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 26th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
Cool. I *do* think the weight thing can make a difference, but then it can make a difference in ways we don’t expect…ie when I’ve responded to a fight outside, I’ve often been met with “oh, sorry, we’re real sorry…” when a bloke might have been met with “what the f*** are you lookin’ at?!”
You’re helping me clarify my position, too. Your doing a good job of persuading me to revisit my attraction to pacifism.
April 26th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
yeah I was talking to some friends, who are doing urban ministry in the states and they are in a mostly black neighborhood and have been accepted relatively smoothly. But I reckon with my size and persona I would illicit the alpha dog response more readily, the upside is I can react completely differently and it makes people think. Especially when they know what I used to do.
Like most things in life its a blessing and a curse.
rev
April 26th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
the rev, you are doing a great job of articulating similar things to what I would say. Keep it up.
April 26th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
Bec you express more eloquently what I feel about how disconnected to reality pacifism is, although I will admit I refer more readily to pragmatism rather than appealing to the teachings of Christ.
Strangely enough perhaps the greatest contribution to peace in East Timor in recent years was made by an Australian soldier. Michael Stone was Christ to both sides, learned the language, took to the steets and the t.v. to cast a vision of a peaceful Timor where all worked together.
I think Major Michael Stone, Australian Army officer achieved more than any pacifist could in the specific context of East Timor.
April 26th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
it almost sounds as though he was doing the work of a pacifist, zulu…like the brother that said he wouldn’t, but did?
April 27th, 2007 at 12:03 am
All interesting stuff
Rev - an extreme hypothetical.
A person with a gun is about to shoot someone - probably kill them.
The victim doesn’t have a gun, cannot defend themselves and cannot escape.
A third party - a bystander with no specific interest is watching - a Christian - he is too far away to interpose himself between the victim and the oncoming bullet, and the assailant is about to fire or is firing and hasn’t finished the job (vicitm wounded and cannot escape). But lo and behold the Christian for some strange reason has a gun too, and is able to shoot the assailant before he gets a round off or before the assailant finishes the job.
What should the Christian do?
Now I realise you think this might be cloud cuckoo land, but I think this a microcosm of where sometimes (definitely not most of the time) where a whole range of people, groups, nations etc find themselves.
I also state upfront I think most of our responses are either wrong reasons or wrong time. I never supported the war in Iraq - I don’t like being conned, lied to, or treated as if I’m an idiot.
But I wanna know? What do you think he should do?
Cheers
MN
April 27th, 2007 at 8:00 am
Zulu - the characteristics and practices of Michael Stone that you describe have nothing to do with him being a soldier. You say that he did more than any pacifist could - what’s your evidence for that?
I don’t think anyone here would ever suggest that soldiers can’t achieve good things - the question is whether we are prioritising pragmatism and practicality over the Way of the Cross, and whether we should do that as people who profess to follow Christ.
April 27th, 2007 at 8:06 am
not sure mn, I don’t believe that taking a life is right. And even though in that circumstance I might do it, I still would think it was wrong, and that I wasn’t strong enough to do the right thing.
Perhaps firing in the air and making sure he understood that his moral action was being seen by another. Maybe trying to shoot him in the leg. Maybe I would pray, and call out to him.
The point is once again, everyone is trying to find a situation where violence is acceptable, once they discover one, then they use it to justify others. Its like when two Christian teenagers are dating they want to know just how much they can fool around and not be sinning. How close can we get to evil without being caught up into it?
In my understanding it is the devil that comes to steal, kill and destroy. And we are not to be a part of his plan. Jesus came to give life, not take it.
Zulu, at far as pragmatism, maybe you should actually read a bit about the pacifist Gandhi, who lead the first non violent revolution in history. It actually does work. And for all of those that list tienamens square as a failure, China is rapidly changing, and I believe a major part of that change is because these kids stood up to the army, and were martyred for their desire for freedom from oppression.
rev
April 27th, 2007 at 10:49 am
The charge that pacifists are wounderful, cute and furry just too unrealistic is interesting. It begs the question what kind of presumptions shape our reality? I want my reality to not be defined by the cylces of violence that I see used to ’solve’ practicle problems in our world. I seek to have my reality shaped by the coming reign of God. Such a reality can be very costly - but I have never found another reality that I would rather.
April 27th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
Bec what I mean about Michael Stone achieving more is that the relationships that he had with key people in Timor, the t.v. and radio coverage, the recognition of him by gang members on the street, etc, made him capable of advancing the message of peace in a way no-one else has managed. I think he was and is truly blessed by God to be able to be the person that he is.
