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 24th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
#57 Saint, I sometimes get the feeling you respond differently to women than to men when they advance a viewpoint different to yours. Are you conscious of that?No Janet, I am conscious that I pick the comments to which I respond and I tend to pick the ones that are blatantly off or repeat tired and inappropriate mantras.
#58 Saint, the old testament is to be understood through Jesus.Agreed. And we will have to agree to disagree about the rest. Once again I do not advocate war, arms races or even arming citizens, but one must allow for legitimate (and yes proportional) use of force in self defense. And I would say that if you are responsible for the lives of others (e.g. police), it is also your duty.
April 24th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
And I also say that to address post moderns we have just as much a need to understand their way of thinking, and how to meaningfully communicate and have community with those that are more inclined to this type of thought.
rev
April 24th, 2007 at 10:53 pm
MN:
In response to one of your question “should Christians be soldiers” I would give two answers:
1) the easy black and white answer - NO
2) the tricky less black and white answer (and life gets tricky sometimes) - YES but still never kill another person.
Personally I wouldn’t join the armed forces. But if someone else trying to follow Jesus said they did want to go and join the medical corps or some other non combat role, I would be concerend about them supporting the whole military machine, and be concerned about the effect of the culture of legitimating violence that exists mauy have on them - but I respect that some others may try to make that distinction.
Saint:
I see words like “state sponsored” or “civil authority” or “reasonable” or “warrantged” to be very thin justifications for something that while sometimes used for good ends (and in that sense may be kind of ‘warranted’) is a bad means (and in that sense is ultimately counterproductive and always ‘unreasonable’).
My point Saint does not say that AQ and ANZACs are the same in any other way except that they do choose violence. Do you deny that terrorist, solo shooter, and Australian soldiers all engage in killing people?
I think it is a self evident fact. Now we are all welcome to draw different conclusions about that fact. And I am well aware that there are different ethics about when violence may be or may not be justified. But why all this hyperbole about my words being loathsome, dangerous and insulting?
What is so loathsome about the truth?
What is so dangerous about the truth?
What is so grossly insulting about the truth?
(PS I am glad that the Australian rules of engagement are superior to those of the United States of America. I noted that when the US soldiers were using cluster bombs in Afghanistan the Aussie troops were not allowed to participate.)
April 24th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
Nigel, has it ever occurred to you that you may be asking the wrong question?
The truth Nigel is that an Aussie soldier will not kill indiscriminately, will not intentionally target civilians, will not go outside their mandate, acts on our behalf and for our collective benefit with authority we have conferred on them. Their purpose is to restore order and/or defend against agressors. They are ultimately answerable to us through parliament. This does not necessarily involve killing (eg Timor, Iraq) but may do.
In the meantime terrorist et al. kill indiscriminately, intentionally target civilians, do not have a mandate, do not act on our behalf or for our collective benefit, do not have authority conferred on them by us and are not answerable to those whom they purport to fight for. Their purpose is to disrupt order, create a climate of fear and intimidation to usurp power for themselves.
You see both as having the same sort of “violence” as a means and both equally counter productive.
Wrong question IMHO.
April 25th, 2007 at 1:06 am
Sure, there are lots of questions, and it is ok to ask questions about motives and rules of war etc…
…but that doesn’t make it wrong to ask the question I am asking. Why are you so warry of stating clearly that terrorists and soldiers both kill?
(”You see both as having the same sort* of violence as a means and both equally counter productive.”
Yes, but only so much as they are both lethal - i was not comparing other factors like who is or isn’t an ‘innocent’, and what authority they do or don’t have etc.)
April 25th, 2007 at 1:26 am
Consider this:
Peace is not just the absence of war.
God’s judgment is sometimes lethal.
April 25th, 2007 at 1:44 am
…pauses…considers…enjoys meditaiting on peace and justice.
Thanks for that.
Now are you ready to say that terrorists and soldiers both kill people?
April 25th, 2007 at 5:37 am
Pauses, wonders whether Nigel bothered to read comment #64 and if it’s worth repeating oneself much less continuing.
Nope.
Leaves the building.
