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 30th, 2007 at 11:19 pm
Rev
I do not find the way of peace bullshit. Nor do I find the way of Jesus and His apostles irrelevant or irresponsible. But I find the notion of standing by and letting others die for the sake of our beliefs incompatible.
What is just and loving about that?
I have no problem with you or me dying for our faith if that is what God calls us to do (I hope He doesn’t)
But I do have a problem with allowing other people to die for our faith, which is essentially what we’re talking about.
I find that irreconcilable.
Cheers
MN
May 1st, 2007 at 12:30 am
Rev,
There is nothing wrong with hiding behind Jesus but so far you have not answered a few of the questions raised by various people on this thread plus then some.
For example:
If it is absolutely prohibited to kill then how can God be justified in killing - by your definition he commits an evil act (various parts of the OT, Ananias and Sapphira, Herod)
You also hide behind the fact Jesus didn’t kill whereas you have not indicated how then God could nevertheless kill without in someway repudiating the Trinity and/or falling into the old heresy that the God of the OT is not the God of the NT.
To this I would also add that the ten words in Exodus/Deuteronomy don’t use the Hebrew word for kill, but for murder, with the emphasis on intentional murder (borne out in the remainder of the law) which both fits with God as the author and giver of life maintaining the right to take it away, and also delegating that right to his appointed authorities to execute capital punishment and holy war. The warning too that is woven throughout the OT is not to put the innocent to death, but there is allowance (grace) for unintentional death (e.g. in case of accident)
Jesus rightly pointed to anger as the source of murder, not anger as the source of “violence” or “killing” and the NT also pointed to the fact that our real war (not the only war to which we are called to fight) is with the powers of darkness.
In fact, the strict pacifist view actually is incoherent and requires a lot of gymanstics to make sense of the biblical text and requires total non action even in the now and not yet of a present world. God forbid that we should be so callous. This does not mean there is a blanket OK to shoot the first person that doesn’t look good to you (and Homer, in God’s law, property crime is never a capital crime) but it just means we need to always seek to do God’s will. And there are no rules but that for us. Now in terms of war, for some that will mean serving in defence forces and for others it will be in other capacities.
Anyway I think that will be all from me for this subject for now.
May 1st, 2007 at 7:21 am
MN, please read this carefully, and repeat it a few times, and then reflect on the statement again, and maybe read it a few more times so I don’t repeat myself over and over and over again: I believe that we must do something about people getting killed, it is unloving, and unChristlike to allow anyone to be killed, and we must even risk our own lives to stop it, but not take lives.
rev
May 1st, 2007 at 7:32 am
Saint,
First off, I must ask you if Jesus was the exact representation of God in flesh? And if He was, was He also our saviour? Was he also the New Adam? Does He tell us He brings a new commandment?
The answer is obviously yes to all of those questions. So when Jesus goes further, we are not right to say: well God used to allow genocide, so you are going too far. Jesus is God revealed. Why do we no longer follow the dietary codes? God said not to eat pig, and that the pig was an unclean animal, so did God change His mind? Actually Jesus never said that pigs were clean animals did He? But He did say to love your enemies, and as far as the definition of Paul in 1 Cor, I don’t see killing them as part of that. Jesus was responsible for a New Kingdom, and in Jesus Kingdom mercy is shown above punishment. Forgiveness is above retribution. Love is above violence. Meek is above powerful. If we are to walk in the way of the new Kingdom, we must shun the mechanisms of the Old. Jesus said that the old wineskins are not fit for the new wine. We cannot hold to an old Testament view.
But let me ask you then this, if you are going to allow for killing and war, what about slavery? That is not only accepted in the old testament, but also spoken of in the new. Or what about capital punishment for homosexuals and adulterers? Or animal sacrifice?
As to the Old Testament, I believe it is the inspired word of God, but it is only such as we view it thru the light of Jesus. Jesus is the way, the truth and the life, and we cannot come to the Father but through Him.