How strange it would be to a pacifist that this military officer [and a Christian] would develop such an enigmatic presence, how strange that our own military would allow him to operate in such an asymmetrical way, how strange indeed that his military uniform was a key part of his identity, [and no doubt the source of some of the respect he engendered].
the rev: I do not discount the example of Ghandi, I rather hold that his example is one of the effective ways in which peace is advanced. Equally, in some circumstances I think the threat [and use] of lethal force makes an altogether different kind of contribution but nevertheless a contribution to a greater peace.
Where a pacifist approach can be used, I prefer it to be the MO. In many situations it is not a relevant contribution. I admire the motivations and actions of many pacifists, I just don’t hold dogmatically to the belief that it is the only valid way.
With respects to the Jesus argument, I think we can all appropriate the sayings of Jesus to fit our particular cause can’t we?
April 27th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
Well, when the men he trained actually lived the teachings out, as well as Jesus living out those teachings, and then over and over again Jesus says the same thing, I think I have a much stronger platform. What do you think would be the outcome if I listed every word of Jesus that speaks of non violence, and you listed every one that does the opposite? I have a feeling my list would be much much longer, don’t you? And then to make sure there is no mistaking what he said, both he and the disciples lived them out to their own sacrifice and death.
and I think there are many more examples beyond Gandhi. The fact is we don’t have more successes because the way is hard, and many will not try it. I don’t mind dying for my cause if I get to go out swinging, is a very fleshly truth.
rev
April 27th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
Oh and to be sure, you can have varying degrees of living this out. In the case you are talking about, I would suggest that the biggest part of his success was based on his nonviolence, not his military issues.
rev
April 27th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
I think taking statements from Jesus that pertain to a specific interpersonal contexts and then applying that to say, a law and order context, or a national conflict [Timor] etc, is more creative licence with the words of Jesus than a compendium of rock solid Bible proof verses.
Michael Stone is proof that peace can be striven for from within a pacifist movement or within an army. One need not have a binary approach to lethal force. It is rather the committment to peace that is more pertinent on the ground rather than a dogmatic approach to lethal force.
We live in a secular realm where the forces of evil will capitalise on any unilateral committment to pacifism. Pacifists make a valuable contribution, as do some militarists [i.e. Michael Stone] to the secular realm where weakness is exploited by people who are prepared to stop at nothing, not even a serene and reasonable request from an affable pacifist.
Timor without the presence of an army of lethal force would descend into an orgy of killing overnight. The same applies to the Solomons, and many other places in the world. The problems in each context are tackled by different people with different methodology but the same goal.
April 27th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
Zulu, to be fair, it’s arguable that statements from Jesus were in fact directed at a law and order issue - I think that’s particularly arguable re: the description of his arrest!
Then again, there’s some that would say that Jesus wasn’t interested in politics, full stop.
April 27th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
Yes Bec, the issue of Jesus being arrested does necessarily involve law and order in a technical sense [the arresting officicals] but that is not what I understand Jesus was seeking to highlight. At that point doing the will of the Father and not allowing his followers to interpret his mission in a political sense was a more pressing issue rather some commentary on peaceful resistance.
I interpret Jesus’ reluctance not to allow his followers to champion him as a liberator has more to do with pointing to the spiritual purposes of his mission on earth. I think it is possible [as it is for me] to read into this something entirely different. Once again, I think we can spin Jesus into a spokesperson for whatever our thang is.
April 28th, 2007 at 1:14 am
dude, you cannot interpret love your enemies any other way than love your enemies. Nor can you interpret do good to those that abuse you any other way. Nor blessed are the merciful. Nor the whole passage about loving everyone equally just as God does. Nor do not resist an evil person. Nor he who lives by the sword dies by the sword. And I can go on all day. It is complete folly to say that Jesus wasn’t talking about politics so he didn’t mean war. You cannot love your enemies by killing them, in either a personal or a political sense, that is just nonsense.
rev
April 28th, 2007 at 10:58 am
rev how do you reconcile a loving God who has, does, and will kill? Is this where Jesus departs from the Trinity?
April 28th, 2007 at 11:12 am
Did Jesus really say the things I said? Then we are faced with a difficult interpretive task. How to make sense of the Old Testament. But there is many differing ways to go about this, I might have a different view than you do. But in anyway, we have to accept two things:
First Jesus came to show us a new way, to bring a new kingdom, and to usher in a new covenant
Second, Jesus is meant to be followed. Not the preincarnate Christ, nor the coming apocalyptic Christ, but the Christ come in the flesh. Indeed this is the only Christ we can truly follow. As the exact representation of God in flesh, all we can hope to emulate is Christ come in the flesh. Jesus must be our central focus, and the Old Testament and prophecies of the future must line up with the life of Jesus, not the other way around.
rev
April 28th, 2007 at 11:19 am
Just to chip in… I see that Christ is the perfect example of how a human should live…
I Peter 2: 21 To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.
