ANZAC, Virginia and the Hydra Heads of Violence
Violence, like a multi-headed hydra, surrounds us.
In one sad week we had a mass shooting at Virginia Tech, USA that rivaled Australia’s notorious Port Arthur massacre; more suicide bombers in Baghdad, Iraq; the Palestine/Israel violence took the life of a kidnapped BBC journalist; and preparations for Australia’s (and New Zealand’s) observations of ANZAC Day fill the airwaves.
Some say that the problem with violence is that it solves nothing. I think that adage is wrong. I believe humanity’s problem with violence stems from the the truth of a different adage “violence begets violence”.
I heard a comedian defend the invasion of Iraq by saying “violence solved the second world war” and I couldn’t disagree. If your ultimate aim is regime change then violence can be one ruthlessly efficient way to achieve that goal.
Violence put an end to Germany’s Third Reich, but would Hitler ever have grown to be head of a democratic country if there hadn’t been a World War One? Many historians doubt it.Violence has put an end to Hussein’s dictatorship in Iraq, but that nation is now caught in the uncivil teeth of civil war.
There are some things that violence can ’solve’. But like the mythical hydra that grows one or two more monstrous heads for each one chopped off, violence brings forth the cancerous mutations of more violence that is even harder to put down.
The problem with violence is not its ends but the method itself. It can ’solve’ problems, but it is such a blunt instrument it creates more problems along the way, including damaging those who perpetrate it.
This is seen literally in the individual: the loyal young Australian bleeding out on ANZAC cove, the desperate suicide bomber making an ultimate cry for self determination, the deranged gunman claiming his last victim - himself.
It can also be seen in our societies: the courted hoard applauding a bloody war or the normalising of violence that occurs when baring arms becomes a right.
Shane Claiborne, author of The Irresistible Revolution: Living as an Ordinary Radical, made some insightful comments after the Virginia Tech shootings about why violence begats violence. He said it killed the image of God.
We read the news through acts of violence rather than the hidden acts of love that keep hope alive. But there is a common thread in many of the most horrific perpetrators of violence that begs our attention – they kill themselves.
Violence kills the image of God in us. It is a cry of desperation, a weak and cowardly cry of a person suffocated of hope. Violence goes against everything that we are created for – to love and to be loved – so it inevitably ends in misery and suicide.
When people succumb to violence it ultimately infects them like a disease or a poison that leads to their own death.
Violence is the voice chosen by terrorist, soldier and solo shooter alike. Weapons and other instruments of war can amplify that voice so that the most powerful, most cunning or most determined perpetrator can have its way. But violence does not bring redemption, it doesn’t transform lives in a way that encourages wholeness.
When Jesus told one of his disciples “those who live by the sword will die by the sword”, he was neither cursing people, nor being a soothsayer. He was reflecting on the self-destructive path of choosing violence as the way to ’solve’ the world’s problems.
For the mythical hydra to stop its cycle of violence, it had to keep its wounds. In the story the hero Hercules cauterises its open necks, so it kept its scars rather than grow new heads.
So too, we need to be reconciled to the woundedness of our human condition and stop seeking to solve our own failings or the failings of others with violent solutions.
Maybe this is what a wise prophet meant when he is said of God’s suffering servant: “by his wounds we are healed.”
April 20th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
Did Homer give you permission to use his picture?
April 21st, 2007 at 10:15 am
great article, thanks Nigel
rev
April 21st, 2007 at 1:06 pm
yeah i dunno
“So too, we need to be reconciled to the woundedness of our human condition and stop seeking to solve our own failings or the failings of others with violent solutions.”
i mean it kinda like saying that we need to repair the hole in the titanic
i think Christianity is more about the fact that the boat is going down and the only salvation to be had is in the Jesus lifeboat. Sure it wasn’t meant to be this way but it is what it is… and we can’t do anything ourselves as such..
we need to acknowledge that we are ‘totally depraved’ and incapable of anything but sin without the grace of God.
If WE COULD do something about it then we could follow Buddha or Krishna or Kaballa let alone Christ and everything would be fine with just a little effort
April 21st, 2007 at 2:21 pm
You know, that kingdom of God stuff? Well it actually is a call to living life the way it is supposed to be lived, whether or not you believe it will catch on is irrelevant.
rev
April 21st, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Oh I agree Rev
but the idea that everything would be ok if we all obeyed Jesus i think is a bit of a redundant question because we can’t when we are totally depraved.
