I was thinking of titling this 'Why pacifists are wrong', except that I don't know for sure that they're wrong, and I think that to some degree it is a 'personal' issue. But nonetheless, I'm going to tell you why pacifists are wrong. So there. [end caveat]
Being a student and instructor of the martial arts, and being a Christian who tries to in good conscience think about the relationship between my passions and Christianity (Christianity being not so much a passion for me as something I actually have to work at), I have spent what I consider to be my fair share of time percolating the relationship between peace, violence and Christianity.
Let me start be defining my terms:
Peace - am probably going to use the word 'peace' in two senses here: 1) Peace(1), the fruit of the Spirit which we are called as Christians to nurture and develop; 2) Peace(2), the state which life reverts to when it is cleansed of sin.
Violence - likewise, the word 'violence' will be in a couple of senses: 1) Violence(1) - 'external violence', which is any means by which one party attempts to impose its will apon another party against their consent; 2) Violence(2) - 'internal violence', that state that is the polar opposite of peace, the fruit of the Spirit.
The 'inspiration' for this essay began as an imaginary conversation in my head that I was having with a classmate - whose name I don't remember - from several years ago who mentioned during one of our discussion classes that he was a pacifist, and an extreme pacifist at that. I remember being appalled and somewhat disgusted when he stated that he would not step in to stop a man who was in the process of raping his wife (not a theoretical wife, mind, because he was actually married at the time), a fact of which she apparently was aware, and with which she was apparently okay.
This statement convinced me that the man had decided that it was better to allow the suffering of innocents than to commit physical violence(1), and tonight it caused me to pose a question to him (in my imagination): If a crime were commited, you were the sole witness, and you have the knowledge before hand that the decision of the jury hangs on your testimony, would you testify for the prosecution in court?
My reasoning behind this question lies thusly:
If you would refuse to give your testimony in court, you would seem to have a major failing in your development as a follower of Christ. Ignoring the afflictions of the innocent is fairly soundly condemned in the Old Testament (see, oh, any of the prophetic books), and seems to fly in the face of doing our Christian duty, both as citizens and as loving neighbors.
If, on the other hand, you replied in the affirmative, then it would seem that you are making a distinction which does not exist. While your body would not be an instrument of physical violence, nonetheless violence would be handed out to this person, and - because I asked the question this way - that violence would be inextricably tied to your action. Either economic violence: the person would be relieved of some of his money in the form of a fine; or else what I will dub 'environmental violence': the person would be forcibly removed from his home and relocated to a place that he would probably rather not be, a.k.a. prison. It is even possible (and indeed likely) that the person would be subjected to physical violence, either at the hands of other prison mates (prison being one of the many places I never ever want to visit) or at the hands of an executioner should the crime be deemed worthy.
So, here are my thoughts the use of violence(1) and it's roll in maintaining peace(2) and keeping the commandments of Christ:
First off, I would state that violence(1) is a tool. Whether it is physical violence, or verbal violence, or social violence, etc., it is something that is used to achieve an end, that end being to impose your will apon someone else. Sometimes, this is bad. Okay, perhaps even most of the time this is bad. But sometimes this is good and necessary. As a parent, I find it necessary to discipline my children in order to discourage certain behaviours and encourage other behaviors. Sometimes this takes the form of spankings, sometimes time-outs, sometimes they don't get to play with certain toys for the rest of the day. As a father, husband and concerned citizen, I have studied self defense with an eye to knowing what to do should I need to severely discourage someone from hurting my loved ones.
Secondly, I would say that violence(2) is often, but not always an excuse for violence(1). I have felt the blood pulsing in my veins when I have yelled at my kids to knock it off. I have felt the surge of adrenaline when muttering at stupid drivers under my breath.
Third, violence(1) and violence(2) are not mutually inclusive. Violence(2) is very helpful for implementing violence(1), in that our passions give us fuel to drive our actions.
Until Christ comes again, violence(1) will always be the means of steering the world toward peace(2). When the evil man inflicts his violent(1) will on the earth, the only response is violence(1), whether it is in the armies that march against his invading horde, or in the gentle rebuke that chastizes him for his abusive language.
It seems to me that most pacifists shun physical violence(1) in an effort to escape violence(2). However passiveness is not the answer to violence(2). Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control are the answer to violence(2).
Violence(1) that is done by a person who is in possession of those fruits can be done without violence(2). Even if the adrenaline is pumping, the blood is rushing, and the person is dizzy from the passion of the moment, after the moment of violence(1) is gone, the adrenaline wanes, the heartbeat slows, and the person can look at his actions and - for the most part - judge truly that what he has done was necessary and sufficient.
So that's why I have chosen to study physical violence, and why I have a hard time understanding the person who has chosen inaction over action. If I have time and energy later, I want to address some of the Christian 'problems' with violence, and tell you why I'm right and you misunderstood. I'm sure it will be very ecucational for you.
No comments:
Post a Comment