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 28th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
No mn, it is evil. To kill and destroy is evil. To take up the tools of satan is evil. We cannot weild an evil tool to do good. Of course I believe people have good motives, but people with good motives took aboriginals babies away from them. That was evil, intentions make no difference. Why did the disciples not fight back? When Jesus was shown the woman in adultery, she was guilty of the law, and the law said she was to be killed, Jesus said “he who is without sin cast the first stone” Now for all the excuses people make for that story the fact is, the old testament calls for her execution. And the guilt of the judges is not a reason for the law to be broken, but Jesus breaks the law anyways. Because mercy is better.
But let me ask you, are you really going to use that incredibly unlikely hypothetical to instruct your view, rather than the words and actions of your saviour, and Lord?
rev
April 29th, 2007 at 12:08 am
Rev
it is an extreme hypothethical which I hope none of us find ourselves, but at the same times its not. And what I am talking about is doing good or not doing good - don’t get sidetracked by the intentions although I did raise that.
In the case of the adulterous woman there was an alternative - which was good - and there are biblical equivalents of God asking people to break the law to do good - “Hosea” - the scenario I raised I don’t see there is an alternative because an evil act will be done if someone don’t do anything.
And I simply don’t accept that to kill in all circumstances is evil - I don’t see Jesus making that statement anywhere - and I see other statements in the Bible that appear to be God inspired that say there is a time. You and I disagree.
What happens though if we change lanes a little?
Change the example to a fraud being perpetrated on someone that will break someone and will occur unless I blow the whistle. I blow the whistle and that person is charged and goes to jail.
I don’t actually see a difference between scenario 1 and 2 - to me the only thing that has changed is the consequence. The perpetrator either goes to jail, deprived of their liberty for a while, and cops a criminal record which follows them around for the rest of their life, or they die.
Are you in fact defining evil not by Jesus words, but by your difficulty with the of the consequence, and the fact that that consequence stems from a personal action for which I am responsible?
I don’t think we are likely to change each others views in the short term - and in any case I admire and respect your commitment to what you believe.
Cheers
MN
April 29th, 2007 at 12:54 am
Have you guys read about the Gibeonites?
They were some of the Amorites who conned Joshua into giving them a peace treaty when Joshua was taking the land - they should have been all killed. But because Joshua gave his word he honured the treaty and the Gibeonites became Israel’s servants.
Shortly after the treaty Joshua even fought a battle against the rest of the Amorites to save them from other enemies - Joshua 10:7-8: - So Joshua marched up from Gilgal with his entire army, including all the best fighting men. The LORD said to Joshua, “Do not be afraid of them; I have given them into your hand. Not one of them will be able to withstand you.”
Now it turns out that Saul put the Gibeonites to death much later, and God punished Israel for that - see 2 Sam 21 - During the reign of David, there was a famine for three successive years; so David sought the face of the LORD. The LORD said, “It is on account of Saul and his blood-stained house; it is because he put the Gibeonites to death.”
Doing good means honouring your promises and protecting those who are weak - and I think that the Lord takes a dim view if we we don’t.
Cheers
MN
April 29th, 2007 at 8:46 am
So mn, when Jesus says do not return evil for evil, we are saying that them killing me is evil but me killing them is not? Jesus tells us that we are not to return a slap for a slap, but a murder for a murder is okay? Doing good doesn’t interest me, doing like Jesus does. Our ideas of good are completely warped, and we have so corrupted our world that things don’t make sense anymore. I believe we must follow Jesus, the guy we say is our Lord, he shows us the way. The disciples got this, and tell us to walk in his steps. And they did. We now think we have a better state sanctioned way, but it is the foolish way of the cross that we are called to. The problem is the road is narrow, and hard, and full of sacrifice.
rev
April 29th, 2007 at 11:02 am
Rev
we’ll have to agree to disagree. Jesus is the same Lord to me as He is to you, but the way you understand evil is different to me - for a start there is a fundamental difference between to kill and to murder. I am not discounting the words of Jesus at all, but neither am I discounting the rest of Scripture in terms of what is good and evil - and by that I simply mean what God wants me to do and not to do. I am not starting with state responses because the state is not responsible at judgment - I am - so to that extent you are simply not addressing what I am saying. I think we’ll leave it there.