‘if we could just love one another then everything would be all right,’ of course we don’t need Jesus if the answer was just love each other and that it was in our capability to do so
April 21st, 2007 at 6:11 pm
But the fact is we do have Jesus, and His Spirit supposedly lives in us, and therefore we can extend the kingdom, and its message of love, mercy, peace, justice, servant leadership ect. The Spirit of Christ in me calls me to follow, it is the doers of the sermon on the mount that are building their lives on a firm foundation. And that includes the peacemakers, the merciful, the lovers of their enemies, and those that refuse to bow to the idols of consumerism, and materialism.
rev
April 21st, 2007 at 6:15 pm
The problem with this very new eschatology dispensationalism is we just accept this idea that well we are fighting a losing battle til Jesus comes back and fixes everything. Well for one I am pretty sure that isn’t what the bible teaches, it certainly isn’t what the church believed for 1,800 years. Secondly, we are called to follow Jesus into His radical mission of bringing the kingdom of God into this earth, and bashing down the gates of hell. Thirdly, Jesus has come back, in you and me and everyone else that gives themselves over to His salvation, whether you believe in a literal apocalyptic return of Christ or not, the fact is we are to be a symbol of the return of Christ.
rev
April 21st, 2007 at 9:40 pm
Abtruth,
I believe the aim of God’s salvation is to make us more human - not less human - and (to use the imagery of my article) restore in us God’s image.
I even agree with you that we need to face “the fact that the boat is going down” and “we can’t do anything ourselves as such”. This is part of what I meant about accepting that we are wounded. If only we would stop pretending to be gods and trying to vilently force our will on others, and instead obey Jesus’ command to love one another as he has loved us.
Obeying Jesus is vitaly important because he is the way and the life. It would seem odd to forward an interpretation of salvation that didn’t encourage such obedience. Did you realy mean to do this?
To say ‘we are totally depraved and incapable of anything but sin without the grace of God’ is not a statement about our eternal impotence, but one of faith in the greatness of God’s grace. God’s grace is already at work in our lives and always has been in one way or another.
Lets see more of that grace and less of the cycle of violence.
April 22nd, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Violence is the voice chosen by terrorist, soldier and solo shooter alikeSo let me get this straight. You are equating say a soldier in the Australian Defence Forces with say an Al-Qaeda suicide bomber?
No moral equivalence in that?
April 22nd, 2007 at 2:40 pm
We all have some things in common and other things not in common.
I was saying that the terrorist and the soldier both have in common using lethal violence. And that this is a moral isssue.
What do you think?
April 22nd, 2007 at 4:08 pm
CS Lewis who lived through both World wars said something like war is not the greatest evil but in fact is at times the only means to prevent evil in his famous essay Why I am not a pacifist.
Those who misunderstand what Jesus says in the Sermon on the Mount sometimes forget his personal rampage in the temple overturning the tables of the moneychangers and driving all before him with a plaited whip!
A person who compares a soldier in the ADF with an AQ terrorist needs a lesson in morality
April 22nd, 2007 at 7:37 pm
“A person who compares a soldier in the ADF with an AQ terrorist needs a lesson in morality”
Which person did you have in mind?
April 22nd, 2007 at 7:42 pm
Jesus didn’t kill anyone, which I think is worth mentioning. And it’s ridiculous to say just_nigel needs a “lesson in morality” beacuse he’s comparing a terrorist and a soldier. I might compare an apple and an orange for the purpose of finding out useful information about both. And what he says is right…they do both use lethal force to achieve an aim…do how can you argue against that? Whether one is more “morally correct” than the other is a different issue.
But let’s remember..one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist. I admire CS Lewis greatly, but he was also of the POV that women couldn’t be ministers and prisoners shouldn’t be rehabilitated. And we do the best with the ifnromation we have available to us at the time. During WW1 the propaganda machines were telling everyone Germans ate babies and so obviously everybody thought that was a great evil, even though it was a lie. Who’s to say what the “greatest evil” is? It’s pretty subjective. And I think I posted this before, but you have to be so careful when you justify the use of violence…600,000 civilians dead in Iraq beacuse of the war on terror to supposedly free the Iraqi’s from the clutches of Sddam, the “greatest evil” as Geroge dubya so kindly pointed out to everyone.
April 22nd, 2007 at 8:21 pm
Emma congratulations for avoiding the point he made.
nigel, anyone who makes such a silly comparison.
April 22nd, 2007 at 8:49 pm
sorry…don’t understand that post. I was making my own point.
April 22nd, 2007 at 9:44 pm
Jesus didn’t kill anyone, which I think is worth mentioning.
Hmm tell that to Ananias and Sapphira. Oops sorry, did I say Trinity.
But let’s remember..one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist.