Perhaps I actually believe the scripture when it says “love never fails”
rev
May 1st, 2007 at 9:29 am
rev you are prepared to do something more sacrificial than I, in terms of joining a pacifist army that goes into places knowing they can be killed.
I think a big enough force [who have access to lethal force] will end the killing in Darfur. No-one needs to be killed. When an exceedingly large Samoan bouncer asks me to leave a nightclub I don’t take my chances. I head for the exit doors and comply, because of the threat.
The current Australian troops in the Solomon’s and Timor have rarely had to use lethal force, and only in the face of lethal attack. In the Solomon’s, no islander [gangster] has been shot yet to my knowledge apart from an AFP officer.
Notwithstanding your admirable willingness to sacrifice yourself, the likelihood of some kind of peace army forming is remote. Thus the sentiment hangs suspended in an air of unreality. The potential for a large enough force [were the UN, Europe, Africa willing] to be deployed overnight is a very real prospect.
May 1st, 2007 at 9:30 am
sorry, that last post implied AFP officers are counted amongst the gangsters. Nothing could be further than the truth. My bad.
May 1st, 2007 at 10:09 am
Well thank you, but I honestly feel there is no other direction from Christ.
But I might ask, is it possible that we would have this kind of force if the followers of Jesus would pick up their cross (instrument of death for those that oppose the empire) and follow Jesus? Would it help if the church stopped preaching just war theory? Would we actually find this kind of movement if we stopped making CHristianity an easy believism, rather than a radical surrender to God? The naysayers say that we must make Christianity easier, I say we need to make it harder, the people of today find no use for a happy clappy positive attitude religion, what people long for is something to live for,and die for.
rev
May 1st, 2007 at 10:33 am
# 181 saint Says:
“In fact, the strict pacifist view actually is incoherent and …requires total non action.”
I don’t know which pacifist view requires total non action. Certainly not the views that the rev and I are proposing. Maybe you could 1) describe that non-action view further to help me understand what you are riling against and 2) recognise that it is different to what I am talking about.
May 1st, 2007 at 10:45 am
rev I like what you have to say about making it harder. However, still take a different view on methods of resisting evil. I’ll out myself as a p.t . military chaplain, one who makes a choice [which I am allowed to] not to carry a weapon. I find it harder to try and live out my faith in a secular military context than to withdraw from such realms and maintain the purity of my ideals.
May 1st, 2007 at 11:36 am
I never advocate withdrawing from your context, unless your context is inherantly sinful, if you can be in the army and not carry a gun, then more power to you. But you must make that choice.
rev
May 1st, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Boy, I should check this more than once a day! This thread has almost passed me by. I’ve got to say that the whole Darfur/Rwanda scenarios is - as Emma suggested - the sort of thing that makes pacifists tremble. I also take into account the Rev’s stand: does a sitiuation like Darfur require an answer of the good guys shooting the bad guys?
These are important, relevant issues, ones the church really needs to grapple with in order to have a say in some of what is going on in this world we are in. I don’t have a solution that would not - feasibly - end the killing, looting and raping in Darfur without some violence against the janjaweed and Sudanese government forces, and some of the “rebels”. But - due to the failings of the West - we are left with little option.
It is a sad state of affairs when to put in peacekeeping troops will first result in some violence then - hopefully - peace. But our options narrow day by day. But they are moral options that are narrowing. Day by day in places like Darfur, options on being able to survive - let alone live - are also narrowing. Time the West - pardon the expression - bit the bullet. If we need to fight, then let us fight armed military forces, in order to stop them killing civilians.
Yeah, not much of an option.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:17 pm
Saint, your property crime line went straight over my head.
what does it mean to pick up your cross and follow Jesus. It means you continue to follow Jesus even if the law deems it illegal and you die.
There is one hell of a difference ( pun intended) between that and allowing yourself to be murdered because of some woolly doctrine that has you loving your murderer as he murders your wife and children.
