Thoughts on Non-Violence Part 10: THE Scenario
November 2nd, 2006 | by Scott |I have three daughters. 5, 3 and 1. It’s important that you add 1/2 behind each of those ages. I’m a little bit fond of each of them and find them securely and permanently twisted around my heart.
This summer my oldest, Chloe, played basketball in our local YMCA league. Neither one of her parents are blessed with any tremendous athletic ability. But she loved it. I loved seeing her play each week, as well. Up to a point.
She just wanted to have fun. And make a basket, which she finally did the last game of the season. However, it was a mixed league and the boys on her team were decidely better than she was. As the season wore on, they became less willing to throw the ball to Chloe.
I fumed on the sideline. And when I saw one father actually encouraging his son to keep the ball from my daughter I nearly exploded. I wanted to slap the smug look off of that guy’s face.
“Oh, raising an alpha male? That’s something to be proud of.”
I tell this story in order to say this at the outset: I’m not good at this scenario.
I can be just as bad as the stone-cold killer in my heart. My anger gets away from me quickly when I see my children neglected, dismissed or maltreated.
However, that does not negate the need for nonviolence. My human response does not offset the Divine Ideal.
Scripture is clear: the way of Christ is not violent. He humbled Himself and died when He could have wiped us all out.
But, invariably, whenever sincere and well-meaning people begin to discuss the prospect of leading nonviolent lives someone will bring up the scenario:
What if someone attacks your family. What if a crazed psychopath breaks in and threatens their life? Would you just stand by and watch your family be killed?
The intent of this scenario is to discredit those who adhere to and believe that nonviolence is truly the way of Christ. But it’s nothing more than a strawman. It does not adequately deal with the dilemma of non-violence.
Most of the time it ends in a stalemate with the question never being truly addressed.
Let me answer here: if someone broke into my house and threatened my family I hope that I would do all that I could to ensure their safety. I also hope that all that I would attempt would be honoring to Christ and consistent with how He has shown me to live. But that is part of the problem. And the problems are many:
1. I don’t know what I would do because I have never been in that situation. I hope I wouldn’t be a coward and hide under the bed. But I don’t know.
2. I don’t know what the attacker will do. The scenario presupposes everything up until my reaction. But it fails to take into account any other possibility.
3. It also presupposes that the avenue to respond in violence is available to me. If a gun-wielding or knife-toting bad man appears in my home I’m probably not going to be able to produce much in the way of retaliatory devices outside of my fists and a couch cushion.
4. The scenario lacks creativity. The bad man is going to kill your family and it all hinges on your response. But:
a. If you had a gun (however, if you are non-violent you probably aren’t gonna be packing) could you shoot the weapon out of his hand rather than shoot to kill?
b. If you are nonviolent you probably aren’t that good with a gun so you might hurt someone you don’t intend to. You have to take that into consideration as well.
c. But let’s say I can get to a knife in time. I do have those in the kitchen. Will I be able to run into the kitchen unimpeded, fetch said knife and return in time to start slashing?
The bottom line is that this is an extreme hypothetical and I do not know what I would do in such a situation. And no one does until they are in such a predicament.
Some additional observations:
1. What is our ultimate role with our families? Is it to protect or instill? If it is to protect in all situations then God is not the ultimate example, for He allowed His own son to die. I’m not saying that protection is not important. Of course, it is. But I could have punched out the basketball dad because I thought my daughter was being slighted. But protecting her interests in that case was not the ultimate end. Teaching her patience and turning the other cheek was far more important. What message is taught if our first inclination is to “shoot to kill” the intruder?
2. The scenario is decidedly patriarchal. Call it the “Wild At Heart” effect.
3. I will defend my family if it is needed but I hope that my reactions will continue to be nonviolent.
4. If violence is the only acceptable response in this scenario then violence becomes the ultimate good in this scenario. That is hard to square.
5. What needs to happen is training in the way of Christ to the point that rather than immediately presupposing that violence is the one acceptable solution to this scenario that, when faced with such a predicament our immediate response is toward peaceful reconciliation. This scenario is proposed not because violence is the ultimate answer but because we have failed in creatively sussing out the possibilities of truly living the nonviolent life.
In summation, I don’t know what I would do in such situations. But here is my greatest hope: that I would automatically seek out the best responses that would protect my family and be an example of Christ. I would hope that I would value each life in the scenario including the attacker. I would hope that, as I stand between my family and potential mayhem, the Spirit of God would enable me to respond in a godly and appropriate manner.
If, however, I responded in a violent manner, I would throw myself on the unchanging and unwavering grace of God.
I’ll leave it at that for now. Thoughts?
74 Responses to “Thoughts on Non-Violence Part 10: THE Scenario”
By Jon on Nov 2, 2006 | Reply
Great post, best one yet for me at least.
My mind was flooded with several thoughts to I will respond with a few now and sort the rest out in my mind.
I own a gun, several, actually I have a small arsenal in my house. Were someone to break in I doubt that I would have time to reach them. If I did reach them and immediately confront the intruder there is a possibility that it would instantly escalate the situation to levels it might not have gotten too. If I were to make it to the gun and shout out to the intruder that I have a gun and never actually encounter him then it might deter them from whatever plan they had in mind.
“THE Scenario” I too feel is outlandish. We seem to conjure up this scenario as if we are highly paid business men with many enemies and our archrival has sent them to take us out, or that we are mobsters and we killed a made man and so we know fighting off the retribution of that. Majority of the time if someone does break in they are probably there to steal and will leave when we (as proven by the movies that all white males do) investigate the noise.
The other idea that we need to protect our families at all costs does tout the prescence and ability of God as our provider. I hate, HATE to watch my wife drive away with my children, 22 months and 2 months, in a car for a long trip on the road. Why? Because I am not in control. I don’t like to fly all that much, Why? Because I am not in control. The idea of protection at all costs seems a little to me like control issues. I cannont protect my family on the road, as if I can drive any better and would avoid all dangers, nor can I control the plane. Yet I can raise my family to be believers and know, even though my heart would be crushed for a while, that if they were to be taken away from me they would still be safe in Heaven in God’s arms because that is where they are because I have imitated God in my life and they imitated me.
Should it come down to violence as the only way to end the conflict, I am not sure how to rate killing the perp versus maiming or injuring.
Another issue I have is that non-violence is associated often with this idea that I can walk around in ‘la-la’ land because I can’t control it so why not be responsible. Ridiculous. The same could be said for ‘the scenario’…put an alarm on the house if one lives in such an area or do it just to protect your family.