Of course I didn’t. The abirter of truth is not God it’s man. Oops sorry, lets make that woman, as in the case of Emma.
Congratulations Emma. You who want to be so “radical” or “subversive” or “counter cultural” or whatever else is the mot du jour have just spouted the prevailing view of le monde.
But then, you said you were a journalist, right? Although even Le Monde has more sensible journalists than you.
No doubt that is why most churches in the West are empty. Hec, you get the same reasoning down at the pub on Saturday night. Why bother going to church on Sunday morning?
April 22nd, 2007 at 9:48 pm
Homer, thanks for the use of your Odessy too by the way
What did you think was silly about the comparison?
April 23rd, 2007 at 12:07 am
Rev… I agree totally, no offence but i think you have missinterpreted what i was getting at. I believe Jesus is the way the truth and the life and that we should love God with all our heart soul and mind and others as we love ourselves. and i wasn’t refering in any way to an eschatology that says ‘well screw it.. its doomed so who cares’
i was more having a go at the reduction of the Christian faith to ‘all you need is love’ without the complexities that a decent understanding of Christian doctrine bring. you said so much yourself with “those that refuse to bow to the idols of consumerism, and materialism” understanding that Christianity subverts our common understanding of reality from whatever perspective we come from other than Christs
JN “Obeying Jesus is vitaly important because he is the way and the life. It would seem odd to forward an interpretation of salvation that didn’t encourage such obedience. Did you realy mean to do this?”
no i didn’t mean this at all… i was saying that as far as the axiom “all you need is love” goes and “violence is always wrong” we don’t need to look at Jesus for inspiration as there are plenty of leaders who would be great roll models… Jesus didn’t come to say “love is all you need” but “you must be born again” and “i am the way the truth and the life, no-one comes to the Father but by Me”
renouncing violence consumerism materialism etc etc gets us no where in reality as we are all human and will be self centred and rebellious irrespective of our resolve to do the right thing… Christ asks as to deny ourselves as we are corrupt intrinsically from beginning to end, to become new creatures, to be reborn… violence is but a minute manifestation of what we are that is to be left behind in becoming the kind of creature that we were intended to be..
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:41 am
Homer, a good look at the cleansing of the temple shows that Jesus actually drove out the animals with the whip, and Jesus demonstration was so perfectly planned that he did not overturn the tables with the birds so as not to cause any damage that could not be easily undone. You really don’t understand nonviolent protest much apparrently. And ofcourse a “proper” reading of Matthew means that we understand Jesus didn’t actually mean for us to do these things, even though he said the exact opposite.
Ananais and Saphira were never said to have been killed by God, I understand that there is great case for this interpretation, but it is not explicit in scripture. Same with Herod. There is someone else the bible tells us comes to steal, kill and destroy.
Abtruth, you must be born again is not Jesus’ central message, infact he only says it once, in a particular situation. The central message of Jesus is to repent for the kingdom of God is here. This message includes dying and rebirth, and infilling, but it also includes kingdom principles of non violence, mercy, love your enemies, care for the poor and the outcast, and obedience to God. The complexity of love your enemies is not lost on me, but for too long the church has been co-opted by a false dichotomy, that drives our thoughts towards heaven, and securing salvation, while not valuing the Christ actually comes in flesh, and requires us to continue the incarnation, bringing justice, mercy, and love here and now. My eternal destination is important, but the kingdom of God starts here and now.
rev
April 23rd, 2007 at 8:23 am
saint my point was jesus didn’t kill anyone in the temple…which ep was using as as an example that Jesus kills. I don’t think you’ve disproved that point.
“But let’s remember..one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist.
Of course I didn’t. The abirter of truth is not God it’s man. Oops sorry, lets make that woman, as in the case of Emma.”
I have no idea what you’re trying to say…you didn’t what? my point is that man’s truth is subjective, and when people justify violence claiming they heard from God and its all OK (ir Iraq) then that’s a pretty arrogant statement to make.
anw what do you mean…oops woman? Are you trying to be insulting for no clear reason? I guess so because said “Congratulations Emma. You who want to be so “radical” or “subversive” or “counter cultural” or whatever else is the mot du jour have just spouted the prevailing view of le monde.
But then, you said you were a journalist, right? Although even Le Monde has more sensible journalists than you.”
