Thoughts on Non-Violence: Just War
December 4th, 2006 | by Scott |Due to time constraints this will be much more truncated then I would prefer, but hopefully we can explore this further as the comments progressed.
In early 2003 I taught a class at church that attempted to legitimatize our preemptive attack on Iraq by virtue of the Just War Theory. I have since repented of such a gross misapplication of Scripture.
If Constantine’s misuse of the Church was a dark page in our history then our adoption of the Just War Theory would comprise a full chapter. Before Augustine attempted to define the City of God there was no Christian author that attempted to make a case for Christians involved in warfare. For the first 400 years of the church there was no writing in support of war.
Walter Wink writes:
…when the church that had stood up nonviolently to the brutal repression of the Roman Empire found itself strangely victorious, it naively assumed the role of court chaplain to an empire eager for its support. It is as if Satan, unable to defeat the church by violence, surrendered to the church and became its ward. The price the church paid, however, was embracing violence as a means of preserving empire. But the removal of nonviolence from the gospel blasted the keystone from the arch, and Christianity collapsed into a religion of personal salvation in an afterlife jealously guarded by a wrathful and terrifying God–the whole system carefully managed by an elite corps of priests with direct backing from secular rulers now regarded as the elect agents of God’s working in history.
Despite the overwhelming testimony of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, the example of the early church, the universal understanding of the early Christians of the nonviolent legacy of Jesus, once Christianity became the “sanctioned” religion of the State, the defense of the State at all costs was inevitable.
Enter the Just War Theory.
Just War Theory consists of these principles:
1. A just war can only be waged as a last resort. The argument is that all non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.
But how can we truly determine if ALL options have been explored? How many wars have been entered into after trying Jesus’ recommendation of overcoming evil with good? In my estimation, none.
2. A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. This is to proscribe any action taken by an individual or group.
But what constitutes legitimate authority? Isn’t Jesus the ultimate authority for the church and its stance on morality, loving our enemies and praying for those who persecute us? Does the President or congress have veto powers over the admonitions of Christ?
3. A just war can only be fought to right a wrong. In other words we must have the right intentions in waging war.
But who argues for war on the platform that it is not just? Don’t all sides believe they are just and right in their stance? What wrongs are righted?
4. A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.
But how can we, as Christians, legitimately lend credence to this argument? What is success, killing more of their people than they kill of ours? What is success in war?
5. The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.
But it is impossible to determine if a greater peace can be established after we go into conflict. Violence does not beget peace.
6. The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.
Wait, I know the basis for this one. I think it is called “An Eye for An Eye.” Right?
7. The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.
What possible biblical basis can there be to “justify” spilling innocent blood? Modern warfare doesn’t discriminate between who is wearing a uniform and who is not. Is there a biblical justification for killing 3000 of “them” if they kill 3000 of “us?”
It’s interesting to note that Augustine had another criteria that stated that before you engage in killing, the Christian should repent of what he is about to do and then wear God’s love for the enemy into the battle. As if inner love can cancel out outward killing.
Another criteria of Augustine was that of humane treatment of prisoners of war and the honoring of international treaties and conventions. No commentary is needed here.
For the Christian these must be problematic. Our citizenship is in Heaven, Paul tells us. Our ultimate allegiance is to our King. We must tremble at the weight of taking another life, even under the auspices of a “just war.” As the church we answer a higher call. To quote Wink again:
…the church’s own witness should be understandable by the smallest child: we oppose violence in all its forms. And we do so because we reject domination. That means, the child will recognize, no abuse or beatings. That means, the woman will hear, no rape or violation or battering. That means, men will come to understand, no more male supremacy or war. That means, everyone will realize, no more degradation of the environment.
Ultimately “practical solutions” to “real-world problems” are embraced with regularity over the Kingdom viewpoint.
Ultimately, war is not just. Nor can it be. Christians must wrestle with the implications of embracing a doctrine that runs so counter to Scripture. We have been given a ministry of reconciliation. May the church forever endeavor to be agents of peace in a war torn world.
53 Responses to “Thoughts on Non-Violence: Just War”
By KS on Dec 4, 2006 | Reply
Scott: Glad we got around to the just war theory, I was worried we’d have already had WWIII before this part of the series came out. I don’t have time to go into much detail, but will say you have stated your position very well.