Cheers
MN
April 29th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
little time but rev said the law called on the adulteress to be stoned.
Not so.! Cor 5 clearly shows the law applied to unrepentant people not merelt to people who committed such an offence.
David anyone?
April 29th, 2007 at 8:59 pm
rev you wrote:
>>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.
April 29th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Not sure what happened there. Rev thanks for your honesty. This is where I depart radically from pacifists because I think that this is pure fantasy. Your capacity to blog and live in freedom in this country is thanks in part to those who ARE prepares to put their necks on the line to maintain the rule of law.
There will never be a scenario where Christians are in the majority – pure fantasy. We will spend the rest of our days living out our faith and ideals in a secular world. In the meantime you will continue to pay your taxes and along with me enable the financing of our police [and other forces] who rely often on the threat of lethal force. Render unto Ceasar…
April 29th, 2007 at 9:24 pm
Zulu
yeah that thought occurred to me last night. Jesus would know perfectly well that taxes paid to Caesar would go to less than desirable causes - but it didn’t worry Him at all in making that statement.
It’s a moot point as to whether He thought some of those purposes might be legitimate or not (I don’t know enough about Roman history at that point).
Cheers
MN
April 30th, 2007 at 2:52 am
I think you guys are clutching at straws with the tax thing.
April 30th, 2007 at 8:17 am
Yeah, the tax thing doesn’t work. Jesus was telling people that if they are going to take part in a worldly kingdom then they must expect to be taxed. If you are going to use Caesers money, then you will have to deal with taxes. There are many ways to take yourself out of the tax game, but if you are going to be in the system you have to pay the systems fees.
I do not believe that the kingdom of God is destined for failure, I believe we may yet see a move of God that actually brings the kingdom to earth.
I will live in freedom regardless of where I am, and whether or not people are “putting their necks on the line”. The church in China suffered the most horrible persecutions imaginable and walked in the fullness of God’s kingdom in more powerful ways than any of us can imagine. The circumstantial excuse is a bad one. All over this earth I see the Christians with the least freedom, living the most authentically CHristian lives.
rev
April 30th, 2007 at 10:45 am
What makes you think it is Christ-like to support war mongering taxes?
When Jesus said “Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasars” he was not refering to a coin. He was more concerened about those people who were so owned by Ceasar they were carrying around his blasphemous and idolitrous coin within the very temple! Notice Jesus doesn’t produce the coin for this clever object lesson.
The Law cleary stated that they should have no graven images and that there is no GOD besides the LORD. The Jews even have a money changing system because temple offerings can’t be paid in Roman coins - yet these alternative Jewish leaders are wandering around the Temple courts with Romans coins - what hypocrits.
Jesus here is clearly demonstrating that these people have sold out and belong to Caesar while he belongs to God. Rome with its militrism is a corrupt worldy kingdom and stands in contrast to the just and merciful kingdom of God, which Jesus anounces is close at hand (I hope you don’t dismiss him as an unrealist idealist).
April 30th, 2007 at 10:52 am
Sorry in my enthusiasm I exagerated in that above post. I said Jesus ‘clearly’ demonstrated his point. It is patently not so ‘clear’ if we are disagreeing about it.
On reflection I think Jesus was teaching in his usual way of parable telling. The truth is only clear to those who have ears to hear and eyes to see. Our very act of interpreting Jesu’s actions and words exposes which kingdom (God’s or Caesar’s) is shaping our lives in this area.
April 30th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
rev, be honest with me again. Do you think that your ideal will ever happen where a majority of people in this nation are Christian and the context will be right to move towards non-lethal maintenance of law and order?
Do you support the deployment of a United Nations intervention force in Darfur region now to stop the slaughter of the innocents?
April 30th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
Oh yes becuase they did such a good job in Rwanda, why not send them everywhere to stop the slaughter of innocents. UN stands for UN-useful
April 30th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
OK, do you support the deployment of a useful, powerful, fully mandated, free to act against the genocide, force?
April 30th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
As opposed to my normal dishonesty?
I do not support military actions, ever! I do not understand how peace keeping forces kill people, doesn’t really make sense to me. Do I support Christians going into these places and sacrificially loving people, even at the risk of their own death, yes.