Okay, I’ll shutup now!
By Scott on Nov 2, 2006 | Reply
Great thoughts, Jon.
I think you hit at a great part of the problem in your last paragraph: there is no active word for nonviolence. Gandhi tried to create one, ahisma, but it still means “not harm.” We wouldn’t call war “nonpeace” would we? Since there is no active word we get the idea that it is complacency at best or dereliction at worst.
Add that misunderstanding to a world at war (which is almost always the case) then those who espouse nonviolence are cowards and traitors.
By KS on Nov 2, 2006 | Reply
Scott great post and honesty.
To me that is the problem with saying we will be totally non-violent in all circumstances. In that situation, force (or violence if needed) is the greater good. While I think all of us on this blog would say we will exhaust all non-violent means first, when it comes down to it, we will do what we feel is the greater good (in the above case that means use force). Not to advertise my own blog…but I think you might want to weigh in on one of the recent ones I have.
By Scott on Nov 2, 2006 | Reply
Kenny, don’t misunderstand me. I never said that violence can be the greater good. I don’t believe that.
However, I do feel that there might be times when the greater good falls outside of our knowledge and understanding.
By John on Nov 2, 2006 | Reply
Great post and a great take on the whole “scenario” since no matter how we think we’ll hand something real life always proves different. If you asked me 2 years ago I would have said I’d have no problem alone with my daughter. Now that she’s 2 the days I have her alone all day wear me out they’re that tough. Real life always beats scenario thinking.
As for the sports, who the heck cares what the final score on a game with 5 year olds really is? More people need to get a better prospective on the relative importance of a game. The worst case I’ve heard lately was here in my area, and I think it made national news, a father who thought his 6 year-old son wasn’t getting enough playing time in pee-wee football pulled a gun on the coach. Talk about your father of the year. Actually there’s a book out now by Cal Ripken on raising kids and sports and he stresses it should be fun first. I’m sure the kid whose dad is telling him not to pass will start to not have fun at somepoint due to dad’s coaching and stressing winning.
By KS on Nov 2, 2006 | Reply
That is my point Scott. In that case it is. The problem with this theory is that it is just that…a great THEORY. The quote I like for this is “humanitarians who object to taking life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point”.
By Jon on Nov 2, 2006 | Reply
The more I think about it the more I question what kind of reaction would violate a non-violent lifestyle.
Would letting the intrude know I have a gun violate it?
Would using shooting AT him violate it?
Would restraining the perp until the authorities arrive violate it?
Is/Are there specific reactions to every situation or are we left to determine that in our own lives, much like many other issues in the church, say clapping during a song wrong or right(don’t answer that just trying to make a comparison)?
By Scott Freeman on Nov 2, 2006 | Reply
John, I used that illustration of the dad and the peewee football in my sermon last week.
By Scott Freeman on Nov 2, 2006 | Reply
Kenny, how do you know that violence in that scenario is the greater good? Have all other avenues been explored? To relegate it to just a theory is to blindly dismiss the repeated times in history that nonviolence has been successful. Not to mention the eternal perspective that views things a bit differently.
By Scott Freeman on Nov 2, 2006 | Reply
Jon, ultimately it’s going to come down to an issue of conscience. I have a fairly rational well-thought construct in my head of how nonviolence should play itself out.
But, I’m in no place to impose that on others. I don’t view restraint as violent. But someone else might.
By Jon on Nov 2, 2006 | Reply
I think perhaps violence might be the ’serve’ the greater good of your family if it comes to that point.
On another real life scenario, my two cousins were living in an apartment in Dallas and drunk man came banging at their door. Not opening the door they told the man to leave (he was looking for a party and was convinced it was in their apt and they weren’t letting him in)or they would call the cops. The man proceeded to beat the door down. As he was beating his way in both cousins armed themselves and ‘greeted’ the intruder with a shotgun and pistol pointed at his face. The man ’sobered’ up and they called the cops and held him there until they arrived.
For me, FOR ME, this doesn’t violate any sort of nonviolent lifestyle since they threatened force but didn’t harm the man. That is how I view protecting my family. Could I shoot someone, I doubt it, maybe if I actually felt there was no other way out of it, maybe. But I certainly can threaten to.
If we are to imitate Christ and live as he did. Do you think God would deliver one from the situation where you think there is no other option than to end someone’s life? Could you pray for intervention? Would prayer be the last resort before violence?
By Jason Bybee on Nov 2, 2006 | Reply
Individual replies to comments. Now there’s a creative idea.
By Scott Freeman on Nov 2, 2006 | Reply
Wow, a comment from Bybee. What a rarity.
You are my example.
By Jon on Nov 2, 2006 | Reply
Guess he thought since it was his birthday he would allow you the honor of having a comment on his birthday
By Tracy on Nov 2, 2006 | Reply
I love this entry and really appreciate your candor. I don’t appreciate the memory of that dad and what he was teaching his son. I had forgotten about that it makes my heart race and anger come back about the whole situation. I bet that’s a guy that teaches his son to hit back and hit harder.
By jasonk on Nov 2, 2006 | Reply
I liked your post, Scott. What I would disagree with is that protecting one’s family is a strawman argument. It is not, by any means.
For most of the people I know, a violent reaction at a kids sporting event would never be even a remote possibility. Yes, you become angry as can be. I raised three daughters, two of whom played basketball, and one was on the pom squad. Believe me, you haven’t seen angry at a game until you have seen other girls look down on yours because she is too skinny, or too nice, or whatever. Those things hurt the worst, I think.
But when you look at the world we live in, there is a pretty good chance that someone in your family is going to be the victim of a crime. My mom, who is in her 60s and has a terminal illness, has been burglarized twice in the past twenty years, and the last time was this year. They beat her dog. Had I been there, I would have tried to act in a non-violent way, but if push came to shove, I would do what I had to do in order to protect her. So to say it is a strawman is pretty myopic, in my opinion.
Several years ago, I was in the church van getting gasoline. An intoxicated man approached me as I was preparing to drive away, and indicated that he wanted money from me. When I refused, he tried to reach into the van and hurt me. So I opened the door slightly, then used the door to push him backward. He tripped over the concrete “island,” on which the gas pumps sat, and fell flat on his drunken ass. I did not stick around to find out if he was hurt, I just started the van and drove away.