The only issue I would have with it is the one question I did not see you ask.
Is war justified if it will end senseless killing already taking place? IE: Rwanda, WWII…
By GKB on Dec 4, 2006 | Reply
I guess I would support the Just War Tradition…
On the basis that there has never been, and will never be, a conflict that meets all the criteria…
By Scott on Dec 4, 2006 | Reply
We never even classified Rwanda as being a genocide so all possible means were nowhere near exhausted. There were countless options that could have been enacted prior to the mass slayings there.
WWII will most likely deserve an entry on its own, however the most successful response to the persecution of Jews was nonviolent.
By Greg Brooks on Dec 4, 2006 | Reply
Scott, I hardly ever comment (mostly because just reading your blog means I don’t have time for commenting) (HA HA ha) but this is a great series, and I agree with you.
By Jon on Dec 4, 2006 | Reply
How long do you try the ‘other’ means before we use force? How long do we place sanctions against another country for killing their own people before we go in to make them stop killing their own people? Can we really keep meeting around a table and ‘talk’ to the nut in Iran or Korea while they continue to build up arms and look for the ‘bomb’ before we do something. The gov’t doesn’t bear the sword for no reason and that is because some just don’t understand talking. I agree that war is evil and to quote Lee “It is good that war is so evil, lest we become fond of it”. Yes innocents die and there can never be justification for the killing of another human being but (I may be reading this post wrong) can we really try to impose the fact that the Kingdom purpose is superior to man’s purpose and expect them to obey it or even grasp it. The ‘Just War Theory’ works for governments (mainly us because no one else “plays” by these ‘rules’).
But as far as looking at war from a secular viewpoint, except for ending slavery, facism, and naziism war never solved anything and never brought peace to those countries.
By Scott on Dec 4, 2006 | Reply
How long do you try the ‘other’ means before we use force? For the church, 7X70.
Again I think we have to focus on the use of the word “we.” Let nations do what they day. I don’t have to agree with it or support it. And I don’t support America’s use of the sword.
However, the church is called to a different standard–that of the Kingdom. Where there is no Jew or Gentile, American or Iraqi.
The death of slavery Slavery did not end violence–it yielded to institutional racism that bred violence until it died due to the power of yes, nonviolence.
Nazi-ism gave way to its own brutal repression of people through the auspices of communism.
Violence begets more violence. Perfect love drives out fear and violence.
By Jon on Dec 4, 2006 | Reply
Agree, can we support the troops but not support the war?
By KS on Dec 5, 2006 | Reply
Scott: What I take issue with is that we enjoy the freedoms bought by violent means and say that governements are to use the sword, and yet we are quick to embrace all that it has bought us.
Yes Christ comes first, and if one doesn’t feel they can serve in the military that is their choice. But to not be supportive of the men that do risk their lives is not how a Christian should live.
I know somehow we’ve shown the OT as irrelevant to any Christian discussion, but it seems to me we do have a God that is not opposed to war.
By Scott on Dec 5, 2006 | Reply
KS, where do you get that I’m not supportive? Although I’m not quite sure what that means. I don’t want any of our men to suffer or die. I want them all to come home.
And where can you honestly draw the conclusion based upon the full understanding of Scripture and the person of Christ that God is pro-war?
And I never said that governments are to use the sword. I said let them do what they will. Sure, I enjoy the freedoms that we have and I am thankful to live here. That does not mean that I embrace every aspect of what it means to live here. Nobody does that.
By justin on Dec 5, 2006 | Reply
Wow only nine comments on this post?
Jon and KS, and I’m not saying this as a dig or anything, but most everything you two say sounds like direct quotes from Sean Hannity. Maybe instead of using right wing pundits to shape your views, you should read some books. I’d start with Mere Discipleship.
I think Scott hit the nail on the head too. I support the troops as human beings and I want conflict to stop. When we say that we must fight wars to protect people, we are admiting that we do not believe in the Resurrection. If I will kill to protect myself or my family or anyone, how am I any better than the person who is trying to kill me, and what kind of witness is that to my belief that God will raise the dead one day?
I realize its not an easy transformation to make, especially growing up in the culture we’ve grown up in, but Jesus is clear and the early church showed us that creative non violence can eventually encompass an empire. yet, we don’t trust.