22″He committed no sin,
and no deceit was found in his mouth.” 23 When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly.
This passage is a call for us to “entrust (ourselves) to him who judges justly” rather than taking judgment in our own hands. Christ trusted his Heavenly Father… He is our example. Yes… God will judge everyone in the end… so we need to be very careful about taking judment into our own hands.
April 28th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
“how do you reconcile a loving God who has, does, and will kill? Is this where Jesus departs from the Trinity?”
by realising that God is also Sovereign Just and Creator as well as loving and although his command is for us not to murder, this is not a command beholden upon himself, there is no moral inconsistancy with God taking the life of the one to whom he has given it to.
April 28th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
rev and abtrtuh, agree with both your posts.
However, present reality still begs questions. I assume you both agree with the presence of a police force in our country who when absolutely necessary need to use lethal force? How do you reconcile that obvious need [and I assume your tacit support of the forces of law and order] with the apparent conflict that it presents with the teachings of Jesus?
April 28th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
Zulu, I am a very idealistic person, and actually believe that there should be no lethal force even in policing. But I also believe that this requires a very large number of Christians to actually take the sayings of Jesus as authoritative and be willing to live in this sacrificial manner. So I am an idealist that also understands on a practical level there must be some capitulation until a majority of Christianity will take on this mantel.
rev
April 28th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
Jesus was not confronted with a war.
nor do we see people simply allowing themselves to be put to the sword by thieves etc.
I am not loving a person if I allow him to murder someone.
April 28th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
Zulu is right on the money on this IMHO.
And as I said in #44, Jesus himself would explain his words/actions at times
Once more, Matthew 26
I read the ranscript of Michael Stone’s Australian Story (thanks Zulu). And men like him are exactly why I support Christians in the military.
April 28th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
and I said before that does not come close to explaining why the disciples all died without fighting back, nor does it excuse Jesus explanation that all that live by the sword die by it. Or love your enemies. Or countless other direct teachings of Jesus.
rev
April 28th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
Rev
thanks for your response (128) to my hypothetical at (126).
I think Homer has raised a key issue in this discussion, namely:
I am not loving a person if I allow him to murder someone.
I recognise that you have done a lot more reading and given it a lot more thought than I have. I agree with our comments at 138 in terms of following Jesus, but I don’t think I can come ot your comments about the OT - again we have historically faced the same God from Eden - there is no inconsistency about HIM.
Some other things to consider:
What does stewardship mean?
What does God expect from us with the autonomous and personal power that He has given us - we all have it whether we choose to recognise that or not - that is part of being an image bearer of God including the capacity to encourage or take life.
How do we deal with the differences we encounter on a daily basis between being not of the world but in it.
I understand your comments at 141 as saying that we have to compromise. I don’t think that is the case, but I think the theology around Jesus you have adopted forces you into that position - its like an untenable tension. (For the record - Jesus is the incarnate only begotten Son of God - King of Kings and Lord of Lords - I will bow the knee now and at judgment - but He will let me rise and call me friend - that feels good just to write that).
I agree we are placed in compromising situations every day to which we have respond including potentially whether we respond with force - may be lethal or not.
How do we deal with that?
Well Jesus also said he came not to do away with the Law but to fulfill it - the moral Law had consequences which I don’t necessarily see have ended.
God has also said don’t act of vengeance - that’s My job - and He will do it better anyway.
Neither do I see death as the end for Christian or pagan - the fear of death comes from it either potentially being the end or having to face God not having taken Him seriously in this life.
Jesus said those who live by the sword die by the sword - I see this as referring to the way we do things and seek answers to our problems - and also a relatively simple statement that avoid it wherever possible. (Jesus intention was to die on the cross and taking Peter taking an ear off an official who was only doing his job wasn’t going to change that or help Peter or the disciples).
However our world makes it abundantly clear we will never be able to avoid the violence and seeking sovereign control over ourselves and others, even though we might be called to as far as possible not to contribute to it, but rather seek an alternative way - that of love.
Getting to the point - the fact that someone faces a consequence for their actions which in actual fact may mean death - go back to my scenario at 126 - does not mean that we don’t love them - it may simply mean a person has made a choice - to exercise sovereign independence from God and/or control over others, for which a consequence is mandated by God or appropriate - which we each have to way up as part of following Christ as a way of life, and in the moment that we face each new situation.
This states my position - hope it at least makes sense.