The need to protect one’s own life, and the life of one’s family, is very real, and cannot be so easily written off.
By Scott Freeman on Nov 2, 2006 | Reply
JasonK, I understand what you are saying. But understand I never said that protecting your family was a strawman argument. I said this extremist scenario that people concoct in order to discredit nonviolence is a strawman. Too much is presupposed for it to be legitimate.
Now, you raise specific scenarios that you have had to deal with. That is completely different than hypotheticals. The question is: are there nonviolent solutions to those situations. Most likely.
By jasonk on Nov 2, 2006 | Reply
Thanks for the clarification Scott. I’m sorry that I misread your post.
When I bring up the topic of protecting one’s family, it is not with the intent of discrediting non-violent arguments, not at all. When I bring it up, it is because it is the most likely scenario that will test one’s commitment to such a lifestyle. Most of us will never pull the trigger in a war. But given the statistics, many of us will be the victim of a crime, possibly even a violent crime. So it is a viable argument–you can say you are non-violent, but what if this or that happens? Will you still hold to your position? Defending one’s family is likely the ultimate test of a non-violent philosophy.
A student of mine recently came into the classroom with a cast on his arm. He told me that he and his wife went to a bar over the weekend, and a man past the two of them, looked his wife up and down, then looked at my student and said, “nice piece.” My student proceeded to clean the man’s clock. As a Christian, I would never have chosen that as a reaction. I would have either had a talk with the man and told him that his comment was offensive and inappropriate, or I would have just chosen to leave. That makes me an advocate of non-violence.
My daughter was the victim of a stalker. We involved the police, who advised me that I should purchase a shotgun, and the next time he showed up at my daugter’s window, I should introduce him to it. Instead, I copied the perp’s address of the police report, and showed up at his home to visit with him. Turns out, he was a 19 year old who was “slow.” He knew what he was doing, but when I asked him to stop, he complied. Non-violence worked beautifully.
I don’t want you to think that I disagree with your beliefs on the topic. I totally agree with you. But I think there are times when, as one person put it, force is necessary for the greater good. If its him or me, I know which one I will choose.
By shaungroves on Nov 2, 2006 | Reply
Scott, good reading. One of my blog readers suggested I come check out your writings on non-violence since I write, speak and sing some about the topic. Good to know I’m not alone. Feels that way sometimes.
Thanks for your thoughts and honesty.
-Shaun
By Jason Bybee on Nov 2, 2006 | Reply
Sorry Scott. I couldn’t refuse.
Been swamped with grad school stuff lately. Will do some reading tonight to get caught up and I’ll weigh in.
By KS on Nov 2, 2006 | Reply
I’d agree with Jason K. There are times and situations where non-violence is the best way (about 99% of the time actually). My comment was that we never venture into that other 1% because it shows that there is a time and place for violence and that might mean that we are wrong. When in fact I think that would show some legitimacy to this theory. That you should exhaust all non-violent option, but admit if push came to shove you would use force.
By Jonathan on Nov 2, 2006 | Reply
Again, I’ll apologize (for the last time) that I haven’t yet read parts 1-8. If I’m ignoring or rehashing territory you’ve already covered, that is why. I’m flying to and from the left coast in a couple weeks and hope to be able to catch up then.
I also feel a little funny because I’m again going to take the seemingly opposing view. Like jon and jasonk, it’s not because I’m trying to discredit the principle and practice of non-violence.
I agree that the extreme scenarios are fundamentally flawed if they’re used to try to invalidate, in a wholesale way, a principle like non-violence. As Scott put it:
However, that doesn’t mean that they have no useful purpose.
Obviously, protecting your children and living out Christ’s example of non-violence are not mutually exclusive (as Scott has pointed out):
As others have commented, real life is much more complicated than any scenario. Whatever actions we might take in real life will be affected by things like anger, fear, ignorance, what options we see, etc.
Is it a Christian’s duty to live out Christ’s example of meekness, peacefulness, self-sacrifice, submission, and non-violence? Yes.
Is it a Christian parent’s duty to care for, protect, and nurture her children? Yes.
To me, the extreme scenarios are useful to help us answer theoretical questions like this one: which, between these two true and Godly principles…that in real life are not mutually-exclusive…would ultimately take precedence in a theoretical scenario in which I, as a character in the theoretical scenario, believe them to be in fundamental conflict?
Even if an extreme scenario has no validity as a wholesale attack on the principle of nonviolence, it may still have validity to help us figure out if nonviolence as principle may, at least in theory, have exceptions or if it is an overriding principle subordinate to no others.
In my opinion, when it comes right down to it, my duty to practice nonviolence is subordinate to my duty to protect my children (or anyone else for that matter). In the theoretical scenario in which practicing nonviolence and defending my child from harm are in conflict, I believe the higher calling is to protect my child. Scott asked:
Both to protect and to instill. Again, which principle is theoretically subordinate to the other? I say it depends. Scott gave an example where protection was subordinate. I think there are examples when to instill might be subordinate.
As I mentioned in my previous comment, my beliefs on this issue are rooted in my understanding of the nature of self-sacrifice and submission to which we are called. I believe we are called to make our own bodies living sacrifices, to be wiling to suffer harm unjustly (even bodily harm), to make any sacrifice of ourselves necessary for the cause of Christ.
To me, though, there is a fundamental difference between me choosing to allow/cause myself to suffer harm and me choosing to allow/cause someone else to suffer harm against their will.
In reference to the example used by Scott…God allowed his son to choose to die. He did not make that choice for him.
What example do we have of Jesus choosing, in his practice of nonviolence as a man, to allow/cause someone to suffer unjust harm against his/her will? I can’t think of one. I don’t think that means that he would have used violence in such a theoretical situation, but I think it means that we are overstepping if we claim to use Jesus’ example to prove that it is wrong for a parent to use violence to protect his child, for a policeman to use violence to protect a citizen, for a soldier to use violence to protect a civilian. Imagine the chaos that would eventually ensue if all the police officers in your home town decided to practice nonviolence (I know, maybe it’s not fair to equate the use of restraint with the use of violence, but let’s pretend that restraint isn’t always an option). Do you think that chaos is God’s will for human society? I don’t.
Finally, let me shamelessly and unfairly end this marathon comment, in the style of GKB, by throwing out a few landmines:
Is violence in fundamental conflict with the nature of God? Of course not. Have you read the Old Testament?
How could a blood-thirsty warrior-king like David be a man after God’s own heart if nonviolence is the ultimate God-like principle?