By GKB on Dec 5, 2006 | Reply
Once again, I am awestruck at the intensity with which some Christians will defend the right to use violence…
By justin on Dec 5, 2006 | Reply
Greg,
They will kill you to defend their right to use violence to protect their family.
By GKB on Dec 5, 2006 | Reply
In Jesus’ name.
By Scott on Dec 5, 2006 | Reply
It’s really understandable when we stop and consider how hardwired into our culture and national identity war is. I think too many people are afraid to even consider nonviolence because they might realize that their view of war is nothing but a house of cards.
But I really don’t think that needs to be the case. The wars in our past are our past. Regardless, God can still work for good and has worked for good in our history as a people. But we must not bury our head in the sand and believe that war is the answer for us as the people of God. It is not the way of Christ.
By KS on Dec 5, 2006 | Reply
One more comment and I’ll stop banging my head against a liberal wall.
Justin: My comments are based on my understanding of scripture, not Mere Lipsombian (or Christianity), sorry I’ll take the bible and logic, over a theory that was written by some author and has now become a nice little fad. Explain to all how homosexuality is okay again would you.
GKB: For a “peace loving person” you speak with more violence than any other person (christian or non that I have ever met), making anything you say to me worthless.
Scott:
First: I respect your opinion as you have obviously put much thought into it. I disagree obviously, but find it worthless to discuss in this type of public forum.
Second: Be careful not to come off as someone who has all the answers, there are many other “bible scholars” out there that I believe may have a little more experience in this field that make many good points about “just war”, and although you may not agree with them, or me, it does not make those who would agree with this point of view not following the way of Christ.
Last thought: Are you next going to point out how David/Joshua/any old testiment biblical character and anyone else that has served in the military was wrong? Or were they just ignorant of the “enlightened way”?
By Scott on Dec 5, 2006 | Reply
Kenny, I’m sorry you feel this way. I think there has been much positive discussion in this forum.
I have never once pretended I have all the answers. I have made a very strong biblical argument for the use of nonviolence. I do know and understand the arguments for “just war.”
I have held to it myself in the past.
The notion of nonviolence is not just a fad. Again I have given great evidence to show that the early church held unswervingly to the principles and tenets of nonviolence.
Can you see my side at all? Again, I hate that you have determined this is fruitless. I have tried to be respectful and encourage positive discussion.
But you cannot say that touting the way of nonviolence falls outside of logic, or Scripture.
At the least, we have to come to the place where we acknowledge that the continual use of violence is problematic according to Scripture. Maybe you can construct a theology that allows the use of a “just war” and violence in the name of self-defense. But you cannot dismiss the person, teachings and example of Christ.
I do not judge anyone who disagrees with me on these points. But what benefit is there to not try to suss out these issues and there implications based on scripture. What is your defense for just war? You indicate that I haven’t studied this enough. What am I missing?
By KS on Dec 6, 2006 | Reply
Scott: My point was that I feel I would benefit alot more from a discussion one-on-one than in this type of forum.
I do not think you have not studied enough, on the contrary to me you appear to have put alot of thought into your opinion, I was just pointing out there are many other bible scholars that would disagree with this point of view.
I do see your side of the discussion, and agree that much of what you say is great. My only hold up is that if taken as far as you do, we are not to defend our families, etc… I know that makes me a heathen for actually believing that God would want me to defend forcefully those I love.
By GKB on Dec 6, 2006 | Reply
The Bible + Logic = ???
Which Bible, and which logic?
I am sorry if I come across as violent.
By jasonk on Dec 6, 2006 | Reply
The reason that there are so few comments on this thread is that anyone who has a dissenting view is cut down and ridiculed. Poor KS. That’s why I don’t jump in on these discussions like I used to. It is pointless and stressful to make a point, only to have someone like Justin wrongly accuse people of listening to Hannity too much. Maybe you read too many Cindy Sheehan books. Maybe you should take up the New Testament. Its pretty good.
Scott is a gentleman, all the way. He has always attempted to moderate this forum with great care and concern. If there is a fault, it is that he arrives at his conclusions too quickly. He is too quick to say something akin to, “so we can agree, the Old Testament advocates non-violence,” or “so it is obvious, that Jesus did not use violence in the temple,” etc.