You can love him that is tell him about Jesus etc but you are in the happy farm if you take no action
May 1st, 2007 at 4:05 pm
AND ONCE AGAIN I NEVER EVER SAID TAKE NOT ACTION, I SAID TAKE NO LIFE, CAN YOU READ HOMER?
let me say this a better way. Your situations that you pose come from long term problems. Perhaps the way of nonviolence would not seem so illogical if we started a bit further back on the time line. Could we have stopped Hitler by loving our enemies after world war one, and not making it impossible for them to survive? And by giving support to rebuilding, and by actually going a living among them and being Christ to them?
Or maybe not quite as far back as that, maybe we go back to when Hitler started to require jews to wear the star, what if we all began to wear the star as well, and people from other countries came into Germany and wore the stars as well. And began to care for and feed those Jews that were being persecuted, and do it publicaly risking death, and doing it in the name of Jesus. And what if when the German armies began to mass at the borders what if they were met by unarmed forces of people that would not step aside, and the army was forced to gun down nonviolent resisters, how many of them would keep the will to fight?
You see, it is like you rile the bull up, dress yourself in red, and climb into the pit and say, well I have no choice but to kill the bull he is charging me. Einstein said it best when he said, the kind of thinking that is needed to solve the worlds problems is of a completely different sort to the thinking that caused those problems. Violence does not rid us of violence, it never has, and never will.
rev
May 1st, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Rev, with respect, it’s statements like that which do not give me confidence. Genocide is a term coined in the 1950s - with reference I believe to the Holocaust. Nowhere but nowhere has God ever advocated genocide by the modern definition. I find it hard to believe that you would let politics interpret the gospel. Perhaps read Deuteronomy carefully (and Jesus did quote it quite a bit and it informed his understanding and his ethics) again. -and slowly. Perhaps too compare with ANE warfare practices at the time.
Also, in all my time as a Christian I have never heard anyone preach just war theory. Perhaps because it is not theology but philosophy. And again there I say read history (a refrain I heard from one of my teachers, again and again, and oh how right he was). Just war theory - in its many recenscions - was developed to LIMIT war, not to justify it, much less to justify it in God’s name.
I say it again. Unlike ancient Israel, the church today is not a political entity. It carries no authority to declare war - that authority now rests with the state. The church - the people of God - however plays a role as salt and light - to preserve and illuminate. That may be in many contexts - including serving in the armed forces.
Loving your neighbour does not discount punishment for evil or discipline.
Zulu said:
Zulu, assuming bouncer is kicking you out for misbehaving or disrupting patrons ;-), I would go even further and say that in some way that points to something we have forgotten: fearing God, in the sense of reverential fear. I sometimes wonder whether translators did us a disservice by telling us people were “amazed” at Jesus teaching when in some passages it is better translated “struck with fear”. We all would like to think we long to see Jesus face to face, but I have always wondered if the first vision of Him we will have, will be His feet.
I have always thought a no fly zone in Dafur would be a start - but by Rev’s stance no Christian could participate because it may also require a pilot to shoot down a transgressor. One could not police such a zone without that. (Which is why Nigel, ultra pacifism inevitably leads one to non-action) And I note that once again it is Christians who are leading the way in bringing that tragedy to people’s attention and agitating for action even though it is largely Muslim on Muslim, Arab on black.
May God bless you in your service to Him Zulu, you and all men and women in our armed forces. You would know that there are many of us Christians who pray each week for our armed services, and we are so thankful especially for Christians like you are salt and light in the most broken and difficult of circumstances.
May 1st, 2007 at 4:19 pm
go into a city and kill every man, woman, child and animal is about as close to genocide as you are likely to get Saint. If you would prefer not using that word fine, suggest an alternative? Total and absulute destruction of an entire people group just sounded a bit long winded.
rev
May 1st, 2007 at 6:55 pm
Zulu, I imagine you are ministering in a very tough, but needed environment. I hope your chaplency with those who need your ministry is fruitful and effective.