April 25th, 2007 at 9:48 am
and saint, does that mean that you believe Jesus would hit someone to defend himself? Would Jesus have worked as a soldier or policeman before his ministry started?
If you are saying it is wrong and sinful, but necessary in some circumstances to prevent a greater evil, I understand, but still disagree. Wrong will never make right. Darkness will never cast out darkness, only light can do that. Violence cannot end violence, only love can do that.
rev
April 25th, 2007 at 11:31 am
There is a very old film which deals with the argument from an individuals perspective; I will say from the outset that it does have a pro war stance.
However, in terms of exploring the internal conflict of a farmer, then soldier that is SENT to war it makes for interesting viewing.
The film is Private York (Garry Cooper) - made in the 1930’s or 1940’s I believe.
April 25th, 2007 at 11:36 am
“#57 Saint, I sometimes get the feeling you respond differently to women than to men when they advance a viewpoint different to yours. Are you conscious of that?No Janet, I am conscious that I pick the comments to which I respond and I tend to pick the ones that are blatantly off or repeat tired and inappropriate mantras.”
It still doesn’t explain why you chose to attack personally rather than simply attack my argument.
April 25th, 2007 at 11:41 am
oh and in case I get a “if you can’t take the heat get out of the kitchen” response that I felt brewing, let me be clear. It doesn’t bother me that you attack personally, it just interests me that you do, instead of debating my argument. I don’t know why you think it will advance your case further, or work better at changing my mind, or help get your point of view across.
April 25th, 2007 at 11:42 am
^ ^ Emma, if it helps, you’re not the only one.
April 25th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
it does. I think sometimes other posters make the mistake of thinking you are completely single-minded in your argument and your mind can’t be changed. At least for me, I am open to other people’s opinions, and I have found heaps on this site to challenge my thinking on lots of different things. But nothing shuts my mind down faster than someone attacking me personally without debating my point.
April 25th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
just_nigel let me make your Anzac Day for you and freely acknowledge that the just war soldier and the terrorist both kill people.
That in no way settles the argument in favor of pacifism though. Sometimes by not taking direct action you can be responsible for even more killing. In other words, sometimes in order to stop killing you may need to take lethal action.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer would have agreed with the pro-pacifist blogging on Signposts, and provided perhaps an even more comprehensive argument. However, somehow, in assessing the reality on the ground in a REAL situation [as opposed to the rarified world of the blogosphere], he arrived at a conclusion which would lead him to an altogether different approach.
He paid with his life, which is sad, and it robbed us of a great saint [who could have written even more outstanding books]. I respect him for laying aside pet theories when the time called and being prepared to risk everything on behalf of others in an attempt to bring to an end the unspeakable evil of Hitler.
April 25th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
so how did the discipled not risk everything in martyrdom? How is dietrich more noble for being killed while trying to kill people, but Oscar Romero died trying to stop killing and refusing to participate in it? I believe it takes more guts to stand against your every instinct and not retaliate. To suggest this is just a pet theory is condescending crap. There are many people that have made the ultimate sacrifice in pursuing a nonviolent road to peace, and your statements dishonour their sacrifice.
rev
April 25th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
To just_Nigel and Rev
how do you think the people of Indonesia, Solomons, the Philipines etc felt when the Allies - Australians included drove out the Japanese?
To answer Just_Nigel’s question yes both terrorists and soldier may end up killing people by conscious decision.
There are two arguments here:
1. Can it ever be right to kill or act violently - if yes go to 2
2. When or in what circumstances.
For Rev and Just_Nigel it appears they stop with a “no” answer at question 1.
I don’t agree with your reasoning. Yes I agree that Jesus didn’t kill, but He did carry out an act of violence at the Temple - you can quibble all you like about whether He did or didn’t hurt the people or the animals, but that was a violent act.
While Jesus teaches us a lot about not using violence as a first, second, third response etc or as a means to effect Godly change, I don’t think you can draw from what He teaches and does, that there isn’t a place for it.