This is typical, old-school Cambellite behavior, in my view. Arrive at a conclusion, then attempt to run off anybody who does not agree, even if those conclusions are far from clear. Its like baptismal regeneration, instrumental music, and security of the believer. There are often valid arguments on both sides, but both sides are rarely heard, because one side is not interested in genuine debate, only in propoganda. I work with a Cambellite, and all he wants to do is argue, he can never agree that either side could be right.
One more thing. How many Jews had to be murdered by Hitler before we send troops in to stop him? Would seven or eight million have been enough?
By Jon on Dec 6, 2006 | Reply
I love this country and what it provides me and my family but I don’t always agree with what it is doing.
I agree that in the view of violence it is wrong for a Christian to use this as a first response but I have a hang up with the idea that other commentors feel as if I am lacking in my faith because I read that the gov’t does what it will and I have no control over that but it is only up to me to live peacefully as far as I can control it. Somehow the discussion, when it turns to war, always seems to leave a bad taste in my mouth from the idea that we are to try to enforce/impose Christian guidelines on a fallen entity.
Does God hate war? Don’t know. Does God hate murder? Yes
Does God bring to power gov’ts? Yes
Do we know why? No and never will.
As far as going into other countries to overthrow their gov’t and setup democracies, don’t know that we really have any right too. Our country has enough problems of its own with out us spending eons more that we should on other countries when we have highschools in Huntsville AL that have a 46% drop out rate. But this still raises the question about defending the defenseless? How do we, Chrisitans do this? Non violently. How does the world do this? The only way they know how and understand - force or violence which ever term one prefers to use.
Justin - take off your “I hate republican/hannity/rush/America glasses and just see questions as basic questions to certain concepts. If we are to be so opposed to war can we still support those who engage in it. I buy Disney movies for my kids and Disney supports homosexuality - Homosexuality is a sin and we aren’t supposed to support that so should I stop buy disney products? You don’t like what America does but you pay taxes which fund the military which wages war. Should you stop paying taxes - but then didn’t Jesus say “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s”? Just a question to a concept we are working through.
and the best all time thing to do is preface your comments with denouncing that the comment is not intended as it actually sounds - “this isn’t a dig or anything” - but my all time is “I’m not a racist but…”
By Scott on Dec 6, 2006 | Reply
Jason, there are many of us “Campbellites” that have distanced ourselves from that mentality. Unfortunately, that is our reputation, however. And that is unfortunate and one that we must repent from.
There has to be a middle ground from which we can discuss this. It does not benefit anyone in a Christian discussion to say that those who disagree with us is any lesser of a Christian. I am a staunch advocate of nonviolence but there are many Christians that I respect and admire who disagree strongly with me. I do not doubt their convictions, faith or salvation. Nor is it my right to. However, I do believe that both sides, those who advocate the use of force and those who don’t, run a tremendous risk of ignoring what the other is saying. And by that unity is destroyed and the cause of Christ is hampered.
Where can we agree? I like what Walter Wink suggests and tell me if we can agree here:
both advocates of just war and of nonviolence can agree on certain points:
1. Both acknowledge that nonviolence is in principle preferable to violence.
2. Both agree that the innocent must be protected as much as possible.
3. Both reject any defense of a war motivated solely by a crusade mentality or national interests or personal egocentricity.
4. Both wish to persuade states to reduce the levels of violence.
5. Both wish to hold war accountable to moral values, before, during and after the conflict.
If we use that as our basis of commonality, is there a way for us to move forward with determining the implications of a peaceful life?
By KS on Dec 6, 2006 | Reply
I’d go with the 5 reasons listed.
The only arguement that I feel myself, Jasonk, and Jon are saying is the greater good. Is it ok to take out a military leader (IE: Hitler) or to interfere in other nations that are practicing genecide (IE: Rwanda) or more common, to defend our family from those who wish us harm?
I dont think Jon, Jasonk, or myself would be “pro-violence all the way type people”, I just see many instances where God uses violence and it seems acceptable. There are instances where he commends lying as well, but that is another thing altogether.
By Jason Bybee on Dec 6, 2006 | Reply
Scott, I just want you to know I appreciate the tenor in which you’ve conducted this discussion. It’s a timely issue that cuts to the heart of who we are as (first and foremost) Christians, but also as Americans. I applaud you for the civility of your tone and the thoughtfulness of your arguments.