Cheers
MN
April 28th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
Ofcourse it makes sense MN, but it does not follow Jesus’ commands. Like do not return evil for evil but return good for evil. Be merciful. Love your enemies, you cannot allow your enemy to destroy the image of God without making him aware of this moral failure, but you do not do that by justifying his actions by taking vengence yourself. Some of the people you consider terrorists believe they are just in punishing the american people for the half million deaths in Iraq that the trade embargo caused. They feel like they are justly fighting against a foe that is too big to confront conventionally.
And Jesus already fulfilled the law, it is finished, he said so.
And I feel that you are forced to compromise, not me. I admit I am not up to Jesus perfection, but it is you who must say Jesus did not mean what He said, and lived.
Let me try to make this point one more time. Jesus says over and over again that we are to love our enemies, 1 cor 13 says nothing about killing or punishing. Jesus says that the merciful are blessed. Jesus says that we are not to return evil for evil. Jesus says if someone strikes us to turn the other cheek. Jesus says not to resist and evil man. Jesus says that we must trust Him with vengence and punishment. When the disciples talk about fire and brimstone judgement of those that rejected Jesus he says you do not know what spirit you are of. Jesus tells us the enemy is he who comes to steal kill and destroy. And I can go on and on and on. Please tell my your realize that you must make and excuse to allow war, and killing for every single one of those scriptures. And most of the excuses are, well in the old testament it says this, in the old testament they did that, or, well it just doesn’t make rational sense.
Yet when someone makes an excuse about homosexuality, which Jesus actually did not say one word about, the new testament has only four references to, and only one is really explicit they are called relativists.
When someone teaches tithing which has only the most ridiculous new testament reference, and then uses a bunch of Old Testament principles to support it they get slaughtered here on Signposts, but the same does not apply to the very very explicit teachings of Jesus.
And on top of all this, the disciples all died without fighting back, everyone of them except John. So the atonement doesn’t even come close to applying. So Jesus said, and did it, and the disciples said it, and did it, but we think we know better? Isn’t it our bible that explains the wisdom of man is foolishness to God? When Paul tells us that through one man came death to the whole world, also through the man Jesus life comes to the world as well. We should be the people of life, not the people of death.
rev
April 28th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
tell me rev of all the episodes when people attempted to kill the Apostles in the countryside.
you still haven’t explained how allowing a person to kill someone is showing love.
April 28th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
Of course I never explained that Homer, because I never said that it was showing love. What I said is that killing them is not an option. I cannot love someone and kill them, I can speak the truth, I can stand sacrificially and give my life for someone else, Jesus said that is greater love has no man but to give his life for his friend. But he didn’t say greater love has not man but to kill someone to save someone else. We are not allowed to stand by and allow injustice to happen, but to stand against injustice, and murder, and poverty and every violence in the world. But we are not to use violence to oppose, but rather love.
And your first point Homer, umm, are you saying violence is okay in the countryside but not in the city? Are you saying that if the apostles were being attacked in the country they can fight back, but not in the city? Can you explain how everyone of the disciples was killed and did not fight back but each of those cases was somehow exceptional?
you are making scripture fit your politics Homer, and you of all people should feel deeply convicted of that.
rev
April 28th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
Rev
either what I said didn’t make sense or you didn’t address what I wrote.
I haven’t mentioned terrorists once. Nor did I say anything about not following Jesus commands - being merciful, evil for evil etc.
I think I also at least implied that our actions shouldn’t come from vengeance.
Back to my scenario at 126 - say I was the 3rd party - if I shot the assailant and wounded or killed him to save another - that action is simply not out of hate or malice - neither is it evil - neither is it out of vengeance - it is simply preventing evil being imposed on another. If the assailant is a Christian - they will have to answer to God as I. If not they will still have to answer to God as I.
Will I have carried out an evil act and lived in contravention to what Jesus taught?
No - and I don’t think you can make a biblical case for that simply because the assailant had made his own decision to go outside God’s order, and my action to save another from that is an an appropriate and dare I say Godly response. In my view to not respond would be sin - it is of God to protect the weak yes?.
Now to me that is the extrapolation point out into society - I haven’t actually started with society or the nations until this point at all.
[For the record (again) I never supported going into Irag because it was always a put up job].
What I find in response to your concerns and those of Homer, Saint, Zulu et al is most times our actions full stop stem from wrong motives, and not out of doing right. Christians should be better at doing the right thing for the right reason which should reduce violent forceful response hugely, but nations by and large are not “Christian” and generally screw things up.
Homer’s point again at 147 is a lynchpin - sometimes love doesn’t look like what we want it to.
Cheers
MN