What about Romans 13?
Do God’s agents of wrath bear the sword and bring punishment on the wrongdoer in a strictly nonviolent fashion? If you say yes, then I guess I have nothing else to say other than to commend you for having the cajones to hold onto an extreme principle no matter what the evidence to the contrary. If you say no, then I wonder why God would have the representatives of the governing authorities (such as Christian police officers or the centurion of Luke 7) violate the overriding principle of nonviolence. I know, I’ve read the OT and realize that God has, on occasion, used evil-doers to accomplish his purposes…but that’s not the picture I get here. Or maybe the worldviews of Jesus and Paul are in conflict.
Again, I say all of this not because I don’t think we should advocate the principle of nonviolence but because I think we should be careful not to oversimplify nor paint the picture that with two few colors to capture the likeness.
By shaungroves on Nov 2, 2006 | Reply
Have any of you read “What About Hitler?” It’s new book from Brazos press that tries to answer that question from a Christian non-violence point of view. He deals with the 1% a little and says essentially that we object to non-violence by bringing up the “what if someone was raping your grandma” and “what about hitler” type questions which, in reality, are far less likely to need answering in the average person’s lifetime than the question of “did you love your enemy?”
Not his words. Just my interpretation. Interesting reading, but offers little as an alternative to violence in the Hitler scenario…and the grandma scenario.
To the question at hand…If it was my house and my three little ones and wife were in danger what would I do? Too many variables to say. But I would not retaliate (aim to harm him) and would avoid physical conflict if at all possible. Specifically? Won’t know until it happens. And I admit I may very well hurt him, which would be wrong, but what I WOULD do does not negate my belief in what Jesus would like me to do. The bar isn’t lowered to the level at which I can jump - the bar stays put and sometimes I just don’t clear it. Jesus is impractical that way.
As with the Hitler question though the best answer I think comes from a different question: Can the break in be prevented by the Church doing it’s jobs? What can we do to create fewer criminals in our society? What can the Church do to change the criminal nature, to rehabilitate the criminal incarcerated? What can the Church do to eliminate many of the causes of crime: poverty, sex and drug addiction etc? What can the Christian do to protect himself and his family from a break in before it happens?
The question is being asked about an event that we might be able to avoid altogether if we do the work of imitating Christ not just when violence happens but when any injustice or disruption in shalom occurs. Making peace, in my understanding, is not about only avoiding physical conflict, but about restoring wholeness to all things at all times. A whole person in a whole environment does not break into houses and threaten lives.
Hitler could have been avoided had the Lutheran church in Germany not supported Hitler’s every move leading up to the Final Solution and instead refused to serve in his army, refused to shun Jews, refused to remain German citizens etc no matter how many highways and tax breaks Hitler doled to them. Break ins may very well be avoided in a similar way - by the Church doing it’s job BEFORE the question is even needing to be asked.
By Scott on Nov 2, 2006 | Reply
I’ve been out of pocket for a few hours. First of all let me say, Shaun, I’m glad to see you come by my blog and I am highly honored.
I’ve been a huge fan of your music for some time. “Should I Tell Them” has had a huge impact on me.
KS, I think we have ventured into that 1% time and again in our history. It’s left a bloody mess if we are honest about it. Historical examples will bear out that nonviolence usually invokes the best response. And yes, I’ll trot out those examples in due course.
By Jason Bybee on Nov 2, 2006 | Reply
Scott, first of all, you’re right…the scenario is very patriarchal. Wonder what JTB would say about all this?
I really don’t have much to say. I think you’re spot on, man. I couldn’t agree more with everything in your post.
By Scott on Nov 2, 2006 | Reply
Jonathan, allow me to try to respond as best I can without rehashing the first few post in this series. You will find when you read over them that we dealt with the scriptures in the first several entries.
As to whether the scenario serves a useful purpose it depends on what the reasoning for it is. If the purpose is to discredit nonviolence and make those who adhere to this type of life appear to be cowards, then it is useless. It does not contribute to the discussion at all.
However, if it is a sincere quest to tap into the heart and mind of Christ then it can bear fruit for us.
By Scott on Nov 2, 2006 | Reply
Shaun, I’m very interested in the book you mention. Brazos Press is churning out some great stuff. I think you make some great points in regards to Hitler. The greatest success story against the Holocaust? Denmark. Who responded nonviolently in their protection of Jews.
How would it be if, rather than spending out time asking whether or not violence is justified in certain scenarios, we focused on how to creatively extract ourselves from such situations nonviolently. We hold out violence as an option because we spend so little time thinking how to be proactively nonviolent.
Again, I’m going to protect my family in these scenarios but hypothetical questions can only be met with hypothetical answers.
What matters is how I live the nonviolent life. How I manifest Jesus in my day to day dealings with others. How He is seen, through me, even to the interloper and attacker.
It seems that God could have intervened to save a whole lot of people from brutal oppression while He walked this earth, but yet He did not. Instead, He humbled Himself and made His way to the cross. And in doing so, He showed us a higher way to live.
By greg on Nov 3, 2006 | Reply
My comment was that we never venture into that other 1% because it shows that there is a time and place for violence and that might mean that we are wrong.
Kenny, what do mean by “we are wrong” in this case? It sounds as if you’re saying that you cannot believe in non-violence 100% of the time and be a faithful Christian. Perhaps that’s not what you intended - I could be misinterpreting.
If I try to live as Jesus did and believe he would be non-violent 100% of the time, but resort to violence in “the scenario”, that doesn’t mean I was wrong about non-violence. I think Shaun touched on this as well.
Even if I resorted to violence in such a situation, I would never claim it was “right” or “the greater good”. I would be more inclined to say that my lack of faith and trust that God is in control caused me to attempt to take control myself.
If I truly believe Jesus would be non-violent based on scripture, then to create my own exceptions based on what I see as “the greater good” and call them “right” is not acceptable. We see with our own eyes, not with God’s.
If I stand between my family and an intruder (instead of violently attacking him), and he kills me, and then the forgiveness my family shows him causes him to know Christ, which was the greater good?
Granted, it’s another “scenario”, but if I exhaust all options of non-violence, remain non-violent, and he kills me, that just might be for “the greater good”, too.
By greg on Nov 3, 2006 | Reply
How would it be if, rather than spending out time asking whether or not violence is justified in certain scenarios, we focused on how to creatively extract ourselves from such situations nonviolently. We hold out violence as an option because we spend so little time thinking how to be proactively nonviolent.