I think it’s also important for us to remember the starting point for this discussion was the life and death of Jesus. Scott’s intent was to frame the entire discussion through the lens of Christ. There are certainly advantages of having such a lengthy discussion, but one of the disadvantages is that we lose sight of that which was intended to be foundational. If He is author and perfecter of my story, I want to be more like him everyday. My prayer is that I can become like Him to the point that I abhor violence, even justified violence. And I hope we can continue to approach this discussion with the Spirit of Christ.
By greg on Dec 6, 2006 | Reply
I suspect “the greater good” is an argument Hitler and the Hutu’s could appeal to as well. Who’s to decide what is “the greater good”? Isn’t that a little too subjective?
By len on Dec 6, 2006 | Reply
Good blog Scott. I’m not yet ready to say where I agree and disagree. Need to think through it more. One thought that came to my minds was this: the person Jesus commended for having the greatest of all faith was a Roman centurion, a soldier by trade. The centurion credited his military experience with deepening his faith.
I’m a bit concerned that you might be picking and choosing your quoting of Paul. Yes, we are citizens of Heaven first and foremost. But he speaks about our obligation to earthly government. Are you going to address Romans 13 and the implications of the “bearing the sword”?
Just a side thought: I find it ironic that a person who is so opposed to violence lists “24″ as the best show of 2006.
By Scott on Dec 6, 2006 | Reply
Thanks, Jason. Jesus is the beginning (and ending) place. I think we have to filter everything through Him. And that leads me to question the sanctity of violence.
Greg, you make a great point. How do we know what the greater good truly is? What country was the most successful against Hitler’s crusade against the Jews? It was Denmark. Their tactic? Nonviolent love. Standing alongside their Jewish brethren as Jews. The message was clear: we are all Jews, take them out, you take us all out.
It’s a difficult concept, but I think the greater good is often abandoned as being too difficult.
By Scott on Dec 6, 2006 | Reply
Len, thanks for responding. I’m not sure I see the connection with the centurion. The issue was healing his son, not the validity of war.
And wouldn’t holding up Romans 13 as obligation to earthly government and dismissing the passages in Revelation that talks about corrupt government “picking and choosing?”
On you side thought, it maybe ironic. It also may be what my wife tells me it is: hypocritical.
Of that, I’m guilty. Nowhere have I said that I have completely banished violence from my heart.
By len on Dec 6, 2006 | Reply
Scott,
I was at a denominational meeting where one of our prominent pastors publically made a statement that was totally contradictory to a previous statement. His comment was simple: “I never claimed to be consistent”. Those of us there have quoted that many times. You are not a hypocrite, you’re just not consistent!
As for the centurion: he was a soldier, soldiers fight wars, Jesus commended him for being of great faith. It seems to indicate that one can be a Christian pleasing to Christ and serve in the military at the same time.
Paul didn’t write Revelation. He did write Romans and Philippians. It was specifically to Paul’s writings that I asked my question.
By jasonk on Dec 6, 2006 | Reply
Great reaction Scott. Jason B is right–you are a great moderator, and have always conducted yourself like a Christian gentleman. I appreciate that.
I’m not sure how you can justify Denmark as being the most successful country at bringing down Hitler. My grandfather left Norway as a teenager in the years leading up to the war. He saw other Scandanavian countries, such as Denmark and Sweden, as being in bed with Hitler- neutral in policy, but only so he would not run roughshod through their own country. We all know how that worked for Chamberlain. The fact is that the most effective tool against Hitler was the Allies, especially the United States and the USSR.
Your five points are ones that I certainly can agree on. As was said so well by KS, I do not like violence, and would want to try every means necessary to avoid conflict when and where possible. I used to know a guy whose first reaction to an argument was to bust a beer bottle so it became a weapon. That’s not me. I tend to think of the words of our former president, Teddy Roosevelt, when he said that America would act as the policemen of the Western Hemisphere. A tall order, but an apt description.
By Scott on Dec 6, 2006 | Reply
I’m definitely not consistent. But I am striving to be. My list of TV shows, books and movies are much less violent than they would have been just a couple of years ago.
On your other thoughts–I’ve never said you can’t be in the military and be a faithful Christian. That would be imposing my own legalistic interpretation and I can’t do that in good conscience. I couldn’t serve in the military because it would violate my conscience but I won’t impose that on anyone else. Gregory Boyd has a great chapter on that in his book “The Myth of a Christian Nation.”
