantly exposed to reports of the serious atrocities that can be committed against other human beings, you tend to worry that something could happen to you or your loved ones as well.

    When I was a child we had a saying in our home (in Afrikaans) ” dit kannie erger as kop af nie” which basically means it cannot go worse than death. Now I actually think it can get worse. Violent rape must be worse than death, mutilation and slowly being killed for another's pleasure must be worse than death. As a mother I have no greater fear than that something like that could happen to one of my daughters. Despite my honest and geniune love for Jesus and the trust that He can take best of my children ( who actually is His), I know that I would kill to protect them, I would not even think about it. I also believe that He placed them in my care to care for them and protect (amongst other things) and I would give my life to do that. Unfortunately if I gave my life and I am dead, it would have gained nothing if I did not manage to protect them.

    All of this does not mean that I could justify what I have just written here, I do not know what Jesus would have done if somebody did threaten His mother or somebody that He loved, I only know He placed this a strong urge to protect inside of me and I have to find a way to use it wisely.

  • Derek

    Anette, very honest and very true!

    I also have kids and couldn't agree more, the honest truth is that I'd do *anything* to protect them. And while that may be true, It doesn't make it good or just. Our ties to family are deep, evolutionary ones. Which is why its tough to read quotes attributed to Jesus like “They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter…” or tougher still “anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me” (Luke 12:53, then Matt 10:37, now how’s THAT for family values?). Very tough to deal with those words. Lord knows I have problems with it. I love my little girl more than anything in this world, and I know I'd break all the laws of God or Man if she needed me too. I don't think that makes me a bad man, just a man.

    On a different note,
    There is a great prayer/quote from Anthony de Mello:

    “Peace is only found in yes.”

    It’s designed to be a contemplative prayer, and I think ultimately it means that peace is essentially an affirmation. Yes, we are all human, yes, you are loved despite the things you've done, yes, I am willing to see the other side of the argument. Yes, I'll walk the extra mile with you. These are all manifestations of peace. a “Yes, and…” never a “No, but…”

    David, I haven't read any Herzog, but I'm familiar with his theology. I went to a Jesuit school and we read a lot of liberation theology in our social justice classes. I think Chad (whose yet to chime in on this issue) is actually at Duke Divinity school now. He might have something to say about Herzog. Crossan also has some interesting things to say about the death and resurrection of Jesus, but that issue is a bit outside the ream of this particular debate :) We will have to wait for Jeromy to start up that “third rail” of Christian debate.

  • Chadholtz

    Jeromy woke me from my slumber :)

    Great comments throughout. Just to go on record, I think what the Amish did in this instance is one of the biggest mustard seeds our world has seen in a long time. It deserves to be discussed, debated, wrestled with and admired. I am glad it gets all the attention it does. Personally, I have used this story in more sermons than I can count. It is, IMO, the gospel.

    The issue of defense, especially as it pertains to our families, is worthy of consideration. As a husband and father I can see in myself the desire to do one thing and the reality of what I might actually do. However, I think we Christians need to reawaken our imaginations and become more creative in the ways we go about being actively nonviolent (I highly recommend reading Walter Wink's stuff. A good summary can be found in his “Powers That Be,” I must read, IMO). There is a lot of room between being gunned down like a doormat and returning evil with violence. Part of our problem, I think, is that we have so unconditionally accepted the myth of redemptive violence (stemming from our bad interpretations of atonement for starters) as well as Aquinas' (ala Augustines) interpretation of just war theory that we have become dulled in our ability to think rigorously about how we can be nonviolent resistors. We need to relearn these skills – we need to hit the gym so to speak.

    Gonna stop here and go watch Lost. Having not blogged in over a month I am afraid I might barf all over my friends here with repressed verbage :)

    Re: Herzog. I wish I knew more about him. What I know I like – especially his view of resurrection highlighting our Christology and therefore our social ethic. Anything that puts Jesus in the center I am a fan of.

    grace and peace to you all,
    Chad

  • http://jeromyj.com/mendingshift Jeromy

    I feel like it is Easter time: “Chad is risen… … …he is risen indeed!”

  • Derek

    I must admit I've never heard of walter wink. gonna have to add some books to the wishlist tonight :)

    I missed the first two seasons of lost (no tv) and while it think i'd love it, I am going to have to wait until it's all over and I can get it on netflix…

    Now watch as I seamlessly segway that intro to the classic 'dateline NBC' question. “Is there too much violence on TV?” Art and media have a huge impact on society and help shape social norms. A quick look at tonight's TV lineup shows an unhealthy bent towards police dramas and violent content. Is this art copying life, or helping to forge it? I for one always shudder when I see some “Coalition For Family Protection and Jesus” boycotting a show on TV as too violent (often times I end up watching the show out of protest AGAINST the protest, and end up falling in love with it, ala Deadwood)

    Sure, its a choice to watch, but shouldn't we advocate that the networks to display a less violent image of society? I know I've never needed a gun for anything but target practice at scout camp, and the majority of people I know are the same way. Can't we create drama without glorifying violent crime? What's are roll as Christians in the shaping of public media?

«     »