Scott, yours and Shaun’s comments along this line are right on. Way too quickly do we jump to the “scenario” and Hitler questions.
By Jon on Nov 3, 2006 | Reply
Greg -
I maybe misreading your intentions but your post seems to mean that I will just stand between my family and the attacker and let him kill me without even trying to defend myself. So I am just supposed to close my eyes and tilt my head back and let him stab/shoot me dead?
By KS on Nov 3, 2006 | Reply
Jonathon, great post. You said what I have wanted to in a much better way.
Greg: My point was that the theory of non-violence sounds great, and then we have a very real situation like this one and we are faced with two options. 1) Protect our family or 2) Attempt to continue in non-violence and allow them to be killed. The greater good calls for force/violence.
And, letting yourself be killed sounds good in theory, but in reality your family is probably now dead as well.
By Scott on Nov 3, 2006 | Reply
I think we are hitting at part of the problem: seeing nonviolence as just a theory rather than a manifestation of discipleship. Again, let’s not forget the words of Christ: turn the other cheek, love your enemy, pray for those who persecute you.
THAT is the greater good.
To state that violence can be the greater good goes much further than I can be comfortable with. The “necessary evil” of violence is one that might have some validity. But “greater good?” No way.
I think there are practical and nonviolent ways to defend your family (if that were ever truly needed) without causing harm.
By greg on Nov 3, 2006 | Reply
I’m not suggesting you ask him to kill you. And again, as Scott and others have said time and again, it’s not a matter of “doing nothing.” Avoiding violence is not equivalent to inaction.
What would I do, then? I don’t know. I’m like the rest of you - I suspect I would go at the guy with all I had. And I might even do it without exhausting all non-violent options - that’s part of my fallen nature. But I’m not going to say - without a doubt - that it is “the greater good.” It might not be.
My primary point was that non-violence might be the option that is for “the greater good”. Assuming it’s not is just that - an assumption.
KS: “The greater good calls for force/violence.”
How do you know that? That’s what you see as the greater good. Are you confident you’re always right? You make the call, and use violence. I’d likely do the same thing. But, as I’ve said, I’m not willing to say it’s the “greater good.”
This is what this entire discussion has been about. What does it mean to follow Jesus, and as Christ-followers, should we be non-violent? If so, then can we justify violence?
By the way, this is all relatively new to me (just in the last 2 years) and I’m still thinking through a lot of this, too. I’m certainly not suggesting I have all of the answers, so if any of it comes across that way, it’s not intended. Sometimes I’m just asking questions I’m not sure about and thinking out loud, too.
And go Hogs - beat SC.
By KS on Nov 3, 2006 | Reply
The greater good can sometimes be using force. Again, I know we have thrown the OT out of the discussion, but there are many times that God commends the use of force.
My point is this is a great theory, but how would a world without a police force or men that uphold and discipline those who break the law look? REALISTICALLY, not a sing kum-ba-yah theory of how we’d win everyone over and no one would ever harm anyone.
By Scott on Nov 3, 2006 | Reply
But Kenny, it’s not a theory. It’s what Jesus said. That’s been established.
Sure, the way of Christ is foolish.
Sure, it’s hard to follow.
Sure, it’s not realistic.
But look at what He said and did.
And how did a police force come into the scenario?
If they are at the house then that changes things drastically and I don’t have to pummel the brigand with my remote.
Greg, this is new for me as well. When I read Camp’s “Mere Discipleship” threw me for a loop back in ‘04 when I read it. I wasn’t ready for it at the time. I had to acknowledge that I had a lifetime of violence built up in my heart. But now as I build a greater understanding of the Kingdom I grow more and more convinced that the way of Christ is completely antithetical to the nation-state.
By Mike the Eyeguy on Nov 3, 2006 | Reply
Scott,
I have monitored your series with great interest. I commend you and your readers for the overall tone of civility, a true rarity in the blogoshpere.
I have often been accused of thinking too much. Indeed, that is a danger to which all of us are prone at times. It would appear to me that the instinct to protect oneself and one’s family (the innocents) should “The Scenario” arise is a gift from God, not to be denied in a life or death situation. I don’t think that the peasants listening to Jesus on the Mount that day understood him to be countermanding what had alway been assumed regarding that instinct.
I don’t have a gun, but I do have a baseball bat (affectionately named “Old Yeller”) that I have kept under my bed since I was married, just in case “The Scenario” ever rears its ugly head. I would hope that, should I have no other option in protecting my family, that I would have the courage to “swing away.” I might even let out some kind of primeval, lower-brain yalp–e.g. “Suss this!”
So, put me down as a “Wild at Heart” kind of guy, as unpopular as that may be in some circles. Now pardon this Neanderthal while he goes and bandages his knuckles.
By greg on Nov 3, 2006 | Reply
I read it in 04 as well. I need to read it again.
By Scott on Nov 3, 2006 | Reply
Mike, thanks for the kind words. I do strive for civility (even preached that last Sunday) because I think that we are all sincere and committed to doing what we think is right.
I hope this is a forum to discuss these issues.
But don’t misunderstand me: I’m not going to do nothing in the “scenario.” I honestly don’t know what I will do. But I hope it will be God-honoring. If not, I lean on mercy.
And in the end that’s all that we can do.
However, I think it’s easy for us to just say “well, I’ll fight back” without thinking of the more peaceful, conciliatory way.
From what I read about you, Mike, I think your mind would take you through all of the nonviolent scenarios that exist before you just start swinging.
By Jon on Nov 3, 2006 | Reply
My issue with this is that if force is the equivalent of violence and therefore violates the whole non-violent lifestyle then what are we to do?
To me the violent act would be to kill the other person when that was not needed. But to not use force. That seems to render me useless in the situation. To say no force gives me the mindset (which we are trying to erase) that this is ‘do nothing’ lifestyle.
I don’t remember who made the arguement, Greg I think, about imposing will on someone when they intend to harm you. To me this seems viable. I view the non-violent lifestyle as living in peace as much as possible, just like Paul addresses in Romans. The problem I think is that we can never be like Jesus so when we look at the non-violent lifestyle we discount the fact that we are human and have fleshly desires that war against our aspirations to be Christlike in every aspect of our lives. I don’t feel that we will be falling any shorter of God than we already have if we respond with force in a situation where we felt the need to protect our families lives as well as our own.