I wonder why you choose to insult me personally than actually answer my argument on any coherent level. I don’t consider myself “radical” I never have. And I’m not sure what circles you move in but among the people I know my views are certainly not the “mot du jour” in either secular of Christian circles. I am frequently a posessor of minority opinions.
and…if I’m understanding this right…I am the reason churches in the West are empty? Or people like me? Well that’s a joke because in any church I;ve been in hardly anyone has shared my opinions. Nor the people in my wetsern Sydney pub…they’re much more likely to be wearing Pauline Hanson t shirts than agreeing with anything I say. Maybe if the church was more open to peope of different opinions they’d atract a few more people…maybe if they weren’t preaching that George W is God’s foot soldier and we all have to support him, or pushing the congregations to sign Fred Nile petitions against Muslims they’d have a greater chancde of not only reaching people, but oreching peace at the same time too.
April 23rd, 2007 at 8:39 am
Emma, I may be disproving your point, but I think you are wonderful.
rev
April 23rd, 2007 at 9:05 am
he he. Thanks.
April 23rd, 2007 at 9:19 am
rev
“Abtruth, you must be born again is not Jesus’ central message, infact he only says it once, in a particular situation. The central message of Jesus is to repent for the kingdom of God is here. This message includes dying …….. ”
i agree and thin we are on the same page entirely on this point
emma
“my point is that man’s truth is subjective,” what exactly do you mean here?
April 23rd, 2007 at 9:32 am
I mean that we see things the way we want to see them…like, my background is Sri Lankan, and I don’t know if you know much about the civil war over there but you have the Tamil Tigers on one hand who have been geuninely disadvantaged, have legitimate concerns, but have resorted to suiide bombings to try and acheive their aim (which is a seperate state). My cousin was blinded in a bomb blast and now of course her family see the Tigers as evil, they should be hunted down and killed…my point is that a Tiger could claim “my family was hunted down and killed by the Singalese, my violence in fighting for my freedom is justifiable, my actions are condoned by God”, as could the Singhalese man joins the army to kill Tamils because his family was killed in a bomb blast.
what exactly is the truth in this situation? Who is “right”? When we try and use faiht to justify killing, then I think this is dangerous, because we never really see things truly objectively, our views are always coloured by our experienes and our pain.
does that make sense?
April 23rd, 2007 at 9:59 am
Careful Emma, if you dare compare the way Tamils with Singhalese both choose to use violence to advance their different causes, Homer might need you to attend morality classes too. :p
April 23rd, 2007 at 10:14 am
well we’ll both be there with bells on.
actually you said it better than I did when you wote “advance their different causes”. That’s at the heart of it…it’s too easy to use God and faith to justify what is at heart someone’s agenda.
April 23rd, 2007 at 10:53 am
I think Homer is outraged someone would dare compare the cause of the hated Terrorist with the cause of the beloved ANZAC.
But I wasn’t focussing on their causes. I was comparing as aspect of their methods - they both use lethal violence, a point he is yet to disprove.
(Mind you that does bring up an interesting question. What was the ANZAC cause at Gallipoli and what was its morality?
* Invade Turkey to hand it over to Russia
* Do whatever they could to obey/support mother England?
* Kill others to prove they were strong legitimate nations on world stage?)
April 23rd, 2007 at 12:45 pm
rev,
15And He made a scourge of cords, and drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen; and He poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables;
so it appears you are incorrect!!
Emma,
I said Jesus used violence. The above phrase did that!!
Nigel,
look up Just War theory. See if you then agree a AQ terrorist who kills innocent people for the only reason they are either infidels, heretics or apostates is the same thing.
It is a funny thing when a country is invaded you might just use violence to defend your own country
April 23rd, 2007 at 12:57 pm
emma
“When we try and use faiht to justify killing, then I think this is dangerous, ” basically i agree .. but about the term, “truth is subjective,” are you suggesting that we can have no access to objective truth?
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:11 pm
from Jesusradicals.com
John gives us a more exact picture of what Jesus did:
John 2:13-15
When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the moneychangers and overturned their tables.
To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father’s house into a market!”
What does the text in John say Jesus actually drove out? “. . . and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew the tables.” The text refers to Jesus driving out the animals from the temple and not the men. ” . . . drove all the animals out of the temple, both the sheep and the cattle.” The Greek text uses a construction that initiates a list (te kai). In John the te kai looks like this:
exeballan (he drove out) ek tou irou ta te probaton (the sheep) kai tous bous (the oxen) kai ekcheo (poured out) ton kollubistes (the sellers) kerma (money) kai anastrepho (overturned) trapeza (the tables).
This is what Jesus did exactly: he drove out the cattle, poured out the money and dumped over the tables. (Exeballen) in Greek, or “drove out” in English does not mean violence. Every other time this word is used in the NT it simply means to “send away.” No violence is implied or ever narrated by the text. Jesus did not hit anyone. He did not kill anyone either.
Looks like I am correct Homer
rev