Do I ever see a time when we don’t need police? Yes I am not a dispensationalist, and believe that we may yet see God’s kingdom come on earth. I have seen small groups of people walk in the kingdom, there is no reason why larger networks cannot. One huge hindrance is the steadfast resistance of the Christian people to following Jesus teachings and example. As the church continues to embrace violence, power, fame, and riches, it will continue to subvert the kingdom of God, and prolong the idolatry of consumerism, and materialism. And as long as the Church refuses to be peacemakers, war will continue.
rev
April 30th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
Hmmm, I’ve kept a close eye on Darfur and - seriously - as much as I hate the thought of death and war, I get ripped apart by the thought that the West is just sitting back yet again as a genocide occurs. Women and girls are getting raped and killed, children are dying of starvation and there is no end in sight. I agree that the church should be peacemakers, as should governments.
Darfur is an abomination. It is occurring because the Sudanse government is encountering no opposition to their State mandated reign of terror. A UN peace keeping force might actually serve as a deterrent and protect the people of Darfur and the humanitarian agencies trying to feed them. It may not, either. But I’d rather do something, then sit back and do nothing. I think I’d rather committ a sin - if you like - of commission, rather than omission.
I am aware that I have used emotive langauge and I’m sure my argument will have a hole or two…but the people of Darfur are suffering. We need to do something. In a world where power has corrupted so deeply, perhaps there is no response we can make that is untainted?
April 30th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
I know an Australian officer who witnessed a massacre in Rwanda. He was part of an Australian contingent, poorly mandated and hugely outnumbered who were seeking to protect people.
They had to watch as people were massacred all around them. Even if they had the mandate [which they didn’t thanks to the UN], they didn’t have the backup or numbers. Many of them continue to struggle with a sense of rage and also helplessness, helpless as they were to intervene.
If they had it all to do over again they would like to have had the mandate and the support, to intervene.
Rev you paint a wonderful vision. Not sure about the theological basis of this coming of the kingdom of God on earth, and I’m dismayed that you cannot recognise the extent of evil in this world and how it would overwhelm us if not for the forces of law and order. Agree to disagree.
To me any day is a good day when I don’t have to use my AK…
April 30th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
The rev is identifying actions that kill and destory and contrasting them with the reign of God, yet in dismay you say he “cannot recognise the extent of evil in this world”??
April 30th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
if you take no action then you allow an innocent person to die I would say that it not being able to recognise the extent of evil in the world.
April 30th, 2007 at 4:27 pm
just_nigel here’s the deal: as we sit in front of our modern pc’s, connected no doubt to broadband, women and children and men are being massacred, raped etc in Darfur.
The situation cannot wait for some kind of utopia to arrive, so what do we do?
What do you or rev think should be done in Darfur TODAY?. This isn’t some hypothetical, this is rape and pillage as we speak. What do we do about it?
No motherhood statements please, a cogent suggestion about something that can be done today? Any takers?
Furthermore, any suggestions as to what would happen in the Solomon’s if we put all our troops on ships and planes tonight? Any realistic suggestions as to what will happen?
April 30th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
bluth, I do hear you, and situations like dafur is where my convictions fall apart too. I think it is a God-given impulse to want to fix the problem, what is happening is evil. I do believe violence used against violence cannot achieve anything in the longterm, it is a neverending cycle. And I admire rev and nigel for their uncompromising stance, I think we don’t think about radical peaceful solutions enough. But when faced with a situation like that…I feel like it is a weakness on my part, but I find my convistions failing me a little.
April 30th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
sorry, had to add too that using violence is such a short-term solution to any problem. Like nigel said in the first post that started all this, if Hitler hadn’t been allowed to come to power in the way he had - on the back of ww1 - then we would have seen a very different world now. And in africa, if the west hadn’t ripped the guts out of the continent then we would be faced with far different sitiations than we are now…any misuse of power really does seem to lead to violence - okay I really sound like an anarchist now!:) I heard Peter Tinley say the other day in talking about iraq that we’re really good at decpitating regimes but not good at recpitating them, that there was never really an exit plan for iraq and even our efforts in thw solomons etc aren’t aimed enough at rebuilding econokmies etc. If we got really serious about peace then I think we wouldn’t look to violence to “solve” problems, not longterm.