By KS on Nov 3, 2006 | Reply
I think everyone on this blog, regaurdless of which side they say they are on has answered they would use force in this situation.
By KS on Nov 3, 2006 | Reply
Scott: I brought police into the discussion simply to show that the non-violent theory when taken by everyone would not hold up. Some people will only follow the laws made (by God and man) with threat of punishment.
By greg on Nov 3, 2006 | Reply
Jon, I hear what you’re saying. Although I do not see force and violence as equivalent. Force may include violence, but not necessarily. Imposing my will on someone may include violence, but not necessarily.
And while I would agree we will always fall short of Jesus’ perfect example, I still believe I must strive to match it (and I know you do as well - just to make sure I’m not misunderstood.)
You said “I don’t feel that we will be falling any shorter of God than we already have if we respond with force…”
That sounds like you are saying that you, too, would see reponding with force (which I assume would include violence) as contrary to Jesus’ example. I think that’s some of what others have been saying. As I said, I would find it extremely difficult at this point in my life to be like Jesus in this situation, to the point of allowing harm to come to my family. However, I’m not willing to say that if I react in a violent manner, that I’m doing ‘what Jesus would do’, so to speak.
By justin on Nov 3, 2006 | Reply
Kenny, this is not an attack, but just a simple statement.
You seem to agree that Jesus preached non violence, but then say, if we started doing it in all situations, that it wouldn’t work.
Its not supposed to “work” like shooting someone. Its not supposed to always have the best outcome. Its supposed to glorify God and testify to our hope in the ressurrection. I believe that there was much more to the cross than just sacrifice for our sins. Its a statement from the God of the universe that we don’t have to fear the evil of this world, that as effed up as it gets, he is still King and we are in his Kingdom. The most powerful rulers of this world have NO power over us, because we do not fear death. Jesus on the cross was an example of the fate will will meet if we follow him. But it changes hearts and it will renew the world. Trust him.
I’ve had all the arguments that you have against non violence… but I realized that if I really trust Jesus like I said I do, then I have to be willing to follow him where he went. I have to be willing to follow him to my death. I have to trust him that, though this world has many things I love, that he has showed me how to truely LIVE. And sometimes, that comes through dying, and it never comes through taking life.
By Jon on Nov 3, 2006 | Reply
Have you seen that commercial where the guys is walking by and picks up the doll from the sidewalk and gives it back to the kid and then that mother does something good to a person and then that person does something, on and on and on. Is this the idea of non-violence. That non-violence would beget non-violence. In a perfect world yes, but in a fallen world it won’t work for everyone, that is where we need to leave it up to the gov’t to enforce rules on those who will not live by them, but for us it is not our place to violently react when we are wronged, mentally or physically.
Greg -
You are not misunderstanding…we must strive to match Christ’s example, never achieving but always striving.
By Scott on Nov 3, 2006 | Reply
OK, I’m back.
Jon, I guess I don’t see force and violence as NECESSARILY the same thing. Force can mean many different possibilities that don’t include violence: restraint, force of will, impassioned negotiation, etc.
My problem is, in this discussion, is we tend to hold on to violence as the trump card. That we’ll try some of the pansy stuff and then pull out the big guns when we need it. What if I approached all sins that way? I’ll try not to lust but if Jessica Simpson breaks in my house in a nighty, oh well.
Does the “theory” of purity fall apart in that situation?
Of course not. It means that we are human and we make mistakes. It means that we often act according to what SEEMS best to us at the time because we fail to see the other options.
By Scott on Nov 3, 2006 | Reply
KS said:
“I think everyone on this blog, regaurdless of which side they say they are on has answered they would use force in this situation.”
I think you need to read the comments again, Kenny.
By Scott on Nov 3, 2006 | Reply
Man, I can’t keep up. Jon said,
“In a perfect world yes, but in a fallen world it won’t work for everyone”
That is why the church is called to be the inbreaking of the Kingdom. We are to show them, through our lives and examples, what the perfect world can be. We don’t operate by the standards of a fallen world, instead we are to live the Kingdom life.
By KS on Nov 3, 2006 | Reply
Justin: I do see Jesus as a non-violent person. I understand that he has called us to be different than those around us. I also know that we ought to exhaust all non-violent means…
All that being said, I do not see Jesus (who is the same as God) condemning those who use violence (David in OT, and Conelius in the NT). To me this is Christ/God allowing the use of force/violence since this is a fallen world. It sounds nice and educated to point out that Christ has called us to be different (obviously), but that does not mean that we are to allow evil to run rampant in the world. I will not re-hash the verses pointed out in the top by Jonathon, but re-read those and tell me how we are commanded to be non-violent.
By KS on Nov 3, 2006 | Reply
Scott: My fault, all those who have given an legitimate answer on this post have said they would use force. The rest have said they “hope” to do what is right, but even if they did use violence it would be wrong.
Still the problem with this situation is there is no “out” for the pacifist. You must admit you would use force, or admit that you would not protect your family (two things no one want to do).
By Scott on Nov 3, 2006 | Reply
But how do we defeat evil in the world? Jesus never advocated using violence to do it. He was an oppressed minority in a racial and political hotbed. His followers were dying to make Him a political king. He tapped a terrorist to be one of His apostles.
Yet, He did not establish an earthly kingdom. He did not overthrow the Roman oppressors. Instead, He washed feet, He touched, He changed hearts. And He died.
We have somehow gotten the idea that faithful Christian witness is standing up for our way of living. But Jesus didn’t do that. The first century church did not try to affect change in that manner. It was viral, one person at a time.
And that nonviolent witness (which the church advocated for its first 300 years)produced far greater positive change than any war or use of the sword ever could.
By Scott on Nov 3, 2006 | Reply
So, my answer is not legitimate? The only two options are force or watching my family die? How is it so cut and dried?
By Jon on Nov 3, 2006 | Reply
“We have somehow gotten the idea that faithful Christian witness is standing up for our way of living. But Jesus didn’t do that.”
He didn’t? We shouldn’t? Think I really misunderstanding your last post #50.
By justin on Nov 3, 2006 | Reply
What about Jesus condemning Peter for cutting off the guys ear, or him rebuking the disciples that wanted him to call down sulfer on some folks? What about “he who lives by the sword dies by the sword?