I would agree that such a place is limited (very) but that nonetheless it is there, and that Scripture as a whole does as well. And as far as that goes I am not satisfied with any view one way or the other that doesn’t draw on the whole of Scripture - because the very same God was at work the whole time, and He doesn’t change. So it seems to me that you can’t go for the simple option and say Jesus didn’t kill any one and said that those who love by the sword die by it etc - the latter of which was a warning to be taken seriously - but there are other things to take into account as well. David was a man after God’s own heart, and He was a warrior King amongst other things - how do you read that?
The issue of living in a world that fundamentally denies the existence of God, or tries to co-opt Him to suit godless purposes, and still try and represent and honour Him is very, very difficult - whether pacifist, soldier or everyday Joe. To that end I respect your choice to live out your lives choosing not to resort to violence for Christ’s sake. Living out of that could result in you making some very tough decisions.
In the same vein if some guy comes into my house and threatens or attacks my family and he ends up dead on my floor (good chance it would be me anyway) I will be sorry and filled with regret and remorse, but not guilt: I believe that if it was a question of him or my family I will not have added to Christ’s burden on the cross for at least that act. To not defend my family would be an act of cowardice and seeking my safety first, above their wellbeing. The bloke who broke in shouldn’t be there and forfeits whatever rights he had at that point.
The issue about soldiering, ANZAC’s etc - at the end of the day this is about honouring and acknowledging people that fought and died for their loved ones and what they thought was right. We can argue til the cows come home about whether it was right or wrong, but I for one respect and admire their willingness to make that sacrifice, whether or not we think it in vain. If only we fought so hard for Christ - you may already do so.
One last comment - we are at war any way, all day, every day. The question is how to fight it.
Cheers
MN
April 25th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
# 75 zulu Says: just_nigel let me make your Anzac Day for you and freely acknowledge that the just war soldier and the terrorist both kill people. That in no way settles the argument in favor of pacifism though.
Thanks Zulu. I know that doesn’t settle an argument in favor of pacifism. The aim of hearing Saint, or Homer say it was to get over the hyperbole that it I was ‘dangerous’, or ‘loathsome’ for mearly saying that terrorists, shooters and soldiers all kill.
It is hard to share ideas and discuss the merits or otherwise of them, when I am told I need to attend morality correction classes for mearly stating the truth. Whatever different conclussions we may draw from those facts I was surprised with how I was attacked for stating such a fact.
April 25th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Rev
likewise I respect those who gave their lives because they respond with violence as well.
Cheers
MN
April 25th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
not hyperbole Nigel.
I won’t speak for Saint however your statement was merely silly and implied moral equivalence
April 25th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
Re #69 Rev - Jesus didn’t come into this world to be a policeman. And if he wanted to he would have just had to ask the Father, just say the word. I notice for example that when some wanted to take Him by force to be king he just walked right through the crowd. Hmm. There are some (lots? all?) things about Jesus that are unique and which we cannot imitate (*gasp*). He came in the fullness of time to do what we could not do for ourselves and to do what was set out before the foundation of the world. So again, I think you are asking the wrong question.
Re #71 Emma - about the most personal I got was noting a journalist’s cliche in your argument and that you too were a journalist. Now if you are not able to defend your view by crying that a few words correlating your argument with your profession were a personal attack, what should make me think you are prepared to take a bullet for Christ?
On Boenhoffer - I am under the impression that he was not arrested for advising others on a plot to assassinate Hitler (although he did that) but for protecting/smuggling Jews. I would be interested if anyone who is very familiar with his writing and bio knows what the likely deal is. I suspect he was a far more complex man than popular myth would have us believe
April 25th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
the rev wrote: “There are many people that have made the ultimate sacrifice in pursuing a nonviolent road to peace, and your statements dishonour their sacrifice.”
If I intended my comments to encompass such people you would be correct in your call on me. Suffice to say one sentence cannot be construed to include all such people. I am as inspired by such people as I am by Bonhoeffer. Context is important to many of these examples.
Making a stand for peace in a prolonged situation like Romero or Ghandi is an entirely different matter to the split second decisions that need to be made when faced with a crazed, drug fuelled killer on the loose [Virginia Tech].
Our police and soldiers face this situation every day. Ask a Timorese if they appreciate the potential of lethal force supplied by our troops. Ask a Solomon Islander if they appreciate the gangs being countered by the threat of lethal force.