May 1st, 2007 at 6:58 pm
Wow. The myth of ‘violence as solution’ is so ingrained that when the rev or I say don’t kill some people keep hearing - don’t do anything.
Homer, What is woolly about loving the murder of your wife? I thought that is exactly what following Jesus was about. I think it might have been already quoted on this thread but ‘it is hard to love someone while you are busy killing them’.
May 1st, 2007 at 7:25 pm
Rev,
I would be interested to know (a)how you define genocide and (b) what is an example, in your view of God advocating genocide.
If however you believe: “go into a city and kill every man, woman, child and animal is about as close to genocide as you are likely to get Saint.” then - assuming I accept your definition (I don’t but let’s hypothesize), who commanded this? God the Father? God the Son? God the Spirit? And if one but not the other, what does that say about your God as Trinity? And who it is that Jesus reveals fully?
May 1st, 2007 at 8:38 pm
O dear! said “What is woolly about loving the murder of your wife?” … when I meant “What is woolly about loving the murderER of your wife?”
May 1st, 2007 at 8:44 pm
I have lost track of this thread!!
Zulu - I think you are right, I think that a big enough force, with access to lethal force, will end the killing Dafur…for as long as they are there. You’re right, the troops in the Solomons and Timor have rarely had to use force - but what difference have they really made? I said earlier that one phrase pretty much EVERYONE in the Solomons uses when you ask them about RAMSI is “peace without security”. They describe RAMSI as the lid on the boiling pot - once it is gone, the pot will boil over. Which goes to the points Emma and others have been making about violence being a short-term, bandaid ’solution’…if it can even be called that.
Also…I think that military culture - which I regard as one of progressive brutalisation (and yes I know people in the military) - is one that can compound the problem. I’m not sure where you’ve been overseas, and my experience is confined to the Solomons, but it became very clear to me, very quickly, that the Australians in RAMSI (which was at that point in time predominantly police and military personnel) had been appropriately trained. This is part of the problem there - they have not been trained to mix with local people, they wear their guns all the time…locals can quite easily pick the a white New Zealander from a white Aussie because, as they say, “New Zealanders understand the Pacific Way”. Now we could perhaps see this as a problem with the culture of the Australian armed forces, but I think it’s deeper than that - I actually think that being trained to use force is somewhat incompatible with identifying with and understanding “the Other”.
That said, I admire what you do immensely. It is not an easy role, and I don’t doubt the significance of what you do.
May 1st, 2007 at 8:45 pm
thanks for the good wishes in relation to military chaplaincy. I must confess that my role back here is devoid of any heroics, a lot of the time a late arrival at the scene of an accident. [military people never tire of finding comprehensive ways to srew their lives up!].
A close friend of mine is currently a chaplain in the green zone, and he can’t tell me too much of what he is doing, and he travels a lot and goes into communication black holes. Another good friend is preparing to go in a few months. I have found that some people who go there arrive with feelings of ambivolence towards the whole project, but return with a renewed sense of support for what the Aussies are doing there in terms of the reconstruction of a broken soceity.
I spoke to Michael Stone’s father today about him, and it reminded me of another nation building venture Australians can feel thankful for in East Timor.
I’d be happy to venture into these places with rev on my left and my soldiers with their weapons on my right, and I’m sure each would find moments when their particular contribution is suited to the moment.
May 1st, 2007 at 8:54 pm
zulu,
I’m just wondering…
In my field we talk a lot about the problems associated with “aid” being delivered by people in uniforms - it’s a growing problem, and endangering the lives of aid workers (as far as people in my position can see).
Do you have any views on this?
May 1st, 2007 at 9:13 pm
Saint re your comments at 193 you couldn’t be more right - the fear of God is the beginning of all wisdom - we forget that in this Jesus loves my girlfriend age.
Rev and Nigel
let me acknowlegde that your version of non-violence does not mean passivity.
I hear what you say about the words of Jesus and who He is.
But, and not invalidating that, sometimes you reach a limit - and you have to make a choice because it is not if someone will die - it is who.