I do plan on getting to Romans 13. I have no problem with submitting to the authorities. I live my life being a law-abiding, tax-paying citizen. However, if asked to do something that goes against my understanding of God’s wishes for me, then I would defy the powers that be.
By Scott on Dec 6, 2006 | Reply
Jason, I did not say that Denmark was the most successful in bringing down Hitler. I said they were the most successful against his crusade on the Jews. They had the lowest number of Jewish deaths.
By KS on Dec 6, 2006 | Reply
Denmark may have had the lowest number of Jewish deaths, but they also stood by and did nothing to stop the rest of what was happening. “For evil to prevail takes nothing more than good men doing nothing”.
By justin on Dec 7, 2006 | Reply
God stood by while Jesus died on the cross…
and while muslims were slain by brothers in christ (crusades)
and while “witches” were burned at the stake in massachusetts
and while slavery ran rampant in the west
and while segregation and apartheid occured
and while a tsunami hit asia
and while katrina hit the gulf coast
God stood by and did “nothing” while all those things happened. He could have stopped them. Is he a bad God?
By Jonathan on Dec 7, 2006 | Reply
I apologize for this comment not being directly related to this specific post.
I have been following this series of posts with some interest. I appreciate the opportunity to think about these matters, and am in general agreement with many of Scott’s points.
I recently watched the movie “United 93″ and wonder how Scott would evaluate the response of the passengers depicted there (for the sake of discussion, let’s just assume that the reconstruction/guesses/etc of the filmmakers are correct).
Clearly, the passengers acted violently. They believed then, and in retrospect it seems they were correct, that their actions would prevent a much larger number of deaths. They also believed (again rightly) that there was a very short timeframe in which to respond.
What would have been the proper Christian response to this situation? Would it have been to attempt to negotiate with the terrorists? Would it have been to sit passively and pray? Would it have been to take action, but with as little violence as possible?
Thanks for your thoughts.
By Scott on Dec 7, 2006 | Reply
Jonathan, that’s a great question and, frankly, one that I don’t have a perfect answer for.
Let me iterate an important point for this study: I am not the arbiter for what “the proper Christian response” for any situation is. I’m merely a fellow pilgrim trying to figure out what discipleship truly is.
With that said, if the three options given to me are the only ones that are available then I probably would have acted like everyone else. I would hope that there would be other option, but I can’t say. Ultimately, I would try in the limited time given to me (assuming that I am in such position to consider) to find another option.
If not, I would respond like Bonhoeffer: I would do what seems expedient to me at the time trusting on God’s grace if I have acted wrongly.
By jasonk on Dec 7, 2006 | Reply
I feel compelled, for some reason Justin, to stand up for God here, although He does not need me to.
It is an indication of your myopic mindset to say that God stood by and did nothing. You must see the big picture. Or just open your eyes.
Are there still crusades going on today where the church officially sends warriors to Turkey and Jerusalem to kill Muslims? I guess God must have put a stop to that.
Is Jesus still on the cross, or did God raise Him from the dead and give Him, and us, the victory? The tsunami is gone, apartheid in South Africa is history, and slavery in the West is no longer policy (thanks in large part to both a war and a Republican president).
When you look at the big picture, you see that God is in charge, and operates outside of our limited time contraints. I’m thankful for that.
Most everything you listed above are the results of our own stupidity and short-sightedness. What you’re asking God to do is bail us out of jail everytime we do something stupid, and get busted for it. I always said that I would bail my kids out of jail one time, after that, they’re going to have to find some other way out. Fortunately they never tested me quite that far. We test God that far all the time. If it seems as though He is standing by doing nothing, it may be that He is letting us live with our own moronic tendencies.
Don’t blame God.
By greg on Dec 7, 2006 | Reply
I won’t speak for Justin, but I didn’t read his comments as blaming God. I understood his point to be related to this idea of “the greater good” that keeps surfacing in these discussions. We think we know “the greater good” but, as jason responded, God is in charge and knows the big picture. A certain course of action (by God or others) may appear as “doing nothing”, but there may very well be much more to it. God is usually working even when it doesn’t look like it to our human eyes. The result may not be what we thought it would be, or desired it to be, or in the time frame we want, but it just may end up the way He wanted it to.