Even in the context of lethal force our soldiers mediate for peace. The recent Australian story featuring Major Michael Stone is a stunning example of this. You can access that episode online at the ABC site if you have broadband. It is well worth watching. Michael is a Christian, and he is one of the most respected people in all of Timor Leste. He wears a uniform, and whilst he does not carry a weapon he operated from within the protection of those who did.
April 25th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Re #78 Nigel - Perhaps you need to reread my #64 and take a soldier’s killing (assuming say a member of the ADF) and a terrorist’s killing to their natural conclusion and then tell me if there is a difference.
April 25th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Saint, sure when it comes to terrorists and soldiers and solo shooters there are differences in the ends they are pursuing, and the limits they set themselves, and the way you value the different authorities under which they see themselves operating. Lots of differences.
April 25th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
My original sentence was this:
“Violence is the voice chosen by terrorist, soldier and solo shooter alike.”
What is so dangerous about that?
April 25th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
Homer says my statement was “merely silly”.
Homer, have you sought to understand what I was saying?
Could I express myself more clearly for you another way?
April 25th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
OK Nigel let’s take your exact quote.
“Violence is the voice chosen by terrorist, soldier and solo shooter alike.”
For a start, I noted in a previous comment that I personally don’t use the word violence when referring to professional armies such as our own (because you see I do know where you are coming from but I personally disagree).
violence n.
1. Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing: crimes of violence.
2. The act or an instance of violent action or behavior.
3. Intensity or severity, as in natural phenomena; untamed force: the violence of a tornado.
4. Abusive or unjust exercise of power.
5. Abuse or injury to meaning, content, or intent: do violence to a text.
6. Vehemence of feeling or expression; fervor.
I doubt that any member of the ADF would say that they use force for violating, damaging or abusing. They have authority to exert force conferred on them. In as much as they are a volunteer army (yet nevertheless screened for suitability) they chose to accept the authority we give them and to exercise it within the confines we (the people on whose behalf they act) have set for them. In as much as we call on them to defend us and to restore order, prevent agression I doubt that we could even call their actions unjust. (This does not mean soldiers etc are not capable of violent or unjust actions in the course of war. They too are not perfect.)
Terrorists however, violate the norms of our society including respect for life, seek to damage our values, security, order, institutions and often abuse our values, freedoms, legal systems etc. to achieve their ends. They do indeed chose the voice of violence.
April 25th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
It may be that we are using different definitions of the word vilence:
vi·o·lence –noun
1. swift and intense force: the violence of a storm.
2. rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment: to die by violence.
3. an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws: to take over a government by violence.
I meant it in the sense of the second deffinition.
(The third deffinition may or may not also be true — but that is a secondary argument. Before we can hear each other describe whether we think an action is unjust or unwarranted we first need to agree on what that action is.)
Does it make more sense to you if I say:
“rough or injurious (and specifically lethal) physical force is the voice chosen by terrorist, soldier and solo shooter alike.”
April 25th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
Re #71 Emma - about the most personal I got was noting a journalist’s cliche in your argument and that you too were a journalist. Now if you are not able to defend your view by crying that a few words correlating your argument with your profession were a personal attack, what should make me think you are prepared to take a bullet for Christ?
um…actually you said there were better fashoin journalists than me and that I am what’s wrong with the church.
and as for “what should make me think you are prepared to take a bullet for Christ?” what exactly do you mean? when have I ever said I was taking a bullet for Christ? You seem to insinuate I can’t or won’t stand up for my faith…again with the insults. I just don’t get it.
April 25th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
“…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?”
I’m with Emma and Janet here, though I’m sure that won’t surprise you, Saint.
In just a few short sentences, you managed to firstly, make snide remarks directed at Emma’s gender; secondly, suggest she was just spouting fashionable politics; thirdly, attack her credibility based on her profession; and fourthly, quite clearly state that she’s the reason churches are empty. It’s worth noting that none of this was directed at her arguments, but was simply directed at her personally and an attempt to attack her credibility.
Something tells me I’ve seen this pattern before…