Kenny, have you missed out on the whole discussion of the Kingdom? We are the inbreaking… we do live in a fallen world, but we are supposed to be in it not of it. We don’t operate by the principles of the fallen. We are the solution! Its not an immediate thing and it looks foolish from a secular view, but its the Kingdom of God and when we don’t live how he taught, we are showing our lack of trust.
And on the violence being for the greater good thing, I would say at its best its the lesser of two evils. Saying greater good doesn’t help your argument there. No violence is ever good. Its all evil. But, according to Bonhoeffer, “it is worse to be evil than to do evil”, which is why he attempted to assasinate Hitler. He felt he was betraying Christ, but he did it anyway.
By Jeff on Nov 3, 2006 | Reply
All - All these discussions have already been reviewed in a lot of detail in the comments to the previous posts. It seems like we’re just circling around “practicality” of “theory”, which compels some folks to declare non-violence dead-on-arrival because no one can envision what a completely non-violent life would look like. This goes to the question, which has been raised, discussed and dispositioned numerous times in the previous posts, of do any of us know what the right outcomes are? The undefended assumption that we do know the right outcome is what underlies most of the pro-violence arguments here. No one has developed a cogent position on that assumption.
I tried in a previous post to develop a “pro-violence” argument for military/government officials who are essentially acting, at least in a representative government, as owners of our own decisions in rightfully enforcing laws we have all submitted to. Beyond that, there’s been no support for use of force in other contexts (e.g., personal self-defense) that I’ve read.
By Jon on Nov 3, 2006 | Reply
This post is not to bash others for their view of non-violence. Like Scott and I already discussed it is up to your own conscience as to what you feel non-violent means to you since there is no pad answer for what to do in every situation.
Yes we are to be light in the world (at least that’s my version of the new buzz phrase inbreaking of the kingdom) we are also called to be salt. We need to be to be effective. I don’t think Kenny is saying that he will always react violently to situations (I know him well, he is not a violent person)but when you look at those in the Bible who did use violence or served in violent organizations (Cornelius as a Centurion) and they were still faithful disciples and commended for being so. It doesn’t make anyone less of a Christian for struggling with this issue but perhaps a better one for doing some introspection as too how we first react to situations.
Beyone actions it starts at a much more fundamental level. Your heart. If the mouth speaks out of the overflow of the heart then I can make the assumption that the body acts out of the overflow of it as well. Or are the two not connected?
By Jeff on Nov 3, 2006 | Reply
I think Jon’s last paragraph in that last comment is important. A lot of folks are struggling to imagine and envision the practical outcomes of a truly non-violent lifestyle (nevermind Jesus, Paul, Ghandi, MLK…), but this is an end product of discipleship. Once our hearts are transformed, our speech, our thoughts, our actions will follow naturally. Then non-violence will be something those folks can envision, imagine and flesh out.
By Jon on Nov 3, 2006 | Reply
We can’t invision a reaction to THE scenario because we can’t even pass the test of controlling our thoughts or words when the little things happen…getting cutoff in traffic, your child getting the raw end of the deal in sports, kids trying your patience when you already don’t have any…etc…do I need to go on.
By Scott on Nov 3, 2006 | Reply
True, this process began for me when I began earnestly praying that God would give me the capacity to love people more. I’m not really a social person. I’m more of an introvert. So, I hoped the prayer would make me a greater pastor to my congregation.
What I found was that I began caring more about the least of these. I found it easier to pray for my enemies. I found it more and more unfathomable to justify war when innocents were killed. I began to see everyone, regardless of their race, creed or socio-economic background as being just as valuable and loved as those entrusted to me are.
I’m still striving to truly get there.
By KS on Nov 3, 2006 | Reply
Good thoughts guys. I think I’ll just watch comments from here on out. I have attempted to show that sometimes the Lord gives people to maintain the law (police/military) and allowances to protect our family (look at the OT). I respect the views on here, but I do not agree and do not want to say something I’ll regret out of frustration.
Scott: In your situation I’d say it is pretty cut and dried.
By T.H. on Nov 3, 2006 | Reply
Wow! It’s great to see the comments back! It’s amazing how much of this has been hashed out and rehashed in each post. It seems like it boils down to both groups acknowledging that, overall Jesus, who is God in the flesh, was a non-violent person. The difference seems to be in how literally one is to take his example of non-violence.
One thought advocates non-violence at all costs in theory, and even if non-violence is not played out in actuality by those who adhere to said belief, non-violence is still believed to be the proper response to following Jesus.
The other adherents in this discussion believe that Jesus was an overall non-violent person, but perhaps in instances where we can’t see, Jesus would have participated in violence in order to achieve the greater good of protection of one’s own life or the life of others. Non-violence among this camp is to be preferred, but it’s not mandated.
To me it is interesting to note that the world’s greatest revolution came about through the servant-driven, selfless, non-violent man named Jesus Christ. Is it true that God used righteous acts of violence in the OT, ABSOLUTELY! But this same God, whose nature doesn’t change, does however constantly change the means by which he operates in and among human history.
If it’s true that the world’s greatest revolution came at the expense of self-giving, and not self-preserving, then I am tempted to bend in the direction of non-violence as the truly powerful and effective means by which to combat evil (although it is often given the caricature of do-nothing, it is in fact accomplishing more than the “just do anything” idea of protection.
Jesus asked, which is harder, to bless those who bless you or to bless those who persecute and despitefully use you? Non-violence may not always achieve OUR desired end, but I believe that it somehow comes closer to achieving God’s aim of loving our enemies.
By T.H. on Nov 3, 2006 | Reply
Sorry for the redundancy of my earlier comment…I started it, walked away, came back and finished it, and then BAMB! there were 10 more comments than when I started!
By Scott on Nov 3, 2006 | Reply
Kenny, I’m sorry if I have frustrated you or given the impression that I have this all figured out. It’s not cut and dried for me. I do struggle with how to best live this life. I hope you will continue to weigh in. Ultimately, we don’t have to agree. We have to keep seeking Jesus.
T.H. I think that is a great synopsis. I believe that nonviolence is the best way. I believe it is the way of Christ. I see the fundamental problems living it out in a fallen world. But I see those problems in every walk of life. Not just in nonviolence.
By Jason Bybee on Nov 3, 2006 | Reply
Mike’s “suss this” is one of the funniest things I’ve read in a while.
Didn’t we already “suss out” some of the OT arguments in our discussion re: progressive revelation? And I think it’s important to remember where we started in this discussion: the life & words of Christ. He’s author & perfecter here. It all has to be filtered through Him. At the end of the day, He has to be our litmus test for everything.