By Jon on Dec 7, 2006 | Reply
So if God is really in charge of things (which he is) then it makes the arguement sound as if we should just stand by and do nothing about it. GKB had a similar moronic scenario about a different version of “the scenario”. Are we to just stand idly by debating what the ‘greater good’ is or just do it and then rely on grace and mercy. My conscience leans to the later.
By Scott on Dec 7, 2006 | Reply
I don’t think we should sit around in the time of crisis debating the greater good. I do think, however, that we should try to determine what the greater good is before the crisis appears so we are better prepared when the moment does arrive.
By Jon on Dec 7, 2006 | Reply
agree
By KS on Dec 7, 2006 | Reply
So would we agree that in senarios like the flight on 9-11 the greater good was served? How about WWII? Rwanda?
By greg on Dec 7, 2006 | Reply
The point that some have attempted to make over and over is that responding with non-violence is not necessarily equivalent to “doing nothing.” But it seems that every time someone suggests non-violence in an extreme situation, it’s cast as such.
On a somewhat related note, there’s a “What if?” thread started on the Mere Discipleship blog that may be of interest. Not many comments yet, but perhaps it will grow.
By Jonathan on Dec 7, 2006 | Reply
I think there is wisdom in Scott’s approach of focusing on how he can personally bring his own life into greater conformity with Jesus’ example of non-violence and “let countries do what they will.” Not that he has no opinion about what countries should do, but that it’s frankly beyond his real sphere of influence.
I believe one of the legitimate roles of a government is to protect its citizens and enforce laws to do so. Another is to prevent genocide. I believe this to be true independent of whether or not there is ever a situation in which a Christian could legitimately use violence. Therefore (or maybe conveniently), I can then accept non-violence as the ideal/goal for my life without having to (at least seemingly) argue against governments using force/threat of violence/violence to enforce laws, or stop a tyrant, or stop a genocide.
I do have a hard time with the “but how do we know it’s the greater good/peace???” type of arguments that have shown up quite often here. How do we know anything for sure in this life? We don’t. We use our best judgement. I think it’s legitimate for a government, on very rare occasions, to use its best judgement and take violent actions in some cases even if it doesn’t know 100 % for sure what the best path is.
Justin, you waste all your credibility (and risk poisoning the good discussion on this blog) when you say “I’m not saying this as a dig or anything” and then finish the sentence with a gratuitous dig.
And while I’m nagging, let me humbly suggest (as I have previously and others have in this thread) that the “discussion” would be more satisfying and less exasperating and more like a real discussion and less like bickering if we each make an effort to preface our counter-points with at least a minimal expression of where we find agreement with the opposing view.
By Scott on Dec 8, 2006 | Reply
Jonathan, I agree. I will continue to use my influence and voice to share my feelings on these things but at the end of the day, my primary concern is on my sphere of influence, the church.
About the greater good. Rwanda cannot be an example of the greater good being achieved. America did nothing while that slaughter was taking place. They did not respond violently or nonviolently. They even evaded the question of whether or not it was genocide. So, let’s take that one off the table.
By jasonk on Dec 8, 2006 | Reply
Jonathan,
I thought you knew–you can say anything you want, no matter how hateful, as long as you put a little smiley face after your comment. Really.
Scott,
Does motive matter, then? If we failed to act in Rwanda, then we acted non-violently, which many have said is the correct course of action. Just because we acted non-violently for the wrong reason, we still acted apropriately, according to a person who advocates this ideal.
By Jonathan on Dec 8, 2006 | Reply
Yep, I agree that what happened in Rwanda was a horrible failure for humanity. I believe the war in Iraq to be another example, and I’ve been opposed to it from the very beginning because I saw much more potential for harm than for good in a military/political action like that. I’m not trying to make reference to any specific historical event as a poster child for how governments serve the greater good (of human society, not God’s spiritual kingdom) through use of violence. Frankly, I think often (most of the time?) governments lack the necessary wisdom (or are motivated too selfishly) and, therefore, fail horribly to have the positive impact that they might otherwise have. In general, though, we have numerous examples throughout history of the brutal murders of hundreds of thousands and millions of people, and I think governments have a legitimate role in preventing (sometimes via violence) such atrocities as a means to better and more peaceful human relations. I certainly have room to grow in my understanding of the practical application of Christ’s example and of God’s will for how governments should behave, so just because it seems right to me doesn’t mean it is…but at this point in my journey it just seems true to me that the kinds of roles I’ve mentioned here for governments in human society are right and are either approved by God or are at least neutral (since God’s kingdom is in the hearts of men and not made up of earthly governments). I think a lot of the disconnect happening in this discussion is rooted in trying to apply the example of Christ to the roles of human governments and vice versa, when really politics and government and wars are beside the point of the kingdom of God (which is why they are mostly out of scope and not addressed in the NT). I think we would be best served by agreeing those concerns to be out of scope so that they don’t distract us from the real meat of the meaning of the non-violent principle in God’s kingdom.