I think every person in this debate agrees that violence/lethal force whatever you want to call it is not the long term or even medium term answer. What we are talking about is being faced with a damned if you do and damned if you don’t situation - each man and woman has to work out their own salvation in fear and trembling - I don’t anyone person on this thread takes this lightly.
We live in an imperfect world and we are called to salt and light - but let me say that the God I worship is not just the Lamb of God but He is also a Warrior King. I understand the logic behind clinging to Jesus as God incarnate and our best example, but I can’t cast adrift the OT in terms of informing us as to who God is and what His character is. And two of the things He was redhot on in the OT was justice - not vengeance - justice, and mercy.
And at the end of the day we have to all make our own decisions - isn’t it fortunate for us that haven’t had to face the issues in the flesh that we are talking about.
May 1st, 2007 at 9:20 pm
I have had to face this before mn.
Luckily it didn’t end where it could have, but I was willing. That was a very good post, and in the end we do have to answer to Jesus for our own actions. And none of us take this lightly. I do believe we have to come to a situation sometimes that means someone has to die, and we must choose who. In my reading of Jesus, this person is always me, just like it was in His case.
Saint, I am not sure of where I stand on those scriptures, but what I can say is Jesus says he brings us a new “way” the way of the kingdom, is the more complete way. Can you explain to me how 1 Cor 13 condones war, or killing in anyway? If there is a disparity, then I choose Jesus revealed in the flesh, and I think this is what we are all called to do.
rev
May 1st, 2007 at 11:47 pm
Thanks MN it is nice to know some are listening. I respect the way you are trying to express what you think here.
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:19 pm
Bec, I was talking with an aid worker this week who was relating a story about a situation where they were trying to distibute aid, but had no assistance from soldiers. You can fill the rest of the story in………. strong men arrive who take the lion’share, resell on the black market, and the rest are thrown into a Darwinian scramble of the survival of the fittest and strongest.
The weak, the young and the old lose out.
The military, where possible wear ’soft’ hats instead of helmets, and their weapons are less prominent. Likewise, in some contexts aid workers need no presence of military. I prefer a military intervention where the highest priority is the safety of people and the functionality of their infrastructure. Australians are brilliant at hearts and minds approaches in deployments. Compare aussies with US soldiers: no comparison with respects to this.
Any ideaology we have, no matter how pure it is, must be applied to abroken world where tragic historical precedents ahve left many countries mired in a perpetual hell. Aid into these situations can only come via the protection of a force, whcih is big and strong enough to oppose the forces of lawlesness and terror.
May 2nd, 2007 at 4:05 pm
I dunno Zulu - I haven’t worked in a crisis situation, but I personally have grave concerns about the blurring of lines…and the ICRC has produced heaps of research on this. Also…although again my experience is EXTREMELY limited, I do take issue with your line that “Australians are brilliant and hearts and minds approaches in deployments”…I was constantly embarassed to be a white Australian when in the Solomons. I’m not saying RAMSI hasn’t achieved anything - it definitely has. I just think that the government and government departments focus on the successes and constantly ignore the feedback they’re getting from NGOs, no matter how much time, energy and money NGOs are investing into investigating public opinion of RAMSI. The mere fact that Solomon Islanders can pick a white Australian from a white New Zealander raises questions about whether we are as good at the “hearts and minds” approaches as we would like to think we are. But again, this is based on my very limited experience, and I’m probably getting way out of my depth.
May 2nd, 2007 at 5:14 pm
Bec, in the absence of any on the ground experience of my own, I will have to defer to your experience until I can see it at first hand myself.
What I see is personal presentations from people coming home from deployments and discussing the issues with them.
I disagreed with the Iraq deployment initially, and this formed part of my discussions with friends both returned and currently there.
They have helped change my perspective somewhat.
May 16th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
How very interesting!
May 16th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
That blog reader might have been reading Lance’s posts… “worst little piece festering of pond scum” does have a ring to it!