By Doug Freeman on Nov 3, 2006 | Reply
I have read with much interest all the comments and verbage on all the non-violence situations. What is the bottom line? Nothing that i have read leads me to feel any different than i have already felt. I am not a violent person but there are limits to what i will accept and the actions i would take in the event of being threatened. I read a lot of those same feelings here also. It is good to discuss this topic as Scott is doing but what is the answer.
By justin on Nov 3, 2006 | Reply
Doug,
If Jesus came down and started posting and saying the things that Scott and I and others are saying, would he change your mind?
I haven’t seen many a rational retort to nonviolence being the way of Christ. Bonhoeffer’s explanation was probably the best, but even he believed that he was not following Christ when he tried to assasinate Hitler. Are you reading these conversations with an open mind or do you have your mind made up all ready? Cause I fought this for a while, but being an open minded person, I realized it was right and there was no way to deny it. I think if you think and pray on it, you’ll come to the same conclusion.
By Doug Freeman on Nov 3, 2006 | Reply
Justin, its probably because i have not reached that stage of perfection yet. God is still working on me. I have a long ways to go in my christain life and i do pray to God everyday to forgive me for my shortcomings. I also realize we live in a world of uncertainty and i am not so sure in my own mind how i will react if and when some conflict may arise. I have only been a christain for 62 years and i still don’t have all the answers.
By R-Liz on Nov 4, 2006 | Reply
Scott– I’m skipping over the comments thus far, even though I’m sure they’ve been interesting, and commenting directly on your original post.
This issue is most definitely patriarchal. I think that’s been made pretty clear by female commentors all but disappearing from your non-violence posts. I think the inevitable stalemate is one reason why we gals shy away from commenting. Why bother if the next guy has already made up his mind and will just talk past any remarks you’ve tried to make? And, to be perfectly honest, some of the threads have included folks whose tone has become defensive and belittling to others (at least as interpreted by a gal). That kind of thing generally turns potential female commentors into lurkers. We’re still interested in the discussion, but we don’t dare step foot into the arena! A female blog usually centers around communicating (we talk lots about the day-to-day details of our families, not the “what if” scary scenarios that might happen to our families), understanding, affirming. So with that in mind, I leave some thoughts from my female brain:
As with our Christian walk in general, I believe the formation of non-violence in a person’s life is a process. You can’t simply jump from one side to the other overnight. It takes an entire realignment of perspective– a total paradigm shift– when decidely choosing a non-violent life. Of course our faith will shape and mold this shift. And this paradigm shift will entail some things. Here are a few to consider:
Living non-violence in the smallest of things–how do we respond to the smallest of frustrations– in our words, in our actions? Are we prone to over-reacting, to being overly-aggressive, to allowing our competitive side to get the better of us? When we stub our toe or our team loses a big game, do we want to smack the closest thing to us? Does our family fear us or avoid us because of how we react in certain situations? How have we taught ourselves to deal with the smaller triggers of anger in our lives?
Understanding– Do we want to see “an aggressor” (be it the man in the “attacking my family scenario” or that father at your daughter’s basketball game) as a person just as much loved by God as we and our families are? Do we take into consideration why this person is acting so aggressively, or with such anger, or out of such desperation? When we see Christ interacting with those most hated and despised in His culture, we see that He is looking past the exterior of this person and straight to their heart. That is what was most important to Him. And when a person was changed in their encounter with Christ, it was because they had finally felt seen, heard, loved. They were no longer perceived in an offensive/defensive manner, and that caused something to click within. In the context of everyday living, how do we see the annoying or the provoking or the needy person in our lives? How do we interact and respond to them? And what do our kids see us do?
Loving and defending my family or those closest or most like me is the easiest thing in the world to do. It’s the most basic aspect of our instinctive nature– like a mama bear and her cub. But seeing someone else I don’t particularly like or who, worse yet, has aligned themselves against me and my family as someone just as deserving of the love I give my family– whoa! That takes the power of a Savior to understand.
God’s still working on these little areas with me (oh, man, is He ever!). Consistently asking God to help me understand His love, His humility, His mercy will help me with these smaller areas. And if I continue to focus on what God has given me right now, today, then I believe God will direct me should ever one of these “bigger” issues take place in my life.
P.S. I’m still waiting for a reflection entry on your high school reunion.
By scott on Nov 5, 2006 | Reply
R-Liz, thank you and welcome back.
This is one of the best comments so far in this series and well needed. There is a great amount of testosterone dripping from these discussions and, as a result, we are unable to get the bigger picture.
“The Scenario” does not disprove the validity of nonviolence. As must as people want to find the magic bullet that says nonviolence is not realistic are, ultimately, unable to do so.
By Corey on Nov 6, 2006 | Reply
Scott, great post! My thought in this scenerio is what would Christ do? Would he try to evangelize him? Try to save him and talk him out of what he’s doing. That would take some guts, but we would need alot of faith that God would protect us in the situation. Maybe God had us in that situation to show Christ to the intruder. I know that this would put us in harms way if he had a gun, but is that kinda like laying your life down for Christ. Isn’t that what we are called to do (put Christ first before us and anyone else, including family). If we are Christ like than we would care in every way for the intruder and the best care he needs is Christ.
By Doug Freeman on Nov 6, 2006 | Reply
I noticed in a recent comment i had misspelled christian. Probably because it reflects the fact i am not too good at christianity or spelling. Or maybe its because i am a Republican.
By Scott on Nov 8, 2006 | Reply
Corey, I’m not sure if evangelizing him in the traditional sense of the term would be what Jesus would attempt. I think He would intuitively know the proper way to proceed bringing the greatest glory to the Father. I think that would constitute laying down his life to protect and bless.
By Jon on Nov 8, 2006 | Reply
What if I have a CCW license? Does that violate the non-violent lifestyle?
By JTB on Nov 9, 2006 | Reply
Thanks to R-Liz for answering the earlier question on the “patriarchal” bit. I do think that this is one of the active presuppositions in The Scenario.
Sorry to be playing catch-up…I got slammed with a busier week than anybody should ever have to live through, plus Clare has decided to stop sleeping through the night after doing so for 3 months!!! If there’s anything that makes me feel violent it’s sleep deprivation…but I’m too tired to act on it.
By Scott on Nov 9, 2006 | Reply
JTB, I know how frustrating those sleepless nights can be. When you get caught up please weigh in with your thoughts.