By Scott on Dec 8, 2006 | Reply
Jason, again I have to emphasize that true nonviolence is not doing nothing. Part of the problem is the wording that is used. Pacifism sounds too close to passive and that conjures up bad thoughts. But non-violence is just seen as not being violent.
What is at issue here is the entire idea of being peacemakers, of leading a nonviolent lifestyle. America did not respond nonviolently to Rwanda. They did not respond at all. There is a huge difference. I do not know what the right course would have been in Rwanda but failing to call it what it was was not the right thing to do.
By Scott on Dec 8, 2006 | Reply
Jonathan, I agree. I keep stressing the need to get our pronouns straight but people keep jumping to the Rwandas and WWII.
The “we” must be the church since we are neither Jew nor Gentile, slave nor free.
By the way, there is a book out called “After the Locusts: How Costly Forgiveness is restoring Rwanda’s stolen years.” It highlights the grace, reconciliation, and yes, nonviolence, that is being borne out in the aftermath of such a dark chapter in their history.
By Jon on Dec 8, 2006 | Reply
Yes Rwanda and WWII Holocaust were great atrocities committed against humanity but to me it seems we would rather look overseas and discuss how physical acts violate or uphold the nonviolent lifestyle and ignore the elephant in the room that is America and the way we react to people that are around us everyday.
We, me included, love to talk about the ‘what if’s and make up different versions of ‘the scenario’ and don’t even look at how we fail to live out a non violent lifestyle everyday.
Going out on a limb here but most of us abhor outright violence and would, ourselves being placed in similar situations look to find a way out that would offer that ‘path of least resistance’ so it seems a mute point to attempt to discuss things, such as an appropriate scenario to Rwanda or the Holocaust. But rather how do we react to people around us everyday. How do we stand up for the defenseless, homeless, jobless? How do we react to the guy who is driving too slow in front of us and our kids are in the car absorbing everything we say and do? Actions are one thing to discuss and suss out but what about our thougths? That to me is the elephant in the corner that we ignore because it gets at the heart of the matter.
By Scott on Dec 8, 2006 | Reply
Jon, precisely. Nonviolence starts with what I can do in the here and now. It is how I live when I realize that Jesus is present with me, in the face of everyone I encounter, from Rush Limbaugh to Cindy Sheehan. From the Soccer mom to the Nascar dad.
That is why I started this whole thing with the person of Christ, why we looked at the concepts of humility, self-abnegation, and anger issues. Nonviolence writ large means nothing if I fly off the handle at the slightest provocation with my wife.
By Jonathan on Dec 8, 2006 | Reply
Jon,
Agreed. That’s what I was trying to say…getting hung up on what governments should or shouldn’t do muddies the waters and distracts me from the more pertinent issues of how I will react and interact this afternoon and this weekend.
By jasonk on Dec 8, 2006 | Reply
And so we follow Jonathan’s gentle reminder that we need to focus on what we agree on, instead of only on areas we disagree.
I too agree that the best place to begin is with me. Until I can control my own violent tendencies when I’m in my car or watching football on tv, trying to figure out how to get nations to do the same is moot.
Now, everybody sing, “Let there be peace on earth, and let it begin in me.” Acapella, everyone! Unless you go to this church:
http://www.rhchurch.org/praise/Both-And_Church.html ,
Then you have an option ;>)
By KS on Dec 8, 2006 | Reply
Guys, I would agree that we are to look inside first. I’d go out on a limb and agree all of us on this blog at least know deep down how we should react to those “every day” situations (ie: cut off by car, etc…) and how we should react.