April 30th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
Zulu, the contrast between my comfortable life and the terrible, terrible situation in Sudan is indeed vast. I know we would all welcome a just and lasting end to the violence there. While I can recognise the evil of genocide, I personally do not know all the practicle steps that need to be taken there to acheive it.
But just because the rev and I do disagree with the lasting value of what you see as a solution, I don’t see how it helps to accuse him of being incapable of recognising the extent of evil in this world.
April 30th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
# 167 Bluth Says:
“I think I’d rather committ a sin - if you like - of commission, rather than omission… In a world where power has corrupted so deeply, perhaps there is no response we can make that is untainted?”
I was challenged by your question. I don’t have the answer but thank you for the question.
April 30th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
I don’t see how anyone can take what I said to mean we don’t do anything. I absolutely believe we should do something. What you insist is that we kill people. I insist we do something that does not kill people. I say it is an abomination, and the image of God is being raped and murdered. Murdering it some more will not bring the Kingdom. I am not willing to kill for justice, but I am willing to die for it. When the armies are recruited to go and die loving the enemy I will sign up.
rev
April 30th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
Re the tax thing
Jesus was telling people that if they are going to take part in a worldly kingdom then they must expect to be taxed. If you are going to use Caesers money, then you will have to deal with taxes.
If you live Aust and you earn income - you should pay tax - I know - I’m a tax collector.
If you don’t odds are you are breaking the law and getting someone else to illegitimately fund your lifestyle - (not talking about faith workers here).
there is plenty in the bible that talks about obeying and if not respecting the laws land - if you think they work against you obeying God then you have to figure that one for yourselves
As for the not interceding and the violence issue - personally sick of the crap.
Jesus is more Lord and Saviour, and if Europe didn’t do this and the UN did this… what a lot of bullshit
There are people dying TODAY - it is not about what happened yesterday, it is about what is happening TODAY - you may not have noticed but we can’t do anything much about yesterday for someone who is dead.
Now if you’re a pacifist and you tread that path because that is what u believe Jesus wants you to I respect that.
To argue for Christians to get in there and take a bullet or a machete - I respect and understand that.
But to argue to let innocent people die because we won’t do something shoot the bugger who is killing, torturing his tens and hundreds of people because that would be evil…as far I as I am concerned yo wold culpabable and responsible for their deaths - you have no scriptural or biblical mandate for this.
Don’t stand there and hide behind Jesus - face Him and tell you let those people die because you obeyed His teachings and see how far that gets you…
Now lucky for all us we don’t live there and we don’t have to face the terror that they do - and yes Christians who face persecution for His name’s sake aer right in what they do - but what about those who aren’t Christians that we (rhetorical we since we don’t live there or face it) could have done something about.
Better be damned sure our “theology” is right because I am sure our inaction whether pacifist or otherwise is costing people their lives and their eternity.
April 30th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
Sorry to much of a hurry - ned to correct this
“Jesus is more Lord and Saviour, and if Europe didn’t do this and the UN did this… what a lot of bullshit”
Jesus is my Lord and Savior, (but the talk about) if Europe didn’t do this etc etc
Apologies
April 30th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
MN, I am hiding behind Jesus. There is no one else I would rather hide behind. If you think I am scared of death, or anything else for that matter you don’t know me very well. I am very well aware of the cost of my teachings, are you aware of the cost of perpetuating violence? You act like I don’t give a shit about people dying, but I care so much I believe we have to put a stop to violence, even if it means we give our own lives. How come when a soldier gives his life while killing he is a hero, but when a pacifist gives his life he or she is being foolhardy?
Perhaps you should actually read what Jesus says and take it for what it simply says, because if you did you would understand the kingdom of God requires us to seek a different path. I would never suggest doing nothing, I suggest not killing.
I am sorry you find the way of peace bullshit, and Jesus and his apostles examples to be irrelevant and irresponsible. But 1 cor tells me what love is, and when God tells me to love my enemies 1 cor doesn’t allow me to kill them. And if God is love, as the scripture says, then we are not in his character when we use violence either.
rev